DV Select Committee contributor wants to browse adult sites on train wifi

[BrightonReSisters]

By now you've probably all seen, or at least heard about, Karen Ingala Smith's wonderful contribution to the Women & Equalities Select Committee yesterday. If not, you can see it here:

parliamentlive.tv/event/index/0d07ff13-636e-4b51-a946-2877e583dc4c

You may NOT have seen this re one of the other contributors, Diana James. Diana works with refuges in the south West. On the train to the Select Committee yesterday, Diana wanted to shop online for sex toys. Diana wasn't happy that GWR blocked the online sex toy shop from their WiFi, due to the adult nature of their products. We know this because Diana publicly tweeted to GWR to complain.

That Diana thinks it appropriate to visit an adult site on a public train is disturbing. That Diana thinks it's a good idea to broadcast this publicly is odd. That Diana thought GWR would bow down to Diana's demand to access adult content on their WiFi is downright bizarre.

Diana was invited to give evidence about provision of services for survivors of domestic violence and that makes behaviour even more worrying than if we were talking about a teenage boy or suited commuter.

Diana can of course do as Diana pleases within the bounds of the law. That said, this is a red flag.

When someone in Diana's position thinks this kind of behaviour is appropriate we must ask questions. The first question is probably the most obvious: why ask a this person, with questionable boundaries, to speak for vulnerable abuse survivors?

It's a small mercy that at least GWR seem to have their heads screwed on.

Duster - we can't state what we see (in case you were wondering why you've been deleted)

*Me too. I particularly liked the way Sarah Champion brought the focus back to all service users when James appeared to think that it was just about trans people8

I think that was true of Maria Miller, too. When KIS was expanding on the equalities act and the notion of 'proportionality' ( in affirming single sex spaces in order to achieve legitimate aims), Miller noticeably perked up when she realised that proportionality also meant that women had a right to feel comfortable and safe too; especially since women are the vast majority of service users.

Maria Miller seemed to be very set and in a groove- of just wanting to understand what all of the fuss was about - when hardly any 'issues' and so far presented themselves at refuges. She seemed to be aiming to get to the heart of the 'anxiety' about trans people, and then legislate that anxiety away. She really has not thought long, hard or deep about this issue at all. She is just coming at it from a 'trans rights' perspective. that was my impression, anyway.

Whilst I think buying things like this in a public environment is a bit weird, it's the complaining that she couldn't that's particularly odd. Sex toys very much come under the "what you do in private is up to you " territory. That said I did catch a colleague buying them online at work at a shared computer (this was before each person had their own, and few had internet at home admittedly)

Much of queer theory, though - is about public performance - of sex, of gender.....Transgression is the turn on.

That "Porn Shaming" can now be a thing is surely the ultimate example of Orwellian double think?

Is it a completely cynical effort to ride on the coat tails of the concept of "slut shaming"? (The whole idea of which is a woman is not a slut for engaging in certain behaviours, not that she is and it should be celebrated).

I think anybody who watches porn should be ashamed as it only ever exploits women, but maybe I'm old fashioned.

I think anybody who watches porn should be ashamed as it only ever exploits women, but maybe I'm old fashioned

Pornography is central to gay male culture, too - but there is great resistance to seeing any of it as exploitative - now matter how demeaning of the men used in it. Pornography is seen as being liberating and central to gay identity. There is a whole genre of 'trans porn' now too - which is partly why so many older men, who may previously have cross dressed, are now more emboldened, & fixated, to come out as 'trans'.

I've always thought that the moderating influence that the presence of women, has on men, is underestimated.

As an aside - the shop that Diana was trying to access is an adult shop run by women, for women.

It's a brilliant place, they do a lot of work normalising and educating about the female sexual response and do outreach work with the NHS and charities which help marginalised women.

Repeat, run by women, for women.

So what? What has that got to do with attempting to access a sex site on a public wi-fi in a confined public place?

vivariumvivariumsvivaria

So? I don’t give a shit who runs it or why. It’s irrelevant to this discussion.

Whoopdie effing doo, it’s run by women for women. Still doesn’t make it appropriate content to access in public.

I'm sceptical that dildos etc are top of the list of priorities for marginalised women but I can't educate myself because that website seems to be down.

I've taken a look at the site, and the profiles of the staff too.
It stocks lots of BDSM & 'anal play' stuff, as well as the usual.
Honestly, don't care that it is run by women - it has nothing to do with liberation as far as I'm concerned.

As for Diana James - they were incredibly badly prepared for the committee meeting and unaware of the some of the most basic policies and issues as they relate to the equalities act. Disingenuous.

As for openly mentioning the inability to access such a site while on the way to a committee set up to discuss the safety of abused women, says it all, really.

No, my point is that it's run by women, for women, and Diana is, well, (how do I say this without being banned?) - Diana could have tried to access any of the multiple of those sites and shops, but, specifically chose the one which is set up to market adult products for females.

I didn't say it was anything to do with liberation. And, there's nothing wrong with a woman having a wank. Unless they are on a train.

So, what I mean is - it's struck me that Diana specifically chose that retailer. Because that retailer is where the ladies go for their vibrators.

It's the same-old-same-old validation, isn't it?

it is a nice place, they will give you a cuppa and everything

I wonder if this person was intending to use not being allowed to access woke sex toys online in public, as some kind of Trojan horse for the right to look at old fashioned, non woke sex toys.

People are getting used to playing the woke card in order to chip away at boundaries by claiming discrimination.

"Porn/ kink shaming" etc.

(Disclaimer- I suspect woke sex toys and non woke sex toys only differ in how they are marketed).

Imagining kicking off cos you couldn't browse sex toys on a public Wi-Fi 🤣

Creepy and just so entitled!

This other James tweet made me laugh. I literally judge people's sex based on whether they are bothered by dog hair.

Oh gotcha viva. Yes I think you’re right that a lady obvious would only frequent a butt plug shop for ladies.

”...does that make me a bad selfish women?”

Doesn’t make you any kind of women at all James. It is perhaps indicative of a vapid, vain personality type, which is, in my experience, not tethered to maleness or femaleness.

What are Diana James' qualifications for giving evidence to the select committee?

James's subjective belief of being a woman.

It's akin to fairy dust in being all the qualifications that are often needed. The classic here is Challanor, an earlier Committee witness who also stood for Deputy leadership of the Green Party despite next to no academic qualification, little political experience (relatively new party member) and next to no knowledge of environmental politics

And of course, Bradley ...

That isn't what I asked. Does James have expertise in dealing with or experience of domestic violence ?

This is what some TRAs think womanhood is all about (obviously they use the expression "girl")

1. Bizarrely I do think women have a point other than sex
2. If a woman is homosexual it will never involve a man. That's not what homosexual means.
3. could you be more creepy?

This post got over 500 likes!

James didn't post that ^
But I kind of felt it fitted in with the mind bleach nature of this thread.

Janes apparently works with (unnamed) refuges in the South West and is a survivor.

The twitter feed is pretty standard TRA so make of that what you will