This question puzzled me for a while. I went to Icehouse in the Chch Town Hall in 1991, but in memory it doesn't feel like my first concert experience. Was it just sneaking under-age into Dance Exponents pub gigs?
What I did see was more of a “Do you really want your company to be associated with these people’s ideas?” and the advertisers responding, either out of cowardice or principle, “Actually, no, we don’t want to be associated with this.”
This. Of course advertisers think about associations when they choose where to advertise. We do make connections between two things we hear or see right next to each other, and advertisers have every right to decide what associations they want their potential customers to have. This was like the people who take screens shots of ads next to hate-speech on Facebook, send them to the advertisers and say, "Okay with this? Because if you are I have a right to know that too."
The assertion that victim-blaming (look! no scare-quotes!) is generational is so astonishingly wrong I don't think it needs countering.
Free speech is not a level playing field. People ringing a radio station, who are as a matter of course either not let through or cut off when the hosts have had enough, do not have the same power as those hosts. Well, except right now, when Willie and JT have exactly as much free speech as I do.
I mean, it’s nice having the physical artifact, but it’s the information I want.
Both is nice, physical and electronic. One of the seemingly-oddest things I ever did was copy out a long, fraught conversation that had happened over DM onto a piece of paper, with a pen, at three in the morning, so I'd have it forever.
Oh, and this. Because yeah, every time I think about the "second-best bed" thing, but it seems a bit wanky to be all, "See? Just like Shakespeare!"
They were the love letters between my Nana and Grand-dad, Mary Matches and Tame Rakakino Mira.
Aw, that's fabulous. Though I can also understand not wanting to read them. I have one letter from my mother's first husband to her (it was undiscovered in a tin of old photographs), and it's painful in a whole different way. Just too private.
Doing genealogy with/for my mum has made me aware of so many stories of people I barely knew.
I think genealogy really plays into the human compulsion to make stories. You have a few pieces of information – so, an Irish woman marries a man born in America but living in Suffolk and they move to Australia – and your brain is just compelled to try to fill in the “how does that even happen?”. We have a copy of my x-great-grandfather’s will from 1814, and it’s a bunch of stories. He made his daughter executrix of his will, not one of his sons. He left his wife his “bed with the yellow curtains in the back house chamber”. You have to specify that your wife gets a bed?
2) if a girl is drunk and/ or flirting and/ or wearing a short skirt then she is ‘up for it’
We've had a couple of articles in local papers asking high school principals what they're doing about their net safety programs. Not one asking what they're doing about teaching consent. If you want to take someone to a movie, you ask them, right? So why does it seem crazier to ask someone if they want to have sex with you than to try to deduce it from their clothes?
The persistence of the virgin-whore dichotomy is astonishing. About half a dozen times in my late teens and early twenties I had a guy actually ask me, with genuine puzzlement, "If you'll sleep with him, why won't you sleep with me?" You're either someone who has sex - and is therefore up for it with anyone - or someone who doesn't, and you can tell them apart by the way they dress or drink or something.
Consent is not complicated. It's really fucking simple. If you find it too confusing, you should err on the side of Always Asking, every time. And we should stop pretending that talking about sex isn't done because it's dull. It isn't done because it's terrifying.
I used to be the worst sleeper in the world. Now I'm not even the worst sleeper in the house. And I say this having had 1 1/2 hours sleep last night.
Works a treat though I know it goes counter to that advice about bed only for sex and sleep.
I can't sleep at all if I haven't read. It winds down brain and body. However, sex is worth trying, from a getting to sleep point of view. It doesn't work for everyone, but a big whack of relaxy endorphins might be just what you need.
Also, I’m reminded of one of Emma’s posts from long ago with some gaming analogy.
It was a sort of side-line in this post, and like so many things here, much better developed in the comments. Thank you for reminding me of it, because it really does relate to how I've felt this week: far too shattered by the echoes of my past to Tank on this one.
if this bill passes then don’t we have one more tool to fight the continued victimisation of these girls and many others.
The thing is, there is no easy fix for this, not even close. And I'm really, really leery of "but this piece of legislation will fix it!", which, let me clear, I'm really aware is not what you were saying. I just want to make it icy-clear that the problem is not cyber-bullying. It's rape culture. It's rape culture that made these men think it was okay to brag about what they were doing, regardless of the format they did that in.
Changing that culture is fucking hard work. But it's not impossible, and it couldn't be more worth doing. But it's about teaching about consent, focusing on perpetrators not victims, removing shame from sex. It's not about cellphones.