Nightclub Bill Seeks to Protect Underage Guests, and D.C

Sonick, Nightclub Bill would definitely wear a cape. :)

Rhett, I have been to zillions of club shows since I was 16 and not once have I ever been involved in any kind of altercation. It *must* be something you are doing!

Sure, blame the victim. Just like random women must be doing something to get themselves raped, as opposed to the random women who don't get raped.

Originally posted by They call me Doctor Doom.:
Sonick, Nightclub Bill would definitely wear a cape. :)

Rhett, I have been to zillions of club shows since I was 16 and not once have I ever been involved in any kind of altercation. It *must* be something you are doing!

Originally posted by you be betty:
The DC music scene has always thrived upon the all-ages aesthetic. Ian Mackaye was 17 YEARS OLD when the Teen Idles began. 18 with Minor Threat. Part of the culture and appeal of this music scene is the fact that it is accessible to kids of all-ages, and it always has been.
I'm really sorry if you don't like kids, but regardless, most of what we have today wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for those teenagers attending and playing the shows that they played in the late 70s.

Well, I don't believe it "always has been" this way. Those kids had to really work at it to get things to the point where it's just commonplace now. And I'd like to point out that the drinking age was 18 at the time. I think that made a difference in allowing kids into shows in the early days. There wasn't as huge of an age-gap between the kids and the legal age where they'd be coming in anyway.

I don't know why you see something wrong with giving kids an outlet.

I'm generally on your side here, betty, but you make it sound like this is the ONLY outlet kids have. Like there's absolutely nothing else to do around here. As if it weren't for nightclubs, everybody under the age of 21 would be sitting at home all night every night. That argument doesn't really hold up well in a city like DC.

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Sure, blame the victim. Just like random women must be doing something to get themselves raped, as opposed to the random women who don't get raped.

Yes, because a physical assault and rape are completely the same thing, carried out by the same people, and for the same reasons.

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Really, you're not comparing apples with apples.

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Sure, blame the victim. Just like random women must be doing something to get themselves raped, as opposed to the random women who don't get raped.

I wouldn't have made that connection, but I guess your ass biting episode might be considered sexual assault…

What is the difference? They are both physical attacks where the main motivation is to assert power. Rape has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with violence.

And in the case of someone attacking someone else by biting their ass, is that not sexual assault?

Originally posted by Julian, faux celeb-porn CONNOISSEUR:

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Sure, blame the victim. Just like random women must be doing something to get themselves raped, as opposed to the random women who don't get raped.

Yes, because a physical assault and rape are completely the same thing, carried out by the same people, and for the same reasons.

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Really, you're not comparing apples with apples.

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
What is the difference? They are both physical attacks where the main motivation is to assert power. Rape has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with violence.

All sorts of people are goaded into physical confrontations. Someone calls someone's wife a whore or shoves them in the middle of an argument and many - if not most - people will slug them that person in the face.

Most people, on the other hand, do not respond to a woman walking by in a lowcut dress with pushing her to the ground and raping her.

The difference is sometimes people completely deserved getting punched in the face, whereas never does anyone deserve getting raped. If you hang out with drug dealers or gangsters, gee, you might get assaulted. It doesn't make it right, but you share some culpability.

I agree. But in both my cases, as well as the time I was mugged, I was attacked, unprovoked, by complete surprise from behind by someone who I didn't even see.

Originally posted by Julian, faux celeb-porn CONNOISSEUR:

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
What is the difference? They are both physical attacks where the main motivation is to assert power. Rape has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with violence.

All sorts of people are goaded into physical confrontations. Someone calls someone's wife a whore or shoves them in the middle of an argument and many - if not most - people will slug them that person in the face.

Most people, on the other hand, do not respond to a woman walking by in a lowcut dress with pushing her to the ground and raping her.

The difference is sometimes people completely deserved getting punched in the face, whereas never does anyone deserve getting raped. If you hang out with drug dealers or gangsters, gee, you might get assaulted. It doesn't make it right, but you share some culpability.

heh… Rhett, years ago there was a letter to the Washington Post that became famous. It was by a guy who proudly said he always drove 55 miles an hour on the Beltway, even while in the left lane, because it was his right.

