That was one of my favourite houses too, when I was living in the burg. How nice to learn that it's had such an awesome and sensitive refurb.
The Manifesto is not in copyright, and is freely available online. With footnotes. :-) http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/
Uh, while I appreciate your broader point, I don't like the hint of "victim Olympics" in it. Yes, being violently assaulted and brutalized by a stranger is horrendous. Being (semi) stupified and assaulted by someone you kind of know, with the full knowledge of their mates and probably some of your friends, and who you may see around semi-regularly, can't really be qualified as "better".
Sure, there are most definitely differences in "severity", but long-term effects are long-term effects. Not to mention the ramifications around betrayal of trust and questioning one's judgement on an ongoing basis.
FWIW, I agree that there *probably* would be more trauma for a Lundy victim, but let's not pretend that it's an absolute "ranking" of stranger vs acquaintance rape. And since these offenses occur on the same continuum anyway (leaving aside actual offender psychopathy), assigning rank is really bloody unhelpful.
I knew the person who assaulted me very well. The violence was "light" - I couldn't get away from a strong man twice my size, but there were no bruises on the outside. And while I'm not going "omg trigger!1!" every day, it's still with me 35 years later. So yeah.
Friends I hadn't seen for 30 years - we were at college together in Glen Innes - were discussing this last night. There are families with decades worth of entrenched abusive behaviour they are passing on to each generation. Some people escape, or were protected from it in various ways. Grand-dad abused all his kids and a lot of the cousins, but dad would *never* let his kids be unsupervised with his father.
So, there was the agency - the dad's refusal to act as his father did. But that doesn't mitigate from the actual family culture, and the fact that some of the uncles became abusers, and the fact that grand-dad is talked about in whispers, and not dragged to the cop shop.
So yes, individual agency, but I'm glad I'm not the only one to wonder at Tamihere family culture, and the different ways in which contempt for women and/or those more vulnerable than themselves may be manifesting.
Uh, are you being sarcastic, or is this yet another theoretical exercise, which seems to be the default stance of some people in this thread?
I don't know the current standard of law when it comes to consent, but logically thinking - and no matter how many young men a young woman chooses to get intoxicated with - consent pretty much stops happening when the person concerned is too impaired to actually, you know, consent.
If the response to the suggestion of group sex is anything unlike "Yes, please!", then it's not consent.
If an averagely-mobile person is unable to speak or walk properly, or they are unconscious or semi-conscious (yes, that includes someone "sleeping it off", then no, it's not consent.
If anyone can show me an example of what appears to be "buyer's remorse" - or a situation where there could be reasonable doubt - actually making it as far as a courtroom, I'd be fascinated.
Because its prevalence is nowhere near as common as some of those indulging in intellectual exercises here seem to think - women will generally default to blaming themselves first in a situation where consent was "hazy" (a friend continues to blame herself for her assault when she was passed out on a couch). To get as far as actually making a complaint to police is a big step up from "embarrassed about sex with uncool dude" scenarios.
The fact these young women weren't "brave enough" (FFS!!) to come forward is fairly likely due to the cultural bullshit about what consent actually means, and the perception that sexual assault is about strangers in alleyways, not "friends" who deliberately get you drunk so you can't say no.
what humour is acceptable?
If you can't think of ways to satirise or point out someone's stupidities other than making fun of their name or how they look, perhaps you need to think about exactly what it is you're trying to mock.
Because "you look funny and you smell" kind of lost any pretensions of being incisive humour when I was about nine.
[in response to Jackie]
Yes, I've been really fortunate that some people who've had that conversation with me have been really skilled at it. And that goes the range from "I can't really handle this right now" to "it's time to get your head out of your arse".
...Thinking more, it seems to be a skill I select partners for. Hopefully I'll acquire it myself one day.
The "ring theory" when I first read about it, felt like a really good codification of stuff that I was trying to implement in my own life. Vent outwards, not inwards.
I fall down majorly when it comes to the advice-giving thing. Unfortunately, my job is about troubleshooting and figuring shit out, so if someone starts talking about a problem to me, no prizes for guessing what my first response is. At least as I get older, I am more aware of how patronising that can be. It's an ongoing "learning experience", let's just say.
Another aspect, though, is my own personal limits. If someone seems to be stuck in constant rut of Problem X, from the fairly routine through to the quite serious, and my own reserves are low, there very much is a limit to how much I can listen to someone's tale of woe without feeling overburdened myself. I think one of the mechanisms of advice-giving - for me at my weaker times, and kind of independent of the troubleshooting tendency - is that if my empathy circuits are overloaded, advice-giving can be a means of trying to show that I care, even if I can't give them what it is they're really asking for.
While I actually know it's not productive, the conundrum of gracefully saying to someone who is seriously and genuinely struggling, "look, I actually have my own [less serious, perhaps] crap to contend with, and I feel like more and more is being dumped on me by you right now", while indicating that I actually still fundamentally care, is not one I've solved yet. Advice welcome. Heh.
No, because you don't pronounce those as "us" and "uke". You speak the individual letters, therefore "UK" and "US" are still appropriate. And even that's comparatively recent usage. Remember when it was U.S.A.?
All caps these days pretty much implies each letter is pronounced separately. And yes, of course there are variations to the "rule". It's English after all, and names for things, so if you want to style yourself as MARTIN, pronounced "Martin", fine by me. :-)