DV "gone wrong"

[DarthArts]

I'm struggling for words....

What's DV done right supposed to look like?

This is part of Jane trying to argue why women don't need single sex spaces....own goal right there.

Ozimek's a big fan of extreme porn and even wrote a book about how men should be allowed to enjoy it. www.thefword.org.uk/2010/09/beyond_the_circ/

According to that review, in the book: "Rape is coyly and somewhat ambiguously referred to as “the use of real force to get one’s way"

Maybe every time we mention Fae, we should express ourselves thus: "Jane Fae, who is campaigning to overturn rape-by-deception laws", "Jane Fae, who advocates for the right to "consensual slavery"", etc etc.

I feel a bit yucky thinking that Fae reads us...............

DonkeySkin

I can't bring myself to read those articles Fae wrote, not least because they are an absolute crap writer.

But does Fae really advocate for the decriminalisation of violent porn?

@Catspaws

Ok - you might be willing to let Jane passively aggressively knit their way out of this but you're in a minority.

The whole thread - not just that sentence - positively drips with a callous and calculating misogynistic undertone.

Add that to the extensive back catalogue of (and I'll be diplomatic here) controversial articles and musings it's a stretch at best, to assume Jane didn't actually mean what they wrote.

The quote marks are a red herring frankly. Even if Jane is using this to say it's other people's excuses, the context in which that's used is still fundamentally inappropriate by using this to justify the opener of murder being boring, pedestrian and even accidental. The premise being argued that booze, a thin skull and DV means someone did not intend to murder.

There are many women dead because their partners/ex partners - even after years of physical abuse did absolutely intend to murder the victim.

There's absolutely not one single thing that's boring about that - it's outrageous.

Try and justify Jane all you like but I promise it's not a good look on anyone.

Interesting review. Again fascinating that someone who has consistently over time expressed their despising of women, their right to be protected from discrimination and the unimportance of their consent, identifies as one.

The answer is of course, that they don't. Its another case of identify as (the stereotype, the appearance, the bits that were the focus of anger and jealousy and which stimulate thrill), not identify with . The exact reason women need to be able to say No, clearly, to these entitled, angry individuals.

I feel a bit yucky thinking that Fae reads us...............

They all do, even the self important little Morph dupe does, it's how they can dismiss women as merely being a bunch of middle-aged, middle class whiners. Although all that proves is that they don't actually understand the demographic of Mumsnet.

And catspaw stop making excuses for men's shitty behaviour. It's really liberating when you do.

Shon Faye - enjoy your erasure.
India Willoughby - hairy legs on women are unhygienic. But not on men.
Paris Lees - objectification is hot.
Fae - DV gone wrong. Accidental murder. Pro porn.

And these are the TIMs who are considered uncontroversial enough to represent transactivism. FFS.

God only knows what the controversial ones would spout.

But does Fae really advocate for the decriminalisation of violent porn?

Yes Datun

In a feat of irony not seen since the dawn of time, Jane runs/ran a free speech pressure group. Dedicated to porn that depicts the kind of hardcore BDSM they are alleged to be really into themselves, including, allegedly, consent play.

In a feat of irony not seen since the dawn of time, Jane runs/ran a free speech pressure group.

Oh, this is priceless , Xenophile!

Newcastle civil servant Darryn Walker was charged with publishing obscene material in respect of a story, Girls (Scream) Aloud, posted nearly two years ago on an internet archive based in the US, dedicated to hosting stories of an erotic nature. Walker's blog was seriously questionable both on grounds of literary merit and taste: a work of violent sexual fantasy involving the mutilation and murder of each member of the Girls Aloud pop group, whose body parts are then sold on e-Bay

The significance of this case lay in the fact that the matter in question was wholly written... it has come to be assumed that the written word to all intents and purposes falls outside the scope of the act

some thought should go to the defendant in this case. He has lost his job. He has been pilloried in the press. His reputation is in tatters. More to the point, he has spent a year in limbo, unable to get on with his life and undoubtedly under great stress. Although found not guilty, this delay means he has suffered a form of extra-legal punishment of a form that seems all too frequently to be associated with OPA cases — presumably "pour encourager les autres". Doubtless he won't be receiving any apologies, either

If the Obscene Publications Act is once again in trouble, one obvious solution would be simply to abolish it

John Ozimek and Julian Petley were expert witnesses for the defence.

