David Futrelle Still Allowing a Paedophile Sadist Who Fantasises about Crucifying Women and Girls to Comment at his Site

david-futrelle-2.jpg
David Futrelle

David Futrelle, the disgraced blogger and child scat torture gay porn apologist, recently updated his comments policy after use of certain words were causing ‘triggers’ and other offence amongst his easily offended readers. In particular, regular commentators at the site were reminded to choose their words carefully when describing mental illness. Understandable, perhaps, given that many of his commentators appear to be clearly mentally ill. But along with banning words such as ‘crazy’, the disgraced Chicago blogger Futrelle has made a particular point of warning his followers not to use the term ‘psycho’. This might explain why a transvestite sadist who runs a sick forum devoted to the sharing of fantasies of torturing and crucifying women and schoolgirls is still allowed to comment at WeHuntedTheMammoth, nearly a year after I made public here exactly what he was.

David Futrelle Fury
David Futrelle reacted with fury when I revealed his favourite transvestite sadist was a paedophile psychopath

When I first exposed ‘RalMCG’ as a pervert who openly helps moderate a truly sick bdsm forum that specialises in the rape, torture, and crucifixion of women and girls, Futrelle appeared to react with fury – vowing revenge by publicly pledging support to a woman who had threatened to track me down and kill me (note that I had not doxxed ralmcg at all – he openly uses the same handle at Futrelle’s site as elsewhere online, including the perverted bdsm forum).

It is certainly beyond question that Futrelle must have been aware of my article, as must have many of his readers. For a couple of months after the piece was published here, Ralmcg appeared to go silent at Fraudtrelle’s site, and I assumed that the ManBoobz had had the sense to ban him, albeit quietly and grudgingly. But that’s not the case. RalMCG has been back commenting again, using the very same account as before, only this time he has a new avatar, which again features the pervert wearing his favourite ‘Daisy Dukes’ in order to show off his hairy legs. Disturbingly, he appears also to be wearing a t-shirt that, at first glance at least, looks like it is splattered in blood.

ralmcg-june-15

Although RalMCG claims to be concerned with victims of rape, you wouldn’t guess so from the comments he leaves at the sick bdsm forum of which he is ‘assistant executioner’.  In fact, the idea of women and girls being raped along with being tortured, and even murdered, is evidently a sexual obsession.

ralmcg-3

None of Futrelle’s other commentators, many of whom appear to be sadistic male transvestites like Ralmcg, rather than genuine feminists, seem to have any problem with him at all, despite a number of them being aware of my article. Perhaps unsurprising, as most of those commentators strongly support Futrelle’s view that a paedophile made video – SALO – that features nothing but graphic images of naked children being raped and tortured to death, should be allowed to be distributed as fap material in gay sex shops.

http://theantifeminist.com/david-futrelles-groupies-and-their-child-torture-porn-apologia-oh-sorry-ephebophile-torture-porn-apologia/

ralmcg-google-2

ralmcg-google-1

Note that David Futrelle’s attacks on the ‘manosphere’ played a key role in the decision of the left-wing extremist group – the SLPC – to characterize the men’s rights movement as a ‘hate movement’.  This in turn is being used at this moment in attempts to ban Roosh V from speaking on men’s issues in  Canada.

david-futrelle-11 (2)
Disgraced blogger and child scat torture gay porn apologist David Futrelle – greatgrandson of ‘The Thinking Machine’ author Jacques Futrelle

Yet David Futrelle, great grandson of ‘The Thinking Machine’ author Jacques Futrelle, jokes about ‘dumb’ policemen who believe that videos depicting children being tortured, raped, and murdered are not valid fap material for gay sex shops.  Not only this, be continues to allow a sadistic paedophile transvestite who openly fantasizes over the torture, rape and murder of women and children to comment at his site.

Futhermore, readers at his site regularly incite violence and make threats against MRAs that go well beyond the ‘hate’ seen anywhere in the manosphere.  Here is just one example published on his blog recently :

monopole

The reader – Monopole – approvingly quotes a male celebrity justifying the shooting and murder of men by women.  Yesterday, I highlighted how Futrelle was allowing readers to call for Roosh V to have toxic and potentially lethal chemicals thrown over him.

WeHuntedtheMammoth, is not only a hate site, but something even worse than that.  It appears to be a shelter for those who sexually fantasize about the torture, rape, and murder of children, women, and men.

