This is a Premium feature
To use this feature subscribe to Mumsnet Premium - get first access to new features see fewer ads, and support Mumsnet.Start using Mumsnet Premium
Page 12 | John Ozimek (now Jane Fae) on women, feminists and victims of pornographers(280 Posts)
From the Skin Two Fetish yearbook, 2009 (Skin Two Issue 60), by John Ozimek, edited in 2012 by 'Jane Fae' (sorry I don't have the original John version) www.somethingdark.eu/downloads/Jane-Fae_Tyrannys-genesis-and-its-opposition_SDk-Latest-News_USL.pdf
'One of Labour’s first actions on coming to power was to put in place a group (of women) at the Home Office whose task it would be to steer a review of the law in respect of sexual activity.'
'Government would recoil in horror at a proposal to place men in charge of a review of the law on rape; yet, over and over, those at the heart of developing change in the field of sexual law have been female, feminist or exceedingly Christian. '
'It was David Blunkett, Home Secretary 2001–04 and a very committed Christian, who observed how wonderful it was to be surrounded by so many of like persuasion amongst his coven of Home Office special advisers.'
' SORT was widely considered to be an offshoot of radical feminism, with very little interest in views that clashed with their beliefs. The emphasis shifted very quickly from the rights of the individual to a focus on the perceived (female) “victim”. '
SORT focused 'the “consent” debate on the issue of when an individual might be said to have withdrawn consent.'
'they brought on board an academic team (three feminists, naturally) who carried out a wholly skewed rapid evidence assessment (REA) and concluded that yes, maybe extreme porn did cause harm.'
* scare quotes around 'victim' (of sexual abuse)
* compares putting men (those who rape) in charge of rape law with putting women (those who get raped to make porn) in charge of porn law
* alludes to Blunkett's female advisers as witches
* sneering contempt for feminists
Note that since this was published in 2009, John Ozimek became Jane Fae, adviser of Girl Guides on safeguarding, and now identifies and is identified as a feminist (https://www.theguardian.com/profile/jane-fae). Which is strange considering previous contempt for feminism. Anyone would think it was all a strategy to undermine feminism. But no THAT NEVER HAPPENS.
Here's Jane Fae on twitter, responding to this Guardian article on the rise of choking in sex. www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/25/fatal-hateful-rise-of-choking-during-sex
sounds like Jane thinks viewing images of choking in porn promotes it, and would have an impact if widely available. Before remembering porn is harmless, of course. Must be just bad men again.
Some facts - images of suffocation/strangulation of women are widely available on mainstream sites, and people are choking their female partners in sex because this is expected, "just how people have sex now".
jane francesca fae #facciamorete #StoConFR
You also need to factor in the pernicious effect of the extreme porn law, passed a decade or so back specifically as means to stop this practice getting promoted online...and is one reason I do not wholly believe the article you cite..
Bottom line...the bdsm community undetstood very well the dangers of passing on such imagery (legally speaking) and so mostly stopped.
In the process a number of sites which preached a safety first line around this practice shut down.
So sites that were safety oriented closed.
At the same time I am highly sceptical of claims that imagery found it's way into mainstream porn...because the defining feature of mainstream sites has been NOT to include material that could get them prosecuted.
At the same time, police have prosecuted thousands of people under the extreme porn law and a vanishingly small percentage has been for this type of image.
Conclusion? It's not quite the thing that the hands-in-air brigade are claiming. However...
...People are doing it...sometimes as misguided element of actual sex game but, I suspect, mostly they are lying.
After all...it's hard to come up with an excuse for this sort of behaviour otherwise. So-o...some bdsm...but mostly violent untruthful men.
(charitably I'm assuming Jane didn't read the piece - given it discusses the killing of a number of women and girls and the non-consensual strangulation of women in sex - before deciding it's just the "hands-in-air brigade")
Now, now, "Acceptance without exception", ladies.
In plain sight.
Bumping to cross-reference thread on latest of Janet & John's misogyny