Escape Velocity
Dec. 29th, 2006 01:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexsarllThe Shiny New Laptop informs me that the House Beautiful is on the periphery of numerous hotspots, but none of them have a strong enough signal to connect. So, until I sort out an actual internet contract, it's still libraries for me. Oh well.
Thanks to all who came to the birthday drinks on Wednesday; I hope you all had fun, and I know I did. Particular gratitude to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
moleintheground and angelv for hosting an impromptu aftershow, and to the former for a very memorable performance as Dylan covering Kanye on Hip Hop Karaoke. Yesterday I surfaced in time for my second visit in a week to the Fly (I never did blog the Indelicates show, did I?), where I was surprised to note that, at a crowded Pretty In Pink, I knew almost none of the punters even by vague sight recognition. London can be such a small world at times that now I'm more surprised when it's not.
Have seen only headlines and summaries of the proposed new rape law, so forgive me if it's not quite as stupid as it appears, but from what I have seen - dear Lords above and below, such idiocy! I appreciate that there are issues regarding the conviction rate for rape, and that they need to be addressed, but to say that any drunk woman is de facto incapable of consent...well, for starters you're comparing women who've been drinking to children, which seems something of a step backwards. And how drunk is drunk? Past the driving limit? Past the government's absurdly puritanical 'recommended daily limit'? Because it hardly seems likely to enhance respect for the law to decide, at a stroke, that the vast majority of the country's adult population have been either rapists or rape victims since they became sexually active. Or in some cases, both - because how does this affect homosexuals? Is it simply an attempt to enforce the idea that, in straight sex, it is always the man who wants and the woman who only reluctantly or drunkenly consents? Are two men who go home drunk together somehow guilty of mutual rape, or two women of mutual sexual assault because lesbian sex still doesn't count? Or is the law simply not concerned with what the gays get up to because it's only protecting decent people? Unless the front pages are totally misrepresenting this proposal, it's obscenely wrong-headed.
Off to the howling desert of South London once this is done, for the Freaky Trigger pub crawl, then again tomorrow, for Brixton Tubewalk. This may well be my last post of 2006, in which case - good riddance, you toad of a year.
Thanks to all who came to the birthday drinks on Wednesday; I hope you all had fun, and I know I did. Particular gratitude to
moleintheground and angelv for hosting an impromptu aftershow, and to the former for a very memorable performance as Dylan covering Kanye on Hip Hop Karaoke. Yesterday I surfaced in time for my second visit in a week to the Fly (I never did blog the Indelicates show, did I?), where I was surprised to note that, at a crowded Pretty In Pink, I knew almost none of the punters even by vague sight recognition. London can be such a small world at times that now I'm more surprised when it's not.Have seen only headlines and summaries of the proposed new rape law, so forgive me if it's not quite as stupid as it appears, but from what I have seen - dear Lords above and below, such idiocy! I appreciate that there are issues regarding the conviction rate for rape, and that they need to be addressed, but to say that any drunk woman is de facto incapable of consent...well, for starters you're comparing women who've been drinking to children, which seems something of a step backwards. And how drunk is drunk? Past the driving limit? Past the government's absurdly puritanical 'recommended daily limit'? Because it hardly seems likely to enhance respect for the law to decide, at a stroke, that the vast majority of the country's adult population have been either rapists or rape victims since they became sexually active. Or in some cases, both - because how does this affect homosexuals? Is it simply an attempt to enforce the idea that, in straight sex, it is always the man who wants and the woman who only reluctantly or drunkenly consents? Are two men who go home drunk together somehow guilty of mutual rape, or two women of mutual sexual assault because lesbian sex still doesn't count? Or is the law simply not concerned with what the gays get up to because it's only protecting decent people? Unless the front pages are totally misrepresenting this proposal, it's obscenely wrong-headed.
Off to the howling desert of South London once this is done, for the Freaky Trigger pub crawl, then again tomorrow, for Brixton Tubewalk. This may well be my last post of 2006, in which case - good riddance, you toad of a year.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-12-29 02:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-29 02:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-29 03:08 pm (UTC)Not all lebians like that type of thing I wouldn't have thought...
no subject
Date: 2006-12-29 03:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-29 02:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-29 03:02 pm (UTC)Or should I say, 'How terrible for you to have been a rape victim on a regular basis, however do you cope?'
no subject
Date: 2006-12-29 03:07 pm (UTC)Not regularly enough.
no subject
Date: 2006-12-29 03:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-29 08:27 pm (UTC)"Americans have dates, the British have alcohol."
Date: 2006-12-29 06:09 pm (UTC)Re: "Americans have dates, the British have alcohol."
Date: 2007-01-02 01:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-29 03:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-29 03:07 pm (UTC)Also what lizzy said...
no subject
Date: 2006-12-29 03:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-29 04:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-29 04:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 01:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 01:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 01:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 05:41 pm (UTC)I really hope that the series he did in the 60's where he roams around talking to the bright young things of London town while looking confused is still in the archives.
no subject
Date: 2007-01-03 02:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-12-29 05:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 01:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 01:13 pm (UTC)Yes, this was from the same box. I'm still only two discs in but isn't it splendid?
no subject
Date: 2007-01-02 01:18 pm (UTC)Stop stealing JDC's habit of stealing my life!