Age?
20
Sex?
Female
What is your degree subject (both if joint)?
BA Hons English
Does ‘Being Bad’ relate well to the other modules you are taking? If so, how? And if not, why not?
Being Bad doesn’t really relate to any topics that I am covering for my English degree at the moment because the modules I am taking are Literature from Medieval to the 20th century, Myth and a language module. However it did help me in other aspects of my course as it really interested me and made me think about all sorts of behaviour, both deviant and conventional and ask questions about why certain things are viewed in different ways. I was also able to apply things learnt in my othwe modules to this one. The Blogs helped me develop my writing skills and develop ideas which helps me in my other modules.
Have you found ‘Being Bad’ too demanding, too easy, or at an appropriate level?
I found Being Bad to be at an appropriate level.
Do you think the list of topics covered on the module was appropriate?
I thought the topics covered were an excellent basis for us to think and apply the idea of being bad to other issues in life.
Are there any topics not included in the module that you would like to see included?
No, I thought the course was well thought out and applied. Not covering EVERY aspect of being bad gave us an opportunity to think about other topics for ourselves.
Do you think that the format for classes has worked well?
Yes
What did you think of the module team?
Excellent! Not having the same lecturer every week was helpful as each person has different views, it gave us a chance to interact with a variety of different people and consequently their views and beliefs.
Do you think it would have been better to have had more:
Small group discussions? No, we had every opportunity to discuss our views in lectures.
Discussion and debate among the class as a whole? Again I think our lecture group did debate quite well.
Information and talk from lecturers? No, lecturers provided an excellent basis for us to further their ideas and consequently make our own.
The approach taken in the module is interdisciplinary (drawing on perspectives from English Literature, Film Studies, Creative Writing, Philosophy, Religious Studies, Media Studies and Politics): do you think this a useful way of approaching the topics covered in the module? Do you think that interdisciplinary modules are a good idea?
Yes, it was useful as we gained knowledge not just from a literary point of view but from many others too. It helped broaden our horizons, ideas and views. I think that interdisciplinary modules are a very good idea and I believe I have benefited from this interdisciplinary approach taken in the module.
Would you like to see more modules that cover this kind of subject matter?
I can’t really see it working in the literary analysis aspects of my course. But it works well in this particular, elective course.
Are you planning to take the follow-up module PH2004 ‘It Shouldn’t Be Allowed’ at level 2?
Yes, I really hope it doesn’t clash with any of my other modules!
Would you recommend ‘Being Bad’ to a friend?
Definitely.
Do you think that the blogs (web logs) were a good idea?
Yes, they gave us a chance to debate with others outside of lecture and further our ideas on our own.
What did you think of the other assessments (e.g. would it be better to have one longer assessment rather than two shorter ones?)?
I liked having two short assessments as there wasn’t as much pressure to write a 600 word assignment like a 2,000 word one. Plus having to do two made us think about two topics in depth rather than just one.
What have you learned from the module?
That the government are more corrupt than I thought!
What parts of the module have you found most useful and why?
I found all of it interesting, it gave me an insight into various aspects of life I wouldn’t get a chance to study if this module didn’t run.
What parts do you think were a waste of time and why?
I didn’t find anything a waste of time. I looked forward to coming to lectures as I knew they would be both fun and interesting.
Are there any other comments you wish to make regarding ‘Being Bad’?
Thank you for making a module stimulating and informative!
Thursday 8 May 2008
Wednesday 7 May 2008
Lies!
The points discussed in lecture covered the idea that the ability to lie is a basic human defence mechanism and we lie everyday to protect ourselves or protect others. Surely if asked the question, would you rather be lied to or told the truth at all times? Most would pick the latter; I certainly think that I am old enough and ugly enough to be able to deal with the truth. Lies deceit and are dishonest. So if we all want to be told the truth but tell lies to protect others; isn’t that just another superiority complex? That we think we can deal with the truth but others can’t.
Go to: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020611070813.htm for an interesting study on how many lies an average person tells.