 

MHRA Child Torture Porn Apologists

David Futrelle has infamously defended the gay sex shop distribution of a paedophile made ‘classic’ child torture movie featuring real and naked 14 year old boys ‘acting’ in a film in which they are made to eat excrement, anally raped, tortured and murdered. No surpises there. After all, Futrelle is simply following in the footsteps of other notable male feminists such as Kyle Payne, jailed for sexually assaulting a sleeping schoolgirl who was in his care and then again for downloading kiddy porn, and Hugo Schwyzer, a sex predator who admits that he once tried to murder his girlfriend.

What is more disturbing, is that many MHRAs share Futrelle’s sick views on videos of naked children being tortured being rented out in gay sex shops.

Over a 20 year period, Futrelle has steadfastly refused to apologise for his defence of Salo and continues to justify the film’s sale in a gay porn store on the grounds that, obscenely, the sick movie can be viewed on Netflix and YouTube. This is a man who has gone on record to claim that a picture of a 17 year old girl in jeans is clearly ‘child porn’ in the context of a ‘jailbait’ subreddit or forum and that those who view such legal pictures are ‘paedophiles’.

Of course, many so-called MHRAs share Futrelle’s feminist views on the definition of child porn, as well as the feminist age of consent, or at least publicly claim to do so, whatever their disturbing motivations are. Laws which in the UK and elsewhere are currently leading to witch hunts against men, a spike in the male suicide rate, and the undermining of any semblance of justice. However, even more disturbingly, many of them appear to share Futrelle’s views on the distribution in a gay sex shop of a movie that graphically depicts nothing else but the torture, rape, and murder of naked children. A movie directed by a man who turned to filmmaking after losing his job as a teacher due to molesting the children, and who was infamous for handpicking beautiful young 14 and 15 year old boys to star in his movies and immediately embarking upon sexual affairs with them.

Last night I had yet another MHRA leave a comment on this site denouncing us as ‘pedobears’ for admitting what every man knows – that teenage girls can be sexy – and for attacking the logic of the feminist age of consent laws that are leading to a clear sexual holocaust against men, things that any real supporter of men’s rights should do. The same MHRA, like several others, made a point of defending SALO and, by implication, Futrelle’s support for the movie’s sale in a gay sex shop. Unfortunately, this MHRA was too cowardly to leave his regular handle, but several others have not been so shy and have openly supported a gay child torture porn movie both here and elsewhere in the MRM. I thought it would be useful to start compiling a list of MHRA child torture porn apologists here. This will be a sticky page, and I’ll update it regularly as these staunch defenders of the rights of boys continue to support the idea of gay men fapping off to naked 14 year boys being anally raped and then made to eat their abuser’s shit before being tortured slowly to death.

I must make it clear that not all MHRAs support Futrelle over the ‘right’ of gay men to rent videos of naked underage boys being raped and murdered in gay porn shops. In fact, a small minority have actually spoken out and attacked Futrelle over the matter. Janet Bloomfield (JudgyBitch) obviously stands out, to her eternal credit. And Paul Elam and Dean Esmay themselves, have also condemned Futrelle a couple of times, as they should (in fact, they should be a little louder).

Let’s start with our old friend ‘Kloo2Yoo’.

Kloo2Yoo (former moderator of r/mensrights). The clueless subhuman paedocrite Kloo2Yoo once reported a men’s rights redditor to the FBI for uploading a famous photograph that has appeared on Hallmarks cards to the men’s rights subreddit. Consisting of the image of a little girl lifting up her skirt to a bewitched little boy, with a caption that said something along the lines of ‘with this I will have power over you always’. It was clearly a relevant men’s rights image and any sane rational person without something disturbing to hide would see it as such. But not Kloo2Yoo, who immediately denounced it as child porn and claimed to have reported to the FBI the MRA who posted the link to the picture.

After the low IQ Kloo2Yoo finally realised he was out of his depth running the fast growing men’s rights subreddit, and handed over moderation rights to slightly more competent paedocrites, he seemed to disappear for a number of years. I assumed that the obvious hardcore paedocrite had been locked up, but no, he turned up out of the blue just at the moment we had David Futrelle on the rack over his defence of SALO, and proceeded to leave a rant in the comments section here defending it as a ‘classic’ art film. This is a man who reported an MRA to the FBI for linking to a Hallmark image with obvious men’s rights relevance. This is a man who banned anyone from the men’s rights reddit for questioning feminist child porn laws that jail men for looking at pictures of ‘young looking’ fairies and elves. This is a man who supported Futrelle in claiming that legal images of fully clothed teens can constitute ‘child porn’ if they are viewed in a ‘sexual context’, and yet, like Futrelle, he sees no problem in the distribution of a movie in a gay sex shop featuring nothing but naked children being raped, tortured, made to eat human faeces, disembowelled, and murdered.

