From earlier this month - Spiked Online writers Frank Furedi, Barbara Hewson and Luke Gittos on Paedophile Panics : Our Unheathy Obsession


And a good comment underneath from Ian B asking why it is (outside our corner of the web) those who recognise paedohysteria still refuse to blame feminists for it (and his reply to the aspie (real) paedophile 'Papercut' and his feminist apologia :

Ian B : All that talk, and not one mention of who are the core drivers of the hysteria; which is the Feminist Movement and its ideological conspiracy theory that men (as a class) are an abuse conspiracy against women and children (as a class). Not one. Why are the speakers all so reluctant to point the finger in the direction of the Feminist Movement?

Papercut : Whilst it appears that feminism shares some blame for the current hysteria I'm not so convinced that we can really lay the blame at the movements feet. I suspect that their current stance is still a 'symptom' of something deeper, rather than a 'cause'.

After all in its previous incarnation feminists were seen as favourable towards child sexuality - we still see that in thinkers such as Germaine Greer. She may be a 'throw back' but it shows that feminism isn't inherently against child-sexual rights.

What is this 'something deeper'? I'm not sure, but I think it has to do with the changes in the social and economic dynamics of society, the move from an industrial mode of production to a 'service' mode, to changes in the way we interact with the world (i.e. the advent and popularisation of technologies which isolate us from the community), to the dominance of the motor car shutting children out of public spaces and the diminishing role of the community in the rearing of children.

Ian B : Everything has a prior cause. We could use the same argument to say that Nazism wasn't to blame for the Holocaust because it was a symptom of something else deeper in society, and so ad infinitum.

Feminism has had two main waves- the first up to the Suffragettes, the second from the sixties onwards. In the intervening period, the term became diffused to just about anybody writing about womens' issues, from a womens' perspective or just generally sympathetically towards women. In the liberal period between Feminisms, it was thus the case that various liberal attitudes and persons were somewhat associated with the movement, and a wide diversity of people generally. Erica Jong wrote naughty books, Doris Lessing wrote, er, naughty books. And so on.

The revival of core feminism put a stop to that, and by the Early 70s the real, "core" Feminists were back on the prowl reviving their core dogma of men as immoral, predatory beasts, seeking causes that would be used to prove that characterisation- domestic violence, rape hysteria, and child abuse. And has been pushing them ever since.

First wave feminism- that which culminated in the Suffragettes- was the militant wing of the Social Purity Movement. The second wave is the same. And they are the core drivers of the paedohysteria. Whether Feminists are symptomatic of something deeper we could speculate about forever, but sometimes it's best just to identify the particular human formation responsible and stick with that, for clarity, and because it's all that really matters.


Perhaps it is time to assess whether anonymity should be an option rather than the default position. While it has always been argued that commenters build an identity around their pseudonym, those who express opinions under their own name carry more authority and are obviously more careful about what they say.

Jemima Kiss, head of technology, said: "It's well established that the quality and constructiveness of comments increases immediately with a real-name log in. In a small minority of situations, anonymity allows commenters to protect their identities where they need to refer to their employers, or a revealing personal experience for example. But it feels like the daily default of anonymity is now out of date, sabotaging otherwise interesting stories that deserve input, and creating an intimidating environment for readers that are deterred from making a valuable contribution. I think annotated comment – where the comment can be left alongside a specific point in the text – will help to structure comment threads more efficiently. But I would also like to see anonymity a rare and valued tool that would be opted into, and the norm more like the open discussion of Facebook and Twitter, where sharing and commenting on a story with a link under your own name is a statement of values and interests."



David Futrelle and his readers regularly make fun of the distinction, sometimes made in the manosphere, regarding paedophilia (the attraction to pre-pubescents) and 'ephebophilia' (the attraction to adolescent minors). It's all the same to them. Finding a 5 year old sexy is no more perverse than finding a 17 year old attractive. Hmmm. It's one thing a woman making such an obviously false claim, but when it comes from a 'man' like Futrelle, or one of his many male fake transexual fans..

Indeed, it appears that Futrelle's groupies believe finding any minor attractive is paedophilia, including thefore a 19 or 20 year old in those countries with an age of majority of 21. David Futrelle and his wig wearing fans therefore belong to the minority of people who still regard Alan Turing as a paedophile pervert (he was caught banging a 19 year old boy in the bum when the age of majority in the UK, for both males and females, was 21).