Go to: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020611070813.htm for an interesting study on how many lies an average person tells.
Saturday 3 May 2008
Hostel
I am not easily shocked, but watching the film Hostel both disgusted and shocked me immensely.
A group of young boys are lured into a hostel under the pretext that they will be able to get any girl that they desire. They are lured in by two attractive females who eventually drug them and take them to a warehouse where clients pay to kill people brought in. Watching someone get hacked to pieces for someone’s sadistic enjoyment was disgusting. Where is the pleasure in watching that? If I wanted to watch someone get brutally hurt and vomit on themselves I would actually be quite worried about my mental health. It completely fathoms me that someone can come up with such a sick and disgusting idea, let alone that they spend millions of dollars making it and millions of people watch it and enjoy it.
Surely this is "being bad," watching someone suffer immense pain at the hand of a sadistic torturer for fun?
Go to: www.hostelfilm.com/ for an inside view.
A group of young boys are lured into a hostel under the pretext that they will be able to get any girl that they desire. They are lured in by two attractive females who eventually drug them and take them to a warehouse where clients pay to kill people brought in. Watching someone get hacked to pieces for someone’s sadistic enjoyment was disgusting. Where is the pleasure in watching that? If I wanted to watch someone get brutally hurt and vomit on themselves I would actually be quite worried about my mental health. It completely fathoms me that someone can come up with such a sick and disgusting idea, let alone that they spend millions of dollars making it and millions of people watch it and enjoy it.
Surely this is "being bad," watching someone suffer immense pain at the hand of a sadistic torturer for fun?
Go to: www.hostelfilm.com/ for an inside view.
Thursday 1 May 2008
Preaching
Everybody is individual and consequently has different beliefs. Many people are religious; however I have not worked out my personal religious standpoint yet. I believe in something but nothing along the lines of organised religion. To me the Bible is a book created by men for their needs. Religion has been used throughout centuries to restrict and control. Religion such as Christianity has come a long way, most believers now pick and choose the parts which they think they should follow. For me, organised religion is a crutch for the reality. Many people turn to God in their hour of need and claim that he helped them through it. I cant say I have ever had an experience like this and this is perhaps why I have a problem believing in the idealised view of God. At rock bottom, the only person that can help you is yourself. Having a fantastic support system of family and friends, life is made that much easier to get up and face the world again.
I recognise that this is only my viewpoint, many others think very differently. This is completely acceptable to me but it bothers me when those firm believers tell me I am going to hell because I don’t believe. I don’t interfere in your views or beliefs so why do some religious people believe it is OK for them to judge me?
Preaching to me is unnecessary. I understand that they want an outlet to get people to listen but walking through the streets of Birmingham I don’t want to hear a man on a stand shouting about the views of the Bible. If someone from a cult such as the Peoples Temple got up there and started preaching a religious utopia, there would be uproar! So why is it OK for a Christian to do it? Because British history has told us it’s a superior view? What makes the Peoples Temple a cult and Christianity a religion?
I recognise that this is only my viewpoint, many others think very differently. This is completely acceptable to me but it bothers me when those firm believers tell me I am going to hell because I don’t believe. I don’t interfere in your views or beliefs so why do some religious people believe it is OK for them to judge me?
Preaching to me is unnecessary. I understand that they want an outlet to get people to listen but walking through the streets of Birmingham I don’t want to hear a man on a stand shouting about the views of the Bible. If someone from a cult such as the Peoples Temple got up there and started preaching a religious utopia, there would be uproar! So why is it OK for a Christian to do it? Because British history has told us it’s a superior view? What makes the Peoples Temple a cult and Christianity a religion?