Perhaps ‘pedobears’ isn’t quite the right word for these MHRA child torture porn apologist freaks. Perhaps not even ‘paedocrites’. Maybe ‘pedowolves’, or ‘pedopsychos’, ”pedosnakes’, ‘pedofreaks’, or simply ‘real sadistic paedophile sickos’?

Uchuu – ‘Uchuu’ is another sick MHRA freak who has taken issue with the esteemed JudgyBitch for daring to call out David Futrelle over his defence of gay paedophile torture porn.

http://judgybitch.com/2015/03/27/david-futrelle-redefines-the-words-sick-motherfucker/comment-page-1/#comment-84381

Meh, after reading a summary and some background on the movie, the link rather reads like character assassination. Don’t get me wrong, I so far have nothing good to say about Futrelle, but the movie apparently had just as many female victims as male ones (so, the focus on the “boys” of the article seems dishonest), it wasn’t actually documented child abuse, but something fictional, and I’ve seen no real good argument connecting that one suicide to the filming of the movie. The contents are disgusting enough that I never want to see it, but supposedly it actually has some artistic qualities, so the free speech argument is not completely out of the blue.

Notice, in this one small paragraph, how ‘Uchuu’ resembles so many other child torture porn apologists, both MHRAs and Futrelle groupies. The idea that, because the movie contained naked 14 year old girls being slowly tortured to death, as well as boys, Futrelle’s defence of its distribution in a gay sex shop is not a men’s rights issue. His defence of the movie as ‘artistic’ (not sure how he feels about the fact that, technically, men in Europe could be jailed by feminists for simply reading Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita). Finally, note his love of manga, revealed by his username, no doubt of the hardcore violent rape variety that involves pre-pubescent girls.

David Futrelle’s Groupies and their Child Torture Porn Apologia..Oh Sorry..Ephebophile Torture Porn Apologia

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 slanderous paedophile label 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.

scarlettpipstrelle-extreme-child-porn-apologist

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’?

If A Voice for Men Cares About Boys, Then Campaign to Have ‘Salo, 120 Days of Sodom’ Banned

The Men’s Human Rights Movement likes to make clear that we defend the rights of not only men, but boys too. What better way to illustrate this than to campaign for the banning of a disgusting ‘art’ film that contains little else but the horrific sexual torture and abuse of naked underage boys, and which is sold openly on Amazon, and even, apparently, on Netflix? One of the 15 year old boys abused in the film later killed himself through a drug overdose. Dean Esmay and TyphonBlue believe that 17 year old boys ejaculating inside the vaginas of older women are being ‘raped’. What about a film that depicts real naked 14 and 15 year old boys being anally raped, their nippled burned off, forced to eat their abuser’s shit, then disembowelled and their eyes gouged out?

Oh, and you might like to note in passing too, that the man who is trying to criminalize the very idea of men and boys having human rights once attacked the police for removing the film from a gay sex shop.

Some Amazon reviews have been added to my original article (scroll down to view)

Its disgusting. Watching people go through this, it seemed real to me, like watching a documentary of children being tortured. I think people who get off watching sickening abuse call this art as an excuse to watch it, when really they just get off watching torture porn. there is something wrong with this world. children being tortured and raped is not art. there is no reason for this movie to exist it should be illegal. sickening, horrifying, will haunt you for the rest of your life.

