http://theantifeminist.com/monsterbo...ture-children/



Lunatic fringe social justice, feminist activist David Futrelle has been outed as a defender of the sexploitation film Salo (120 Days In Sodom)

(Also ironic is the fact that this so-called "feminist" is a fan of the movie version of a book by Marquis De Sade, who died in prison for raping and torturing women and young girls).

---

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 feces, 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.

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-...10a02?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 (*)(*)(*)(*) 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.

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 out of criminalizing the very idea that men and boys have rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal%C3%..._Days_of_Sodom

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