For more information on the Peoples Temple go to: http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/
Tuesday 29 April 2008
Comment 5 - Graffiti
In response to:
“I think graffiti can sometimes be tasteful and shows how talented some people are when it is done in designated places made for that sort of thing, but this is not always the case. Just opposite the shop where I work, some very obnoxious people have put graffiti all over the window of another shop premises. It is really unsightly and VERY offensive. It stops people coming to shop in particular areas because it is so unsightly. I think it's really unfair to the owners and just costs more money to keep cleaning this mindless graffiti off! It gives the area a bad reputation and therefore affects the profit of shops. I think the bad graffiti I have seen constitutes very bad behaviour!”
http://naughty6.blogspot.com/
“I think graffiti can sometimes be tasteful and shows how talented some people are when it is done in designated places made for that sort of thing, but this is not always the case. Just opposite the shop where I work, some very obnoxious people have put graffiti all over the window of another shop premises. It is really unsightly and VERY offensive. It stops people coming to shop in particular areas because it is so unsightly. I think it's really unfair to the owners and just costs more money to keep cleaning this mindless graffiti off! It gives the area a bad reputation and therefore affects the profit of shops. I think the bad graffiti I have seen constitutes very bad behaviour!”
http://naughty6.blogspot.com/
My comment:
Graffiti, what do you think of when that word is used? Drawing
? Doodle? Perhaps even scrawl or scribble. To me, these four words mean very different things, drawings are illustrations, pictures. Doodles are those little drawings you don’t put much effort into, a quick sketch perhaps. Scrawl and scribble are illegible words scrawled over a piece of paper. Most people’s ideas of graffiti are just this; scribble!
However some graffiti artists are just that; artists! Without a place to hang their art in they turn to the streets, the walls. To brighten up their cities and show off their talent.
Like art, graffiti comes in different varieties, some an eyesore and some wonderful pictures to please the eye.
Graffiti, what do you think of when that word is used? Drawing
? Doodle? Perhaps even scrawl or scribble. To me, these four words mean very different things, drawings are illustrations, pictures. Doodles are those little drawings you don’t put much effort into, a quick sketch perhaps. Scrawl and scribble are illegible words scrawled over a piece of paper. Most people’s ideas of graffiti are just this; scribble!However some graffiti artists are just that; artists! Without a place to hang their art in they turn to the streets, the walls. To brighten up their cities and show off their talent.
Like art, graffiti comes in different varieties, some an eyesore and some wonderful pictures to please the eye.
Saturday 26 April 2008
Food
Thinking about what Western society accepts and what it doesn’t. My train of thought led me on to the issue of meat. We eat cows, pigs, chickens, ducks, rabbit, fish, turkeys and the more controversial horses. Some countries such as China eat cats and dogs. Yet to the majority of Western civilisation this is barbaric! We cannot eat meat like that of our pets. Yet cats and dogs were wild animals before we broke them into house pets. Caged them to the confines of our homes and fresh air only when we can be bothered to walk them or let them out to play. Don’t get me wrong, I love cats and dogs and they could not survive in the wild now that we have modified them and our world so much. It just saddens me that the human superiority complex seems to be at the detriment of anyone and everything that is deemed a lesser being than themselves.
Interestingly the word barbaric is Greek, originally meaning anyone who doesn’t speak Greek. It’s fascinating how civilisation changes words over time to fit the Western needs!
Interestingly the word barbaric is Greek, originally meaning anyone who doesn’t speak Greek. It’s fascinating how civilisation changes words over time to fit the Western needs!
Go to http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/213036_pets22.html for an remarkable view about a bill that would ban the slaughter of cats and dogs for food.
Friday 25 April 2008
Comment 4 - Suicide
In response to:
“I wondered at the beginning of this module, why suicide wasn't included as one of the topics. Like I've admitted before though, I do have a morbid curiosity -but I wasn't waiting for something tragic like this to happen before bringing the subject up in my blogs.
Suicide must be the ulitimate personal statement. I also have to admit that sometimes in my rather murky alcoholic past, it has been something that played on my mind quite a bit - as a way out of a situation I felt I had no control over. Alcoholism is a process of slow suicide in its own right, if you take it to the bitter end.