All biases aside, this film is nothing more than 117 minutes of continuous torture and sexual perversion directed at young people. Any socially responsible director can get his point across without feeling the need to wallow in this filth with child actors being violated in nearly every way possible . I have no doubt that Passolini either was getting his jollies out of the action being performed in front of his camera or was suffering great mental illness in order to allow his cast to be degraded in this way. It really is no wonder he was murdered shortly after completion of this film….As another reviewer has previously said this is an evil film and leaves an incredibly bad taste in ones mouth particularly when one realises they have partaken in this viewing experience willingly and contributed to the films revenue.

http://www.bbb.org/western-washington/business-reviews/internet-selling-services/amazoncom-in-seattle-wa-7039385

http://www.bbb.org/sanjose/business-reviews/internet-services/netflix-in-los-gatos-ca-206533

When David Futrelle Claimed that Female Abuse Victims Should Take Responsibility for their Abuse

In 1996 David Futrelle wrote an article entitled ‘Abuse Excuses‘ for the liberal publication ‘In These Times’. The article is a review of a book by Sharon Lamb, entitled ‘The Trouble with Blame‘. The theme of both the book and Futrelle’s glowing review appears to be that female abuse victims are as much to blame as their abusers, and need to take more responsiblity for their abuse.

He begins by crassly lumping together child sex abuse victims with ‘victims’ of alien abduction :

Daytime talk shows offer a daily parade of victims – ranging from victims of sexual abuse (and alleged abuse) to those who have been abducted and tortured by aliens.

Futrelle then goes on to state that our thinking on victims and abusers is ‘crude’. This is because we ‘idealize’ abuse victims, and yet ‘demonize’ the men who have abused them.

He then makes the astonishing claim that there are ALWAYS extenuating circumstances for men who sexually abuse women and children. I’m not sure even ANY MRA has ever said something as crass or ridiculous as that, and if any did, Fraudtrelle would be making a song and dance about it for weeks (or, actually, decades).

But in cases of sexual abuse, perpetrators are all-too-real people – usually men, and often enough relatives of the abused – who have stories of their own. Once you put a face on the abuser, it is harder to blindly condemn him. Nothing excuses the abuse, of course, but there are always extenuating circumstances : poverty, stress, and, all too often, a history of abuse as a child.

Stress??

But worse is to come. Futrelle has accused me of ‘making stuff up about him’ despite his articles from the 90’s still being online for everyone to see. I’ll quote the following extended passage directly and you can judge for yourself. How would David Futrelle, in his present ‘Manboobz Meetup’ incarnation, interpret the following if it had came from the pen of an MRA, rather than the 1990’s version of himself :

What makes the issue so maddeningly complex, Lamb suggests, is that some of the victim’s self-blame is not entirely misguided. No woman deserves abuse, and no woman should blame herself for the behaviour of another. But Lamb notes, an abused woman is probably right to ask herself, ‘What is it about me that makes men do this to me?‘ Answering such a question may well enable her to keep from returning to her abuser – to overcome what some have called an “addiction to trauma”.

And it is as important for victims to take responsibility for their lives as it is for victimizers to accept responsibility for their actions. Responsibility, Lamb points out, is not a zero-sum game, by insisting that victims take more responsibility for their lives, we are not thereby absolving abusers of their responsibilities.

In short, Lamb suggest that we apply the same standards to both abusers and abused, neither sanctifying the victim nor demonizing the abuser, but treating both as human beings who can and should take responsibility for their lives – and who will benefit from doing so. As Lamb persuasively argues, “if there is an excuse that we won’t allow a perpertrator to make in his attempt to disclaim responsibility for his actions, then we surely can’t allow a victim to use the same excuse to disclaim responsibility for her actions.”

David Futrelle then appears to approve of Lamb’s view that abuse victims are rarely, if ever, entirely innocent.

Indeed, a more realistic conception of victimhood will do real victims more good than one that exaggerates their “innocence”. By urging victims not to blame themselves, Lamb writes, the public “creates a category of victimhood that requires blamelessness, leaving real victims with a private sense of guilt that they dare not talk about and that may prevent them from carrying on the task of living.”

However, to be fair to David, he does make one criticism of Lamb’s controversial thesis. This will be of interest to his feminist followers, as well the men’s rights movement he is now trying to criminalize for simply discussing the very idea that men may sometimes be discriminated against. He claims that Lamb is unfair to ignore male victims of abuse and to stereotype abusers as male.

