reading list

It is torrid today in London, my dearios.

And I have booked myself to go to an in-person seminar at the Institution With Which I Have The Honour to Be Associated later this afternoon, o joy.

Somebody is presenting on a couple of fairly obscure early C20th progressives/sexologists whom I have also done a spot of work on, so feel a bit obliged to turn up.

Also, it is the time for applying for renewal of fellowship, so showing one's face about the place may be A Good Idea.

In other news I have actually managed to acquire an in-person GP appointment apropos of the knee issue for next week at a reasonable sort of time of day, after only a day and a bit of keeping going back to the practice site....

I may just possibly have fulminated heretofore about the assumption that a woman over 35 is But A Barren Stock and her fertility has fallen off a cliff and She Should Have Frozen Her Eggs while there was still time -

- and this may be a factor of age and reading certain novels at an impressionable age not to mention being a historian with interest in that area -

- but honestly, is the existence of The Menopausal Baby - You're Not Having The Change, Duckie, You're Preggers! - unknown to the present generation?

I will state, for information, that my sources in organisations such as BPAS indicate that a significant % of their custom comes from women who believed that their ovaries had shrivelled up and they no longer needed to employ contraception, and WHOOPS.

Misinformation about perimenopause on social media ‘putting women at risk’: Dangers include unintended pregnancies, taking unnecessary medication and missed diagnoses, say experts

(Okay, maybe there's some kind of pendulum thing going on here, from No-One is Talking About The Menopause to Everything is Attributed to the Peri/Menopause once a woman is over a certain age?)

Briggs said misinformation around perimenopause is concerning.
“I look at things like Instagram to see what they are exposed to and I am horrified,” she said, citing examples of women in their 30s being told to demand HRT if they are unable to sleep or are struggling with migraines – and to switch GPs if denied. Or women being told they should seek testosterone treatment.
“I’m not anti any of these things in the right person, but females produce their own testosterone lifelong, even women without ovaries, so the idea that everybody has to demand testosterone is bonkers,” Briggs said.
Dr Channa Jayasena, an expert in reproductive endocrinology at Imperial College London, also raised concerns.
“It’s great that there’s better [public] awareness [about perimenopause]. And I think many doctors are completely unaware about how debilitating the symptoms of perimenopause can be,” he said. “But the flipside of that, I think there’s a risk that some women are being mislabelled as having perimenopause when they have other things that are wrong.”

I am very much inclined to think that the President of the British Menopause Society knows whereof she peaks:

[T]here is a perception that any symptom affecting women between the ages of 40 and 60 is due to perimenopause or menopause and that HRT is required.
“I think HRT is completely wonderful,” Rymer said. But, she added, “it’s not for women who don’t need it,” noting that in such situations it can cause heavy bleeding.

This week's bread: a loaf of Marriage's Organic Country Fayre Malted Brown Bread Flour, v nice.

Friday night supper: ven pongal (S Indian khichchari).

Saturday breakfast rolls: Tassajarra method, 50/50% white/wholemeal spelt flour. molasses, raisins: turned out rather well.

Today's lunch: a sort-of cassoulet thing, with the other half-pack of pancetta, Belazu Judion Butter Beans, garlic, onion, bay leaves, 5-pepper blend, panko breadcrumbs, worked pretty well; served with buttered spinach and chicory quartered, healthy-grilled in pumpkin seed oil and drizzled with lime and lemongrass balsamic vinegar.

Anyway, I was dipping in again to the Violet Hunt Tales of the Uneasy and in 'The Operation' there is the backstory where a man's first wife -

had smoothed and made easy the path of divorce for the man she loved.... full of zeal to give him his freedom. It was hardly human, so the woman who had profited by her action thought, and certainly not very womanly. Florence could not imagine herself allowing a cold business-like lawyer to dictate her a letter bidding Joe come back to her herewith; a summons intended, of course, for ultimate publication. It disgusted Florence, this horrible business of sueing for restitution of conjugal rights!

This was the cleanest way a woman could get quit of a husband pre 1923 - he had of course to be adulterous (or appear to have been) and refusing to restitute conjugal rights counted as desertion.

Otherwise she had to prove cruelty (which could include knowing infection with a loathsome disease) or that he was guilty of a sexual crime (rape, sodomy, incest....).

But in a situation where the man had, presumably, already run off with Another Woman, having to go through that legal rigmarole of asking him to come back so that he could refuse and be legally deserting does strike one as a very chagrining procedure.

To clarify: what we did yesterday was the secular and bureaucratic equivalent of calling the banns.

This has to be done some while before the actual ceremony (although one has to present evidence that this is booked): presumably to allow time for the sibling of the mad previous partner one is keeping confined in the attic to travel from the Caribbean and burst in to interrupt it.

But many thanks for the congratulations!

Or that's what it feels like, over the last just over a week.

There was going to the solicitors to sign our wills.

There was going over to coughingbear and hano's for a get-together (very nice to see people!)

There was deciding that maybe a knee support would be advantageous for the knee which has been being bit wonky of late so I ordered one Click and Collect from the local Argos. And it does seem to ameliorate the situation somewhat though I think I probably need to set about making a GP appointment about it, since it has not gone away in a few days as I hoped it would.

In other health matters have been being mildly hassled by my dental practice about booking a hygienist appointment, which, when I got round to, found they could not actually fit me in for for the next 4 weeks.

There was going to Book Launch for work by a long-term acquaintance in academic field, at rather elite venue in The City, a bit of a faff to get to, though part of that might have been getting off the bus at the wrong stop, though building works occluding street names did not help. Very few people I knew apart from Author, who was besieged by people wanting her to sign copies of The Book, but had nice chat with an editor who knew somewhat of My Earlier Work.

Yesterday I flopped at home apart from attending an online seminar (actually a substitution offered for the one I'd booked for last week which was cancelled, felt it would be civil to attend).

Today we boogeyed on down to the Register Office to Register Our Intention of Civil Partnership, at which they interrogate one not only about previous marriages etc but endeavour to ascertain whether one is Under Duress.

Queer Non-Monogamy in Edwardian London.

Author of article does point out that this is happening among people with huge amounts of privilege and possibilities of discretion:

[I]t is certainly easy to romanticise the traditions of lavender marriages and queer non-monogamy that were so prevalent in the London arts scene during the Belle Epoch. However, to over-simplify the past in this way would be to overlook the many tensions that existed between queer couples, as well as the growing interest in alternative relationship structures within heterosexual participants in this scene. Most importantly, however, it would be a failure not to take into consideration the considerable inequalities that allowed the rich and the powerful to live by a double-standard of sexual propriety. Provided they avoided relationships that troubled other structures like class and race, this group remained free from the expected social and legal repercussions of queer sex in the early twentieth century.

Does she not realise quite how much This Sort of Thing - negotiating the boundaries of marriages that were made for various reasons of status, money, and politics, to accommodate other relationships - had been going on For A Very Long Time, and has she not seen that movie about the Duchess of Devonshire in the late C18th? (Which included sapphic dalliance.)

Will concede (she concedes) that a) Lords Strachan and Warwick did not seem on-board with their Ladies' sapphic dalliance (see icon), though the issue there does seem to have been they had not been sufficiently Pas Devant the wrong kind of people who would gossip and go away to make satirical prints sold in Piccadilly and b) the whole thing probably got even more discreet in the Victorian era, though when one considers Edward the Caresser's set, did it do so by very much?

I once, in fact, I think, put forward an argument that Bertrand Russell, e.g., in his arguments for free love, was proposing to democratise a way of life his family had been practising for generations.