I digress though. The question in my mind isn't so much the 'why?' - but the 'how?' Not the mechanics of doing it, obviously, but how someone can feel so utterly at the point of no return, where they can actually go through with it. There are those that would say it's the coward's way out, but in my opinion, it's one of the most courageous things anyone can do. The act goes against a lot of peoples' beliefs and opens a whole debate on the rights and wrongs of it.
One train of thought is that life was given to us by God, and only he can take it away again. I'm not a religious person, and feel that our life is our own and it's up to each individual to make the decisions in their life that they feel are the right ones for them; whether that be from the most basic and trivial, right through to what is probably the most difficult - whether to take your own life or not - it does have a certain finality about it; once you've done it, you can't change your mind.
There's also the big question of what happens if it goes wrong? With some methods - such as hanging, a person could end up permanently brain damaged, and then they could have to live the rest of their lives powerless to do anything because they're trapped in a mind they have little or no control over - which to me would be worse than dying. Would that be seen by some as God's punishment for trying to take something that wasn't theirs to take in the first place? I'm sorry, but I can't see it that way.
Mark Speight - Telegraph”
http://stundreded.blogspot.com/
My comment:
I too do not understand the religious viewpoint on suicide. It is one of the fundaments of religion that I cannot seem to grasp. Christianity teaches us (the church itself and not the Bible) that any sin is forgiven, if only we repent, apart from suicide. So you can rape, torture or kill thousands of people and still be let into the kingdom of heaven if only you apologise. Yet if you’ve never harmed a hair on anyone else’s head, yet you take your own life, it's an eternity in hell for you.
However I don’t think that committing suicide is a courageous thing to do at all. Life is hard, it’s a struggle, its not easy, you have to fight for what you want. You have to work hard. You get knocked down and have to get up again repeatedly. But wouldn’t life be dull if it wasn’t a challenge? If happiness was handed to us on a plate, I’m sure we’d all get sick of eating it. Everybody has dark days when they wish they didn’t have to face the world. The courageous thing to do is get up and face it.
“I wondered at the beginning of this module, why suicide wasn't included as one of the topics. Like I've admitted before though, I do have a morbid curiosity -but I wasn't waiting for something tragic like this to happen before bringing the subject up in my blogs.
Suicide must be the ulitimate personal statement. I also have to admit that sometimes in my rather murky alcoholic past, it has been something that played on my mind quite a bit - as a way out of a situation I felt I had no control over. Alcoholism is a process of slow suicide in its own right, if you take it to the bitter end.
I digress though. The question in my mind isn't so much the 'why?' - but the 'how?' Not the mechanics of doing it, obviously, but how someone can feel so utterly at the point of no return, where they can actually go through with it. There are those that would say it's the coward's way out, but in my opinion, it's one of the most courageous things anyone can do. The act goes against a lot of peoples' beliefs and opens a whole debate on the rights and wrongs of it.
One train of thought is that life was given to us by God, and only he can take it away again. I'm not a religious person, and feel that our life is our own and it's up to each individual to make the decisions in their life that they feel are the right ones for them; whether that be from the most basic and trivial, right through to what is probably the most difficult - whether to take your own life or not - it does have a certain finality about it; once you've done it, you can't change your mind.
There's also the big question of what happens if it goes wrong? With some methods - such as hanging, a person could end up permanently brain damaged, and then they could have to live the rest of their lives powerless to do anything because they're trapped in a mind they have little or no control over - which to me would be worse than dying. Would that be seen by some as God's punishment for trying to take something that wasn't theirs to take in the first place? I'm sorry, but I can't see it that way.
Mark Speight - Telegraph”
http://stundreded.blogspot.com/
My comment:
I too do not understand the religious viewpoint on suicide. It is one of the fundaments of religion that I cannot seem to grasp. Christianity teaches us (the church itself and not the Bible) that any sin is forgiven, if only we repent, apart from suicide. So you can rape, torture or kill thousands of people and still be let into the kingdom of heaven if only you apologise. Yet if you’ve never harmed a hair on anyone else’s head, yet you take your own life, it's an eternity in hell for you.
