Thursday, 19 July 2007


So fricking busy at the moment I'm barely getting the chance to read the blogs, and I've got the hug slut coming to stay with me today for a few days of fun and debauchery. And work, of course. Life in London is good.

I have insomnia, however. Not used to not having another human breathing and dreaming beside me, perhaps. Cure for the shakes, anyone?

Managed to grab The Guardian yesterday and spent a while reading G2, which documented 50 years of women's writing for the Guardian. You should too!

50 Years of the Women's Page.

Friday, 6 July 2007

The case that led to a ridiculous law


I moved from north to south and am reasonably settled now.

And here we go:

There have been various articles relating to Graham Coutt's new sentence, which will imprison him for life for the murder of Jane Longhurst. He has continually protested and claimed it was manslaughter. Who knows? We know he had hundreds of pornographic images on his computer - from, (which is really bloody tame), etc - and this kickstarted Liz Longhurst's campaign against violent porn, later changed to 'extreme' porn (beyond hardcore, I guess), and the reason, primarily, the government is planning to prosecute against possession of 'extreme' pornographic images. You can see the whole Criminal Justice Bill (which had its first reading last week, I think?) here.

And you can read about the case here.

There are two statements made by Liz Longhurst in that article that stand out for me:

"I do feel now the public perception is that [Jane] was a wonderful girl and would never have done any of the things that were alleged."


"He [Coutts] is so restricted, he is so narrow-minded, he is in this rut of seeing everything through the eyes of perverted pornography"

Riiiight. So any woman who enjoys those kind of activities can't possibly be perceived as 'wonderful'? Well, aren't I lucky my mother loves me anyway, despite knowing what I get up to, what I stand for. But yes, joe public would certainly not perceive this as 'wonderful' in the least, and indeed, 'wonderful' girls don't get off on devious sex or, well, sex at all, do they? And then she goes on to call Graham Coutts 'restricted' and 'narrow-minded'. Erm, what the crap?

I'm not trying to belittle her loss or defend Graham Coutt's actions, but her statements are pretty anti-woman and perpetuate the madonna/whore myth that still dictates what female sexuality is supposed to be. That, for me, is the biggest problem with this law. It, again!, infantilises women, supposes that 'wonderful' girls don't do kinky sex and never watch or read pornography.

So what is a 'wonderful' girl's sexuality supposed to be composed of, then? I have absolutely no idea.

EDIT: Finally! Some decent public debate on the issue on Comment is free.