Category Archives: BLOGGERY: politics, religion & brain purges……

Scene

Linked below is an example of how not to write about the fetish scene. Much as I often read and enjoy Vice.com, it appears to have curled out a contender for the Jan Moir Award For Shoddy Journalism this week. Our protagonist, Clive Martin, ventured boldly into the London Fetish Weekend. He brought a photographer, some misconceptions and absolutely no research whatsoever into the event, the people or the activities he was reporting on.

The article itself is consists mainly of laughter, ridicule and quasi-1990s freakshow leering. He cheerfully mocks the otherness of strangers’ outfits and behaviour, whilst simultaneously belittling their interests as part of some fleeting fad brought on by 50 Shades and Paloma Faith, deciding that fetish models “mistook a subculture you can buy in a catalogue for a Bohemian existence”. The scene is long-established, much like the presence of the majority of its members, but he wouldn’t know that. He appears not to have actually spoken to anyone about it.

Soon, he wonders why nobody is having sex – specifically why nobody is trying to have sex with him. “Maybe they have some kind of radar that stops them spanking people who have just bent over in the street to tie up their shoelaces,” he muses. Pining for attention from inside his cage, he is bewildered that no stranger is interested in his combination of dress-down desperation and sneering sense of superiority. Notions like consent and respect here seem alien to him.

Clive Martin ends the article with reiterations of how normal he is, how abnormal the kinks of others are and how it’s “the idea that there’s any kind of message behind it that seems like a myth”. There is no message. Nobody has ever claimed that there is a message, or that one form of sexuality is somehow better than another, no matter what “preachiness” he interprets from watching strangers get their kink on. The scene is a place for people with similar interests to meet with friends, dress up or undress in whatever way they want to and, if they happen to feel like it, play together. That’s all. Whether your kink is shoes, pain or “girls who wear skirts and smell like shower gel and cigarettes”, events like this are about being in a space where you won’t be judged for your sexual preferences.

However, the Vice.com article reads like that of a nineteenth century European explorer describing the strangeness of African “savages”, or the depiction of a 1950s lesbian bar by a character in a James Ellroy novel. For all the insight he offered, Martin may as well have stayed at home and described whatever the photographer brought back on his memory stick.

And photographs, it seems, were also a problem. The images were published without permission, identities were revealed, people were inadvertently outed and, before some faces were obscured for legal reasons, Martin was predictably douchey about people’s objections to this on Twitter. There is a strict code on fetish club photography for a reason. Despite many signs around the venue that specified this, it was ignored. Read the comments below the article for more.

Click here to read “A BIG NIGHT OUT IN… A FETISH CLUB DANCE CAGE!” by Craig Martin at Vice.com and find him at https://twitter.com/thugclive.

Slutwalk and Assange

*TRIGGER WARNING*

I’ve heard a lot of highly emotive to-and-fro-ing about Julian Assange lately. Just to clarify my own views, I think he’s certainly an egotistical bellend and (if the media’s reporting of his actions has been accurate) a rapist.

Sex without consent is rape. That’s beyond debate, however much George Galloway and other rape apologists may juggle semantics in Assange’s defence. However, the reason the authorities are out to extradite Assange is not actually because of rape – it’s because of Wikileaks – and that’s the huge, trigger-nudging, lefty-dividing problem here.

Jane Fae addresses this in a far more succinct way as part of her Huffington Post article about Slutwalk:

“…Which is why I think Lisa of Women Against Rape has a point when she refuses to join the easy calls for the extradition of Julian Assange: because whatever you think of the merits of that case, it is striking how different the attitude of authority is towards this one individual, compared to how they deal regularly with other rape allegations. Sadly, though, the point is missed: WAR are not asking for especial leniency for Assange; merely that others suspected of this crime receive similar attention…”

The treatment of the Assange case by both the authorities and main sections of the media is an insult to the countless rape survivors, both in the UK and worldwide, whose own experiences have been greeted with a combination of victim-blaming and shoulder-shrugging dismissal. Of course Assange should answer to the charges brought against him, but must be able to do so separately from his involvement with Wikileaks and the probability of his extradition to the USA. If he were to do so in Sweden, that would simply not be possible.