While I agree that the notion of ephebophilia is aspie junk science nonsense (all men, apart from real paedophiles and other perverts, are attracted to adolescents), the insistance that there is no important difference between the attraction to pre-pubescents and post-pubescents is extremely dangerous. Of course, what is 'natural' is not always right, but to criminlize something natural under the pretence that it is perverted, is clearly a recipe for injustice. Furthermore, if you maintain the lie that it is unnatural and perverted, even sick, to find post-pubescent females attractive, then you risk turning healthy men into perverts who have internalized that paedophile lie and then ran with it. Indeed, this appears to be what has happened with many of Futrelle's child torture porn apologist ring members. Whilst publicly shaming men as 'paeodphiles' for admitting that 17 year olds can be sexy, many openly sport avatars of pre-pubescent anime characters. Others freely declare their unabashed love for extreme manga torture porn...and at least one or two actually create it. All of them, however, appear to defend the renting out in an adult sex shop of a disgusting 'art' film depicting nothing but the torture and murder of (real) naked children.

When concern for child welfare is simply a means to demonize men, financially enrich yourself, and regulate the free sexual market in your favour, and consequently you lie to men that to find the most desirable females attractive is paedophilia, equally as bad as the abuse of toddlers, then you open the door to an increase in real paedophilia and perversion. It's hardly surprising, therefore, to find that so many of the mentally disturbed individuals and wig wearers amongst David Futrelle's readership appear to be defending and even cultivating sick torture fantasies regarding children whilst libelling as paedophiles those who argue that giving consenting 17 year olds orgasms is neither child abuse nor paedophilia.

Currently, David Futrelle's schizophrenic readers are simultaneously defending child torture porn as art to be sold in sex shops, on the grounds that the naked actors were sixteen, not six (the actors were actually as young as 14), and therefore 'not really underage', whilst mocking as paedophiles those of us who simply argue that teenage 'minors' are capable of consenting to sex.


Note that nobody, to my knowledge, has provided a link proving that 'it won a court challenge'. Presumably Scarlettpipstrelle is referring to the arrest on obscenity charges of the gay sex shop owners who were renting it out on their premises. O.K, we have to accept the disgusting fact that, because Pasolini (the director) was a leftie and an 'artist', his films that involve non-stop gratuitous torture of naked 14 year old boys get a free pass to be viewed on YouTube and Netflix. However, even granting the hypocrisy and fake child welfare concern of the left, any civilised society draws the line at images of naked 14 year olds being tortured being rented out in adult sex shops. That includes the USA. These same readers were denouncing the 'jailbait' subreddit for displaying pictures of fully clothed teenage girls as 'child porn', and not only the men who viewed it, but MRAs who defended it, as 'paedophiles'.

Maybe somebody should pop into that gay sex shop in Cincinnati and check whether they are still renting out a film containing naked children eating shit and being disembowelled, alongside all the other gay pornos, sex toys, and jack off material? I assume not, and only David Futrelle and his fellow child torture porn apologists are sick enough to ask 'why not'?


Krauser PUA's impressive stats from 5 days of hard daygaming in Prague :

Fifty cold approaches over a five day period, all day game.
Three new lays – a 19yr old, 23yr old, and 24yr old.
Two new flags – Slovakia and Ukraine.
Two near misses. One girl was on my bed and the other wanked me off in a park. Both are on for a repeat visit.
I also had two rotation girls visit me for a few days each.


Johnny Berba might not be getting one lay per dozen approaches like Krauser apparently is...in fact in the following video he has to approach over a dozen girls before he gets a number...but there's no other pua who has the balls to put his rejections on display like this and thus reveal the often harsh reality of street pickup.  The most illuminating part of this continuous 1 hour infield comes at the 27:40 mark.  Johnny gets viciously blown out by a bitch, and despite being visibly affected, get's straight back on the horse and has his first result - a hook and close with a cute 19 year old German girl.  Although almost certainly a flake, as Johnny was still obviously a little rattled and not at his best in the conversation (watch the expression on her face as he walks away), it enabled him to get his state back and was rewarded for it with a more promising number close shortly after.


And here's Johnny picking up a hot girl in front of her mother - the ultimate daygame challenge!


David Futrelle - child torture porn apologist

Over the last few days, both MRAs and feminists have been demanding to know why exactly David Futrelle is continuing to invest so heavily into defending the renting out, in a gay sex shop, of a horrific film that depicts nothing but the brutal torture and humiliation of naked underage children. The following article, written in the very same year as his original defence of 'Salo, 120 days of Sodom', may give a clue as to his disturbing psychology. It consists of a book review of 'The Politics of Cruelty'  by the feminist Kate Millett -  a work which discusses the use of torture by the state as a method of rule and which calls for more public pressure on those governments who persist in exmploying torture as a means of control.  Futrelle, however, seems more interested in attacking Millett for not admitting that she gets off on the torture and domination of others, just like...ermm...the rest of us.