I don't like the sound of jane.

I don't like John any better...

But does Fae really advocate for the decriminalisation of violent porn?

As far as I can tell, Datun, campaigning for the availability of extreme porn was his main area of political interest before becoming a trans activist. As John Ozimek he was a key member of the Consenting Adult Action Network (CAAN), which was set up in 2008 to:

protest and oppose laws restricting activities between consenting adults, most notably the criminalisation of possession of "extreme pornography".

The group was formed to oppose the UK Government's 2008 bill to outlaw porn of the type that was believed to have inspired the murder of Jane Longhurst. It's important to note what the bill defined as 'extreme porn' - it isn't standard bondage/BDSM, but pornography that depicts:

An act threatening a person's life
An act which results (or is likely to result) in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals
An act which involves (or appears to involve) sexual interference with a human corpse
A person performing (or appearing to perform) an act of intercourse (or oral sex) with an animal (whether dead or alive)

and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person (or animal) was real.

That last criterion is particularly chilling, I think.

This is what John Ozimek/Jane Fae devoted his energy to prior to becoming a trans activist. It puts into sobering perspective his views on domestic violence, especially certain phrases he uses to describe it, e.g. 'an eggshell skull'.

And Jane wonders why women might feel uncomfortable sharing single-sex spaces with him?

DonkeySkin

How is this person (I want to type "thing" instead of "person" to be honest) presented uncritically by the media?

Exactly what I was wondering Lang. Have they been so distracted by the knitting tactic they failed to check background and think, hang on, this is perhaps not the best person to talking about women's safety, privacy, dignity etc?

Jane’s just a harmless knitting lady, don’t you know.

I had no idea from what I've seen of this person that they harboured such dangerous ideas. Chilling.

I think a simple explanation for why Fae is booked so often by the media is that he is one of the only trans activists who is willing to actually debate with feminists. Almost all of them refuse to appear alongside anyone who has expressed critical views about 'gender identity', on the grounds that 'our existence is not up for debate'.

It's a very effective tactic as it means the issue usually ends up not being debated at all. Remember when Paris Lees pulled out of a BBC spot at the last minute when he heard that Miranda Yardley would also be there? The whole segment ended up getting pulled.

So if producers are looking for a TRA voice to 'balance' out Julie Bindel or Sarah Ditum or Karen Ingala-Smith, they are basically stuck with a choice of Jane Fae or India Willoughby.

Just a poor harmless, little, six foot three, knitting laydee.

Well I'm sure IW won't turn down the exposure and is a million times better than that creep

I'm absolutely gobsmacked reading this thread, and parts of it have turned my stomach. sickening and even more sickening is that JF is being wheeled out to debate trans VS women's rights.

One thing for them to talk about trans rights, another thing entirely when it's women's rights in question. JF is clearly not coming from a place of good faith.

Do we have any recourse at all to complain to the BBC when they wheel out such a blatant misogynist to debate women's rights?

So from that review, it seems Ozimek is arguing that gays and women occupy a special victimhood status in our society when actually they're not as discriminated against as men like him to transgress all our societal norms. Who argue that censorship of films in which men torture women is wrong. We all have free choice. There is no trafficking, there is no coercion, there is no rape, there is only consent and using force to get one's way.

And murder is just domestic violence pushed that little bit too far.

And I suspect you're right @DonkeySkin.

God that was a bit garbled!

as men like him who transgress all our societal norms. And that censorship ...