And Lamb’s vision of gender inequality is, to say the least, simplistic. In Lamb’s view of the world, the archetypal perpetrator is male and the archetypal victim, female; indeed, a “note on terminology” at the beginning of the book explains that Lamb has “used the male pronoun for perpetrators and the female pronoun for victims.”

http://www.unz.org/Pub/InTheseTimes-1996jul22-00034

*I recently revealed that in another ‘In These Times’ article from the 1990’s, David Futrelle not only defended the renting out in a gay sex shop of a notorious film depicting the rape, mutiliation, forced scat, and murder of naked 14 year old boys and girls (one of whom later killed himself), but attacked the police as morons for carrying out a raid on the shop. http://theantifeminist.com/monsterboobz-david-futrelle-disturbing-defence-film-sexual-abuse-torture-children/

In another article from the same period, he appears to criticise any concern for child welfare at a political level, mocking Hilary Clinton for no apparent reason other than the fact that she worked for a children’s charity, and more disturbingly, appearing also to mock Barbara Bush for helping babies with AIDS – the “innocent victims” (Futrelle’s quote marks) of the disease. http://www.unz.org/Pub/InTheseTimes-1993aug09-00014

MonsterBoobz – David Futrelle and his Disturbing Defence of a Film that Consists Almost Entirely of Graphic Scenes Depicting the Sexual Abuse and Torture of Naked Children

**NOTE TO VISITORS – Don’t be fooled by Futrelle’s ridiculous dismissal of this scandal as him simply having ‘once written a news story on a censorship controversy’.

David Futrelle mocked American police officers for thinking it inappropriate for a video containing graphic images depicting naked child actors as young as 14 being anally raped, forced to eat their abuser’s shit, tortured, and slowly murdered, to be rented out alongside other porn films in a seedy gay sex shop. He still continues to refuse to apologize for or even acknowledge this.

TRIGGER WARNINGS

David Futrelle
David Futrelle – Naked 14 y.o. boys eating shit can be classic art…and rented out in gay sex shops..

David Futrelle once described an adult male’s fantasy of violently sexually assualting a random boy in a bar as ‘tender’ and ‘erotic’. Writing about this, I posed the question – if this was Futrelle’s idea of a ‘tender’ homoerotic yearning, what would his definition of a more hardcore sexual fantasy involving teenage boys possibly consist of?

Sexually humiliating them? Forcing them to eat human faeces? Mutilating them? Torturing them before murdering them?

No. Futrelle apparently accepts that these evil depravities should not be the subjects of sexual fantasy. We can all breathe a sigh of relief. Especially our teenage sons.

For according to Futrelle, such things are the theme of ‘classic’ art, not sexploitation.

Even when sold in seedy gay bookstores. Even when one of the boy actors later killed himself. Even when the paedophile director of the movie was murdered soon after the film was completed by a child he was abusing in real life. Even when the film is officially banned in at least 15 different countries and is routinely described as the most appalling and grotesque ever made.

David Futrelle was an active freelance writer back in the 90’s, writing for both online and offline liberal publications that included Salon, and ‘In These Times’. Quote-mining from the many articles he wrote in this period, we find that he claimed that an age of consent above 12 is apparently nothing more than prudish feminists ‘controlling the sexuality of young girls’, described the sexual fantasy of violently assaulting a random boy in a bar as ‘tender’ and ‘erotic’, suggested that child rape victims be encouraged to marry their abusers (who would be spared jail), repeatedly accused the world’s leading child protection organizations (such as the NSPCC) of generating hysteria and lies over child abuse, and railed against the first government efforts to protect children from online paedophilia and porn.

Describing some of these shocking and outrageous viewpoints of David Futrelle, I wondered what more dark secrets and even more disturbing quotes were still to be found in the dusty internet archives, amongst the hundreds of pieces he wrote for his liberal ‘sex positive’ feminist audience back in the 1990’s. I specifically mentioned that the thought of what still might be discovered sent a shiver up my spine…and likely his too.

I wasn’t wrong.

David Futrelle and his Defence of ‘Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom’

How would you describe a ‘man’ who not only cried ‘censorship’ against the authorities for clamping down on a sexploitation film that contained graphic scenes of children being raped, tortured, forced to eat excrement, mutilated, and then murdered, but joked that the store should only be punished for renting out the film to the police who were too stupid to appreciate it?

http://www.unz.org/Pub/InTheseTimes-1994aug22-00010a02?View=PDF

Most normal, sane, moral people would call such a film beyond evil. One of the traumatized male child actors, who would have been only 15 or 16 when the sickening movie was filmed, in which he is made to eat the shit of his abuser before having his nipples burned off, later killed himself through a drug overdose at the age of just 33. Today, such a film would undoubtedly be classed as category 5 child pornography (the very worst). Writing about the movie back in the 1990’s, David Futrelle judged it only as being ‘not exactly family entertainment’.