However I don’t think that committing suicide is a courageous thing to do at all. Life is hard, it’s a struggle, its not easy, you have to fight for what you want. You have to work hard. You get knocked down and have to get up again repeatedly. But wouldn’t life be dull if it wasn’t a challenge? If happiness was handed to us on a plate, I’m sure we’d all get sick of eating it. Everybody has dark days when they wish they didn’t have to face the world. The courageous thing to do is get up and face it.
Thursday 24 April 2008
Wednesday 23 April 2008
Disco Biscuits
Learning about the history of LSD in lecture inspired me to do the same for Ecstasy. I stumbled upon an online book E for Ecstasy by Nicholas Saunders. To read the whole of it go to http://www.ecstasy.org/books/e4x/e4x.ch.03.html. It gives a good history of the founding of the drug and its integration into mainstream society.
The part that caught my attention was
The part that caught my attention was
“A deeply-embedded puritan ethic seems to affect the response to drugs in Western societies. To use a drug for pleasure is taboo(3), yet to use a drug to relieve pain is acceptable. In reality there is no sharp distinction: if someone is 'suffering from depression' and a drug makes him feel happy, it is regarded as a medicine and meets with approval. But if that person is regarded as normal and takes a drug that makes him happy, he is indulging in something quite unacceptable. Except, of course, if the drug happens to be nicotine or alcohol.(16)”
This embodies the exact thoughts on most peoples minds today. Why are drugs SO taboo, so “bad” when the most damaging drugs, alcohol and nicotine, that we don’t even consider to be drugs, are the most addictive, destroying things in society. How can one drug be a completely acceptable part of everyday life when others are condemned to be for those junkies who steal and murder to fix their habits? Stereotypical views of drugs come from somewhere, from those who are feeding us the facts; the government perhaps?
I believe that recreational drug use does no harm. It is only if recreational turns into dependence that it becomes a problem. But using this logic, isn’t smoking a problem? A massive problem? Drinking too. There are hundreds and thousands of people in this world that are hooked on smoking or drinking. Addicted to something that’s slowly rotting their bodies. So why is this not taboo but drugs are? Its extremely strange what society accepts and what it doesn’t!
I believe that recreational drug use does no harm. It is only if recreational turns into dependence that it becomes a problem. But using this logic, isn’t smoking a problem? A massive problem? Drinking too. There are hundreds and thousands of people in this world that are hooked on smoking or drinking. Addicted to something that’s slowly rotting their bodies. So why is this not taboo but drugs are? Its extremely strange what society accepts and what it doesn’t!
http://www.drugscope.org.uk/resources/drugsearch/drugsearchpages/ecstasy.htm
This website’s extremely good if you’ve ever had any questions about ecstasy. It explains that deaths aren’t as likely as thought by many. The ecstatic effect makes accidents more likely and most deaths have been connected with non stop dancing, overheating and exhaustion. Drinking too much water can damage your body too by causing swelling of the brain if drunk excessively.
Again, dependence on a drug is not a good thing. And used too often ecstasy can cause memory loss and lack of concentration….doesn’t alcohol too?
This website’s extremely good if you’ve ever had any questions about ecstasy. It explains that deaths aren’t as likely as thought by many. The ecstatic effect makes accidents more likely and most deaths have been connected with non stop dancing, overheating and exhaustion. Drinking too much water can damage your body too by causing swelling of the brain if drunk excessively.
Again, dependence on a drug is not a good thing. And used too often ecstasy can cause memory loss and lack of concentration….doesn’t alcohol too?
Tuesday 22 April 2008
Masturbation
Masturbation isn’t one of those topics that you can discuss in a wide variety of situations. Maybe you laugh about how much you use your vibrator with friends, and you’re partner knows you do it, but they don’t know every last detail! It’s usually confined to the locked bedroom door, with you and your hand!
However there is a surprising amount of songs that allude or directly talk about masturbation.
Such as A Perfect Circle: Thinking of You
However there is a surprising amount of songs that allude or directly talk about masturbation.