He went on to say that he had been rear ended several times, and that this proved how many bad drivers were out there.

You remind me of that guy. :)

rhett, shut the fuck up.

stop pretending people care about your life.

besides, nightclub bill is getting ticked off that you've hijacked his thread comparing a drunk altercation at a concert to a rape!

Originally posted by Bombay Chutney:

I don't know why you see something wrong with giving kids an outlet.

I'm generally on your side here, betty, but you make it sound like this is the ONLY outlet kids have. Like there's absolutely nothing else to do around here. As if it weren't for nightclubs, everybody under the age of 21 would be sitting at home all night every night. That argument doesn't really hold up well in a city like DC.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound that way. It's obviously not the only outlet for some kids, but it can definitely be a main outlet that some people really connect with. There are plenty of other things to do, and I wouldn't deny that. But there are also a lot of worse things that I could have done with myself than what I chose to spend my time doing.

Sometimes, for some people, there just isn't anything else that feels as good as connecting with music. This is one way of doing that. Sitting at home playing guitar is another way to do it. But for me, it's not the same.

They would have been fine if they had just stayed home and read a good book or did chores around the house.

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Sure, blame the victim. Just like random women must be doing something to get themselves raped, as opposed to the random women who don't get raped.

Why would you purposely choose the "lot of worse things"? There are plenty of things you could choose that are as equally constructive, equally entertaining, and equal in social opportunity. Why not choose those things?


You make it sound like the only two choices a teen has is to be part of the straightedge indie rock scene or get shitfaced every night of the week.

Why does your choosing a healthy way of life have to hinge on being part of a music scene?

And I'm not trying to be an asshole by asking, I'm simply curious.

Originally posted by you be betty:
There are plenty of other things to do, and I wouldn't deny that. But there are also a lot of worse things that I could have done with myself than what I chose to spend my time doing.

Take Rhett, as an example. He spent his teen years in leadership roles at his local 4-H chapter; where he received accolades for his prowess in animal husbandry and his special recipe for 'smores.

Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes,Japanese Golfer:
Why would you purposely choose the "lot of worse things"? There are plenty of things you could choose that are as equally constructive, equally entertaining, and equal in social opportunity. Why not choose those things?


You make it sound like the only two choices a teen has is to be part of the straightedge indie rock scene or get shitfaced every night of the week.

Why does your choosing a healthy way of life have to hinge on being part of a music scene?

And I'm not trying to be an asshole by asking, I'm simply curious.

Originally posted by you be betty:
There are plenty of other things to do, and I wouldn't deny that. But there are also a lot of worse things that I could have done with myself than what I chose to spend my time doing.

It doesn't. You don't think I do those other things, too? When I'm not working my ass off to get awesome grades in challenging classes, I tutor younger kids. I read A LOT (yes, outside of school). I go for walks every day. I photograph. I take art classes. I spend most of my saturdays of the year sewing. I eat dinner in stupid overpriced Bethesda restauraunts with my friends. I watch tv. I paint or sketch every day (outside of school and extra art classes, on my own time). I, too, go to parties and on occasion get shitfaced.

Oh, but you know what, I still like going to shows more than almost all of those things. There's nothing wrong with that, and there shouldn't be anything wrong with that.

It's another option. There is no point whatsoever in taking that away.

middle class upstate new york farmboy, meet rich spoiled dc suburbanite girl

now shake hands and make up already.

:roll:

I'm not spoiled.

Originally posted by you be betty:
I'm not spoiled.

sorry, privileged. ;)

Originally posted by you be betty:

It's another option. There is no point whatsoever in taking that away.

you are right. . .however, graham can't simply introduce a bill limiting the ability of kids to go to go-go clubs (even though I think those are supposed to be 18+, perhaps enforcing a law already on the books would be a better option, no?) and their like because that would be racist since it would single out a particular type of establishment that caters to a particular race, even though that's where the violence occurs. instead, he has to make the bill constitutional, and apply it evenly across everyone. we wouldn't want our government to do racial profiling, now would we?

So why don't they beef up security at ALL nightclubs and back the fuck off?


(Don't answer that. I know it costs money. I know people don't like spending money. But maybe this whole license thing should include some degree of mandatory security check, or something.)