In fact, astonishingly, he also joked that instead of arresting the men distributing a film in a gay sex shop that graphicly portays naked (real) underage boys being sexually abused, that they should only be fined for ‘renting films that go over the head of the average undercover cop’.

Futrelle’s defence of the film seems to rest entirely on the status of the director – Pier Paolo Pasolini – as an ‘artistic genius’. Pasolini, a pederast, turned to film-making after his career as a schoolteacher was curtailed due to accusations that he was molesting the children. He is known for handpicking his invariably young and often pubescent actors and embarking upon sexual affairs with them – one such actor was only 15 when Pasolini cast him. Shortly before the release of ‘120 Days of Sodom’, the director was brutally murdered. An underage boy prostitute confessed to the murder, claiming that Pasolini had attempted to anally rape him. However, the child recanted the confession decades later, and the case was re-opened. Some suspect that Pasolini may have been killed by an outraged family member of the young cast, who were all aged between 14-18.

This grotesque sexploitation movie is officially banned in 15 different countries, although, as stated above, it should undoubtedly be automatically classed as the worst form of child pornography. Its defenders claim that it makes an artistic statement about the ‘corruption of power over innocence and youth’. The abusers in the film are portrayed as Italian wartime fascists who kidnap eight teenage boys and girls and subject them to 120 days of grotesque sexual torture and humiliation before murdering them. I have not watched the movie, and never will, but according to most online reviews and descriptions, it consists almost entirely of the graphic depiction of these tortures, with the teenage cast of victims, aged as young as 14, none of whom were actors (they were handpicked by the director from a modelling agency for their good looks and almost pre-pubescent appearance) looking genuinely terrified.

Despite the film’s supposed artistic statement about fascism and the corruption of power, and hence justification as an ‘art movie’, rather than porn or sexploitation, it is unclear why the director was homosexual, the audience of the film appears to be mainly homosexual, most of the positive online reviewers of the movie appear to be homosexual, why most of the movie’s focus is aparently on the graphic sexual torture of naked underage boys, and why the movie was being rented out in a Cincinnati ‘gay and lesbian bookstore’ that deals mainly with erotic homosexual products.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal%C3%B2,_or_the_120_Days_of_Sodom

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0268668/?ref_=tt_cl_t9

Just a handful of dozens of scathing Amazon customer’s review (yes, unbelievably this is still being sold openly on Amazon) :

Its disgusting. Watching people go through this, it seemed real to me, like watching a documentary of children being tortured. I think people who get off watching sickening abuse call this art as an excuse to watch it, when really they just get off watching torture porn. there is something wrong with this world. children being tortured and raped is not art. there is no reason for this movie to exist it should be illegal. sickening, horrifying, will haunt you for the rest of your life.

Unless watching a group of naked children cry for two hours is your idea of a good time, I say pass this one up.

I have read the reviews of what a deep movie this is and the important social message. What I saw was a badly acted porno with some near vomit-inducing moments. It’s as if the director was looking for an excuse to portray acts of pedophilia and extreme cruelty and then calling it art to justify it. How anyone can sit through this more than once and get some kind of enjoyment from it is beyond me.

David Futrelle still tries to incite violence against a frail old man for a misquoted comment made nearly half-a-century ago.

I found watching a roomful of innocent youths forced to eat their own feces in graphic detail nauseating, unsettling, and strangely banal. Populating a film with images of extreme violence does not substitute for commentary or condemnation. Leering at these victims is tantamount to one being complicent in their fates. There is nothing educational, liberating, life-affirming, or redeeming about Salo. If this is your thing, skip out on the nonexistent artistic pretense and take a trip to your neighborhood adult movie store.

(If David Futrelle had his way, perverts would be able to rent this at adult movie stores, or at least gay and lesbian adult movie stores).

David Cronenberg’s film Videodrome was right: pretty soon people will be wanting to watch movies of pure torture, with no redeeming values what so ever. Im sure I’ll get o out of 137 people finding this review helpful, and that sickens me. In my opinion, movies like this are bad for your mind. The whole movie is a bunch of innocent teenagers being torured, raped, molested, disembowled, and wirse things of which I won’t even describe. I can’t believe people enjoy this movie. Im not trying to insult anyone, im just trying to get people to realize that they are enjoying a movie about kids being tortured and sodomized. Im not some fanatical christian, or over protective parent, Im just a college kid whose worried about what movies like this do to people’s minds

Only the cruelest and most sadistic moron could enjoy this movie. It is repugnant and rejects every decency of which man is capable.

