John Ozimek (now Jane Fae) on women, feminists and victims of pornographers

[TurfClub]

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SORT focused 'the “consent” debate on the issue of when an individual might be said to have withdrawn consent.'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.'

Sooooo:

• 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 (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.

Sorry, not very au-fait with popular beat combos, m'lud!

The fantasies in that case were the kidnapping, rape, torture, murder (and maybe dismemberment? can't remember) of girls aloud.

For the avoidance of doubt, Jane has also written passionately about filmed extreme porn of the nature banned in the UK, films with real people, it's not just about the written word.

The "Vaz effect" where male politicans rallied around to say the fact that Keith Vaz was revealed as someone who liked to pay for sex including some really dodgy stuff

Is this (sorry, I absolutely can’t resist...)..

... Vaz Deference ?

Sorry, sorry. As you were.

extreme porn piece in register

More and more reason I’ll never let my DD join the girl guides. Those poor parents who don’t know all this is going on in the background whilst entrusting their DDs with the GG who clearly couldn’t give two hoots about safeguarding. But meh they’re just girls so who gives a shit eh. Angry doesn’t even cover how I feel about how cock and ball owners are eroding women’s and children’s rights.

• prepares to be deleted and given a warning like I did over the Grindr/kinder thread.

The fantasies in that case were the kidnapping, rape, torture, murder (and maybe dismemberment? can't remember) of girls aloud.

Dear god, how can the GG not see the danger in this.

the piece was called 'girls (scream) aloud', and it is on Google. It does describe the dismemberment of Girls Aloud reducing them to five separate heads, legs, breasts, and genitals as such.

and the preservation of said dismembered body parts in chemicals for use in perpetuity for sex.

Yes and to repeat

Jane did not write the story

Jane appeared as an expert witness in defence of the man who wrote it, who was prosecuted over obscenity (and possibly incitement? can't be bothered to google) laws

It is very importnt to Jane that men be allowed to express their sexualities as they see fit - they are one of these people who goes on and on abour "free speech" but seems singularly focussed on extremely dodgy sex stuff only.

and it does include graphic descriptions of the rape and detailed dismemberment of the Girls Aloud. John Ozimek described the man who wrote this, a civil servant as a 'victim'.

Basically he wrote depraved torture/rape/murder porn using his real email address, got caught, unsuccessfully prosecuted, lost his job, and John wanted us to feel sorry for him.

I know pornhub stats say that female viewers are driving the demand for extreme violence towards women in porn

To which I say

hahahahah pull the other one it's got bells on

As John wrote (yes, really) in another article 'First they came for the child pornographers'

Here's someone' blog about it including this

"The crucial defence evidence, it appears, was provided by freelance journalist (and regular contributor to The Register) John Ozimek. Ozimek found, not only that any search for Girls Aloud will turn up millions of hits, but that even Googling "Girls Aloud + rape + murder" gives around 100,000. So the chances of happening upon Walker's story by chance were non-existent.

John tells me that he was "slightly surprised" to be making legal history, but indeed the CPS admitted that they were "unable to provide sufficient evidence" to rebut his findings. "It proves that the CPS and Police don’t do google." He is pleased that the OPA - not used successfully against purely written material since 1976 - remains at bay. A conviction "would have had a serious chilling effect, putting on guard any budding writer thinking of dealing with the cruder, rawer side of erotic life", he thinks. You can read his full analysis of the case here."

heresycorner.blogspot.com/2009/07/girls-scream-allowed-for-now.html

I thikn that person agrees with Ozmiek generally so not a biased source. Quotes from Ozmiek are interesting.

Urgh.

I feel like I need a shower.

I find JF quite disturbing.

they are one of these people who goes on and on abour "free speech"...
And yet, judging by that Independent article (halfway down page 3) they also advocate no platforming.

I think the point is that writing rape dismemberment murder porn is not of itself illegal, however John's attempt to make us feel sorry for the author just isn't working.

"As John wrote (yes, really) in another article 'First they came for the child pornographers'"

?????????????????????

Have you got it?

Let's be fair it could be out of context...

People like this
PRETEND that they are impartial, maybe devil's advocate, types, looking at the rationality of the law, protecting free speech, etc from hordes of prudish withered up feminist killjoys and crazed religious zealots
When actually they just want them and their mates to be able to wank their dicks to whatever they like

Same issue in libdems where many of them seem to mainly focus on liberalising where men can stick their cocks

This is cross political, the divide is m/f.

Loads of pervy men all over the place wanting XYZ
Loads of women everywhere trying to hold back the tide, keep them the fuck away from their kids etc etc

has ever been thus.

All this is just a new angle. A good angle but tide is starting to turn I think.

Source: www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/28/government_outlaws_pictures/

as a slight aside, regardless of free speech, i am really fed up with reading / watching the brutalisation of females written by men in contemporary culture in the name of entertainment.

OP: "here's some information about a prominent trans activist's interest in extreme pornography. It's relevant because they have been advising the Guides and we are concerned about the Guides safeguarding policies"

Anti-women activists: "how dare you deadname this person, it's against the law you know".

Feminists: "it's not against the law and anyhow we haven't said anything that's not in the public arena, mostly put there by the activist themselves."

AWA: "Ha, it's illegal to disclose that someone holds a GRC."

Feminists: "They don't have one, your point is?"

AWA: "Errr, stop being mean to this person."

Feminists: "You seem more worried about us being mean to someone who defends extreme porn AND is helping the GIRL Guides undermine their own safeguarding policies."

AWA: "Stop being mean."

Feminists: "Oh OK let's not bother discussing a person with frankly extreme (many would say dangerous) views because we must not be mean and we wouldn't want to break a law that doesn't exist. What possible harm can he do with his prominent media profile and influence in high places?"

Sorry AWA, we are not going to shut up.

"RantyCath Mon 24-Sep-18 11:43:40
The GRA makes it illegal in some circumstances to reveal previous names of GRC holders.
Be careful. If Jane has a GRC Mumsnet might be open to being sued."

If you google, there are reviews of JohnOzimek/Jane Fae that clearly state they are one and the same person - and these are by Queer theorists etc.

So maybe it depends on who you are that you are breaking the law? Does it work that way?

Bowlofbabelfish. . Thank you for the explanation. That actually made me feel tearful, i am genuinely shocked. I suppose I had registered it must be violence but not what that actually means. I’ve never watched porn, DH has never watched porn, so I don’t quite understand where the legal boundaries would lie.

Girl Guides now seem extremely suspect, who chose JF as someone appropriate to advise them ?

Has Fae every explained why they thought it so important to defend the rights of men to view extreme pornography and write obscene literature?

Strange hobby for a lass. Or anyone really.

Grim.