It’s rare that I’m angered enough by a newspaper article to change my scheduled post and whinge. But whinge I must, after Joan Smith’s column in The Independent on Sunday, in which she explores the treatment of a murdered schoolgirl’s family during her killer’s trial.
Her father, she tells us, owned a magazine containing “probably extreme pornographic material” of “a fetish nature… latex and bondage”. He “kept bondage gear in a box in the loft, including a rubber hood and a ball-shaped gag”.
And after repeating such private details, the journalist explains:
it is hard to see why possession of such material by the father of two teenage daughters should ever be treated as an entirely private matter. Looking at extreme pornography and acquiring restraints for use during sex are worrying behaviours, and it isn’t hard to imagine circumstances – a custody battle, for example – in which they might even be interpreted as potentially abusive. Indeed, what is so extraordinary about the outpouring of sympathy… is that so many commentators have been willing to overlook what this might imply about his feelings towards women…
So, what precisely does an interest in fetish say about someone’s “feelings towards women”, Ms Smith? In what possible way does an interest in using restraints during sex suggest that one’s “abusive”?
See, it couldn’t possibly be that some women – bright, intelligent, capable women, entirely comfortable with taking their own decisions in life and in enjoying their own sexuality – might actually enjoy this stuff too? Nah: they’re all victims of us abusive men – even if they don’t actually realise it.
This is the sort of rubbish that some writers like Ms Smith perpetuate far too easily – often in the apparent name of feminism, the primary theme of most of her journalism. At least fresh voices, such as Caitlin Moran in her wonderful recent (highly-recommended) autobiography “How to be a Woman” are challenging this sort of prejudice and reclaiming the “feminist” word.
In any case, why stop there when it comes to condemning what people get up to in the bedroom? Hey, I have sex in the missionary position sometimes: I must be perpetuating age-old misogynist stereotypes by forcing my partner to “lie back and think of England”. If I take a girl from behind? Well, obviously, that’s me trying to subjugate her.
And why, whilst we’re at it, do I need to see details of someone else’s private life regurgitated again by newspapers which should know better? And how does being into BDSM cast doubts over one’s parenting ability?
This lazy, bigoted nonsense really has to stop. It’s no longer in the least acceptable (thank goodness) to judge people because of their sexual orientation; perhaps folks should think twice before condemning others for their consensual sexual activities. Shame on Ms Smith. Shame on The Independent on Sunday.
Here here! The murderer of Milly Dowler was an evil misogynist, but not a kinky man. Safe, sane and consensual he did not practise. The blatant misandry in her article angers me. Since when are men who like porn, a) a surprise or b) inherently bad. I am a woman who likes to be tied up, degraded even, with ppl I care&love, in safe settings, senarios I help choose. My Sir is the sweetest man, he is not evil in any way (well, that good way, you know the one!). And since when does fetish, BDSM or porn mean you want to do that to your own daughters, for FUCK sake!?!
When will people stop defining by one trait like that, and stop judging me by how *I* decide I use MY body. Its just sex, its not how I treat people. Its not my fave movies, or the book I like to read. Its not my view on the afterlife, or my political choices!! Its not my parenting skills, or anything like that! Its how I use MY cunt for MY pleasure! Grow up&move on!
I suppose the upside is that many people are appalled at the ‘abuses’ of the law and the press in this case.
What strikes me as so ironic is that (as least as portrayed in the papers) this was a non-consensual use of an extreme imbalance of power to humiliate already broken and effectively ‘captive’ individuals with no evident connection to establishing either truth or justice, and led by apparently intelligent people. All within the rules so it is o.k.
What saddens me ( and I wouldn’t just scapegoat feminsts, pretty difficult to find more enlightened psychologists too) is that to give informed, healthy consent to anything takes balanced information and self-knowledge which is difficult to find when certain areas of sexuality/self expression are ‘fair game’ for salacious speculation.
Abel, thanks a lot for bringing this up! I’ve just written a comment in the comment section of the original article like you did earlier. To my mind it is very important to not only write about prejudiced articles here in the kinky community where everybody agrees anyway, it is even more important to stand up against prejudiced accusations in the “vanilla world” as well. That’s why I think I’m going to change the topic of my next Kaelah’s Corner post as well, tell our readers about the case and ask them to write comments in the comment section of The Independent. I have to admit that I was very glad, though, that the majority of the commenters on the original post didn’t seem to share Ms Smith’s crude opinions at all!
A very justifiable rant. There is so much about this that makes me furious; taking focus away from the crime committed, the assumption that consenting adults (often women) are incapable of making decisions about their own sexual experiences, the obscenely public way the private lives of grieving adults are judged and the hypocrisy of salacious articles like the one you wrote about. I am too angry about it to say anything more intelligent.
Thank you for writing this.
Definitely a justifiable rant – thanks for posting about it Abel.
I stumbled across this information in the Guardian comments section on Monday (in a far less extreme and judgemental comments piece than the one you describe) but instead of feeling angry, I just felt scared and sad.
Sad for Milly’s family that their private lives have been exposed in this way, allowing people like the journalist above to further their own biased agenda by publicly tearing them apart (because, you know, losing a child in these sorts of horrific circumstances isn’t traumatic enough…).
And scared for the simple fact that being kinky can be used against you in this way. The insinuation that you’re not safe to be around children is the one I find most hurtful and offensive. To be honest, I think I would be reticent about reporting a crime/going to court because I would be scared about being ‘exposed’ in this way and the knock-on effect this could potentially have on my life. It’s possible my fears are exaggerated… but then cases like these just seem to reinforce them. Not a comfortable thought :-(.
And the porn thing is just pissing me off now. When is anyone ever going to write an article about the fact that some women do actually like porn as well?! (I admit these articles may exist and I just haven’t seen them – unlikely but possible!). A stereotype seems to exist of porn being this sick, furtive thing that grubby men (and teenage boys) look at behind the backs of the women in their lives (because, you know, sex is so disgusting and everything…) and that we lovely, pure, clean women wouldn’t *dream* of going anywhere near it and would just faint clean away if we did. And, of course, the only women who do look at it or – heaven forbid! – take part in it themselves are being forced to do so by Evil Men. Especially BDSM porn – I mean, look! They’re tied up!
I wonder what this journalist makes of ‘bondage porn’ when it’s F/m or F/f? Or is she just choosing to ignore that because it doesn’t sit well with her argument?
Apologies for long, rambling comment – I think there *is* a point in there somewhere. Maybe. :-).
I agree, the rant was justified. Shame on the Independent for having such an ill advised and poorly researched article.
Prefectdt