The imagery of the two men french-kissing with excrement on their mouths has been difficult to erase, not to mention the child rapes, the scenes of mutilation, and total absence of responsibility for the creation of such an otherwise gross and boring film.

This film is sick. Very sick. I am not a prude. I am a grown up gay man with rather radical views.
Still this film made me throw up when I saw it while preparing to write an essay on the director for a gay, cultural magazine.
I am aware of Pasolinis intentions of describing the real inner life and dephts of fascism, and I hate anything that even comes near to fascist views, even ordinary right wing views.

And still: This is the most evil film I have ever seen.
To think up this film, even with the literary source of it as a background, Pasolini had to use his own imagination. And I am glad I never knew a person with such an imagination (at least I hope I don’t know any such person).
And worst of all: The young kids in the movie had to go through these scenes, to act out this sick story. To do those things! I do really hope they have been taken good care of ever since!

(The above Amazon reviewer appears unaware that one of the child actors killed himself aged just 33).

Only serial killers and child molesters will get any enjoyment out of seeing this more than once.

David Futrelle O Face
disgraced blogger and child scat gay torture porn apologist David Futrelle

This film is not as graphic as one may make it seem. It’s the overall feeling you get once the movie’s over that makes you want to crawl into a hole. Watch Cannibal Holocaust if you want something gut-wrenching. Watch Salo if you enjoy watching 15-year-old boys getting sodomized for 2 hours.

What can possibly be artistic about a film which shows a table full of adults and children eating human feces, vivid scalpings, genital burnings, continuous sodomy, organ mutilations, and teen children being lead around naked on leashes and forced to bark and eat scraps of food from a dog dish ??? THIS is supposed to be art ??? Salo is nothing but pure evil. No other film is as brutally, vividly disturbing as this one. But that does NOT make it a work of art.

I’ve never advocated censorship at all, but Salo changes my mind – particularly since it involves cruelty to minors. If the director Pasolini, as some rumors suggest, was murdered as a reaction to making this film, it is not hard to believe. This is celluloid at its worst. Every copy on the market should be deleted and destroyed.

People who have seen the film tell me that Pasolini made the film to show the true ways of our human nature and how bad people can be.What a bunch of crock!This is the most violating and sickest film I have seen.Hey,I like watching graphic films but I have my limits and this film goes way over that limit.”Salo,or the 120 Days of Sodom” is worthless,pointless,violating and the most trashiest,sleaziest sickest film ever made.Who cares if Pasolini was an artist.I have no respect for this film or Pasolini.How can I after what I have seen.

All biases aside, this film is nothing more than 117 minutes of continuous torture and sexual perversion directed at young people. Any socially responsible director can get his point across without feeling the need to wallow in this filth with child actors being violated in nearly every way possible . I have no doubt that Passolini either was getting his jollies out of the action being performed in front of his camera or was suffering great mental illness in order to allow his cast to be degraded in this way. It really is no wonder he was murdered shortly after completion of this film….As another reviewer has previously said this is an evil film and leaves an incredibly bad taste in ones mouth particularly when one realises they have partaken in this viewing experience willingly and contributed to the films revenue.

Do not listen to the positive reviews on this page unless you like to see the sexual torture of innocent children.

Even if this work had artistic merit, which IS VERY DEBATABLE. The detrimental effect on society through desensitization and moral corruption would more than neutralize any gain in expression. Based on a debit to credit argument, this film is a LOSER.

I tell you the point, the film may have begun as an analogy of fascism, but it deteriorated into a display of the director’s perverted fantasies. That is why it is so pointlessly excessive. A director using the theme of fascism as an opportunity to produce a perverse sadistic film. Another example of art used as a pretence, to really disguise a darker intend and desire.

Now the people who watch this film over and over, well all I got to say is this, be careful of them…. very careful

And I would add to that be very careful…and I mean very careful..of a man who attacked the police for removing this film from a gay sex shop, and yet who tries to make a career (and get laid) out of criminalizing the very idea that men and boys have rights.

See also : Did David Futrelle Defend Child Prositution and an Age of Consent of 12?

David Futrelle – The ‘innocence’ of children and women victims of abuse is ‘exaggerated’

Soraya Chemaly, Al Jazeera, and the SLPC face tough questions over association with David Futrelle, child abuse apologist