As recounted by the Women Against Rape article in the Guardian, the UK has never shied away from giving asylum to war criminals and deporting women back to their rapists, and the treatment of the Assange case has been exceptional – a nod to the Special Relationship, not a sudden, unprecedented legal backflip by this country to bring about justice for victims of sexual crimes:

“…In over 30 years working with thousands of rape victims who are seeking asylum from rape and other forms of torture, we have met nothing but obstruction from British governments. Time after time, they have accused women of lying and deported them with no concern for their safety. We are currently working with three women who were raped again after having been deported – one of them is now destitute, struggling to survive with the child she conceived from the rape; the other managed to return to Britain and won the right to stay, and one of them won compensation.

Assange has made it clear for months that he is available for questioning by the Swedish authorities, in Britain or via Skype. Why are they refusing this essential step to their investigation? What are they afraid of?

In 1998 Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was arrested in London following an extradition request from Spain. His responsibility for the murder and disappearance of at least 3,000 people, and the torture of 30,000 people, including the rape and sexual abuse of more than 3,000 women often with the use of dogs, was never in doubt. Despite a lengthy legal action and a daily picket outside parliament called by Chilean refugees, including women who had been tortured under Pinochet, the British government reneged on its obligation to Spain’s criminal justice system and Pinochet was allowed to return to Chile. Assange has not even been charged; yet the determination to have him extradited is much greater than ever it was with Pinochet. (Baltasar Garzón, whose request for extradition of Pinochet was denied, is representing Assange.) And there is a history of Sweden (and Britain) rendering asylum seekers at risk of torture at the behest of the US…”

Read the Women Against Rape article in full here and Jane Fae’s Slutwalk article here.

This post isn’t, by any means, rape apologism. This isn’t a post by someone who either doubts the women’s claims, or even likes Assange. It’s a post shining a small but necessary light on the hypocrisy of the authorities when dealing with sex crimes. All rape accusations should be taken seriously, not just those made against a whistleblower pursued for political reasons by a country whose many war crimes were, in part, exposed by his actions. Criticisms of Assange’s supporters are valid – that rape should be taken seriously, even when the accused is someone you like. Yet the reverse is also true in the context of the legal system – rape should be taken seriously, even when the accused isn’t someone you specifically dislike.

Real Man

AskMen.com recently shat out another misogynistic trollfest disguised as dating advice. It’s written by “relationship correspondent” Matthew Fitzgerald (thanks to Vagenda’s Twitter feed for the link). He wrote a book that is loved by douchebloggers like Angry Harry, a Manosphere staple who nobly fights for the rights of heterosexual, white middle-class men against oppression by those dastardly feminists, ethnic minorities, rape victims and any gay people who want to get married.

Anyway, back to AskMen. In an article about how women are all evil, think with emotions instead of rationality, accuse men who “aren’t afraid to be themselves or to exert their natural sexuality” of date rape and want – you know, respect and stuff (the bitches!) – Fitzgerald inadvertently alludes to rather a lot of submissive-male/dominant-female BDSM fantasies. If I were a troll, I’d even suggest that misogynists have a deep-seated kink that they don’t want to admit to. I’m not though, so I won’t. Here’s the article, with all the shit bits removed and all my favourite out-of-context femdom bits left in:

“…the rise of a class of ball-busting bitches…surrender their natural masculinity and pander to women…a world full of wusses and doormats, men who cater to women and willingly hand over all their male power in exchange for a few crumbs of approval…forced to bend over backwards to please women…feminize men into submissive she-males…a guy wants a chick to be masculine…letting women snip pruning shears at their crotches…buy their time and attention with meals, gifts, etc…nervous, insecure or overly nice around women…available at the drop of a hat…go out of their way to please women in the hope of getting laid…grovel, beg, or are desperate for sex…feel shameful or guilty about their natural sexuality…Let women manipulate them or treat them like “walking wallets”…feet-kissing doormats…be tied down…desperate and groveling for it…love the company of women and treat them very well…”

See. Much nicer. Click here for the original woman-hating cockery if you must.