" The failure of Millett's book is as much psychological as political: her writing is ultimately undone by her unwillingness to look beneath the surface, to look beyond her most immediate and obvious reactions. "Why does one study torture? Read about it, think about it, analyze and "obsess' over it?" she writes. "Because of hating it, fearing it, having felt or imagined or somehow experienced it. Because of wanting to see it end." This is a simple, logical, even honorable explanation--and an unconvincing one.

Millett sets up rigid boundaries between good and evil. But few of us are so pure: even the most fervent do-gooder may secretly nurture grandiose desires for power and control, and most of us have felt at least momentarily the thrill of violence--if only in the imagination. The media, from the nightly newscasts to the Saturday morning cartoons, are saturated with violence, and popular films offer a violent excitement as ritualized as that of a public execution.

If we are ever to eradicate cruelty and torture in the real world, we need to understand why they have such a hold over our imagination. And we could start by looking inward, beyond our shock. At one point Millett comes close to making such an argument, but then she retreats. In her eagerness to denounce the darkness in others, she studiously avoids acknowledging even the possibility of darkness in herself.

One can't blame her for denouncing torture--and given the bestial nature of what she's writing about, her indignant tone is hardly unforgivable. But denunciation is only a first step, and Millett is hardly the first to take it. Freud taught us that the only way to fully understand--and ultimately master--our darkest impulses is to bring them to the surface, to examine them coldly in the light of day. Millett has forgotten this lesson, and so deprives herself and her readers. She writes about horror, but is unwilling to look it in the face. "

Speak for yourself David.



Futrelle expresses similar sentiments in another article published the same year (1994), in which he discusses an author's 'interesting and provocative' claim that our fascination with the likes of Hannibal Lecter and Jeffrey Dahmer reveals that we all have a bit of these psychopathic muderers in our own moral and psychological make-up, and that the distinction between real and fictional murder, murder as news and murder as art, is becoming less clear.



Just to clarify what a smoking gun this is. David Futrelle claimed that we all have a secret interest in torturing and violently dominating others, expressed primarily in viewing such torture and even murder (including in 'art'), in the very same year he defended the renting out of Salo, a film which depicts nothing but the torture and murder of naked children, in a gay sex shop.


The BBC, which continues to the use the sickening phrase 'including women and children' when reporting on civilian casualties in warzones, has published an article suggesting that figures for civilian deaths in Gaza should be treated with caution - simply because they appear to show that more male civilians are being killed than women.

Its recent report said that as of 6 August, 1,843 Palestinians had been killed and 66 Israelis and one Thai national since Israel launched Operation Protective Edge on 8 July.

Of those Palestinians, the status of 279 could not be identified, at least 1,354 were civilians, including 415 children and 214 women, the UN body reported.

So there were 216 members of armed groups killed, and another 725 men who were civilians. Among civilians, more than three times as many men were killed as women, while three times as many civilian men were killed as fighters.

The UN report carries a caveat with its figures: "Data on fatalities and destruction of property is consolidated by the Protection and Shelter clusters based on preliminary information, and is subject to change based on further verifications."

There has been some research suggesting that men in general are more likely to die in conflict than women, although no typical ratio is given.

Nonetheless, if the Israeli attacks have been "indiscriminate", as the UN Human Rights Council says, it is hard to work out why they have killed so many more civilian men than women.

Maybe it's because Israeli bombs are blowing up prisons, mental health wards, homeless shelters, which house 90%+ men? Maybe it's because rescue services and medical care prioritize female casualties over men and boys, hence the very phrase that the BBC continues to use - 'including women and children'?



See also : "including women and children" gets 1,500 results in Google News.



After 5 years, the men's rights movement finally cottons on to the fact that David Futrelle is a massive (and disturbing) paedocrite, AND that the defining feature of feminists is their physical repulsiveness.

I think I can now retire this site early.

The #feministsareugly tag went viral it seems within hours, immediately enraging feminists into publishing 'hot' pictures of themselves as 'counterproof'...unfortunately, it's only proving how deluded feminists are, and how much make-up they need to slap on to look even half-decent, even for the minority of feminists in their twenties.



However, the reaction to the hashtag does prove that, as I've always argued here, pointing out the ugliness of feminists should be considered a major weapon to use against them. Not only is it justified because their ugliness explains why they are feminists, it is a valid tactic because it works in shaming them.