Such as A Perfect Circle: Thinking of You
Lying all alone and restless unable to lose this image
Sleepless, unable to focus on anything but your surrender
Tuggin' a rythm to the vision that's in my head
Tuggin a beat to the sight of you lying
So delighted with a new understanding
Something about a little evil that makes
that unmistakable noise I was hearing
Unmistakable sound I know so well
Spent and sighing with a look in your eyes
Spent and sweatin with a look on your face like
Sweet Revelation Sweet Surrender
surrender, surrender, surrender
Tuggin' a rythm to the vision that's in my head
Tuggin a beat to the sight of you lying
So delighted with a new understanding
Something about a little evil that makes
that unmistakable noise I was hearing
Unmistakeable sound I know so well
Spent and sighing with a look in your eyes
Spent and Sweatin'
With a look on your face like
Sweet revelation, Sweet surrendering
Sweet revelation, Sweet
Thinking of you, thinking of you
Thinking...
Sleepless, unable to focus on anything but your surrender
Tuggin' a rythm to the vision that's in my head
Tuggin a beat to the sight of you lying
So delighted with a new understanding
Something about a little evil that makes
that unmistakable noise I was hearing
Unmistakable sound I know so well
Spent and sighing with a look in your eyes
Spent and sweatin with a look on your face like
Sweet Revelation Sweet Surrender
surrender, surrender, surrender
Tuggin' a rythm to the vision that's in my head
Tuggin a beat to the sight of you lying
So delighted with a new understanding
Something about a little evil that makes
that unmistakable noise I was hearing
Unmistakeable sound I know so well
Spent and sighing with a look in your eyes
Spent and Sweatin'
With a look on your face like
Sweet revelation, Sweet surrendering
Sweet revelation, Sweet
Thinking of you, thinking of you
Thinking...
This song never uses the word masturbation but the line “tuggin a rhythm to the vision in my head” couldn’t be more plain to anyone with the notion of male anatomy!
Go to http://www.411mania.com/music/columns/49474 for a list of popular songs that allude to masturbation.
A well known myth from earlier decades like the 1950’s is that masturbating makes you go blind. This myth populated because mother’s did not want their little boys “doing that” or their husbands! It was thought to be vulgar and crude and even sex wasn’t to be enjoyed, it was for procreation! Interestingly Alice Cooper’s song I’m Your Gun incorporates this idea 
“It'll fog your little specs Til you think you're going blind.” This doesn’t seem to be a song about masturbation but more about sex. I just thought it interesting that this artist decided to include a pun about past ideas of masturbation.
“It'll fog your little specs Til you think you're going blind.” This doesn’t seem to be a song about masturbation but more about sex. I just thought it interesting that this artist decided to include a pun about past ideas of masturbation. Monday 21 April 2008
Bad comedians
When we talk about “bad comedians” we are referring to those comedians that use ethnic jokes or joke about people less fortunate than themselves. For example “Joe was so fat, when he stepped on the scale it said: to be continued.” If jokes like this were repeatedly aimed at someone in a school playground, or in the workplace, it would not be appropriate and the teller of the joke would be branded a bully. So why is it suddenly OK to demoralise people when these bullies get a stage and an audience?
It could be argued that comedians are just bullies, getting their confidence and thrills from putting other people down.
It could be argued that comedians are just bullies, getting their confidence and thrills from putting other people down.
Throughout my blogs I have raised the issue of superiority. People who act “badly” appear to have a superiority complex; that rules or morals don’t apply to them
as they feel that they are bigger, better, and cleverer than other people, or societies rules/norms. So turning on the TV and seeing a man put down black people and watching 100 people laugh at it on screen is just adding to the fuel of racism and justifying racists views. Or is the comedian mocking the view of the racist? Is it a satirical view of a racists stupidity and blind-sightedness? Who knows, it could be either one.
as they feel that they are bigger, better, and cleverer than other people, or societies rules/norms. So turning on the TV and seeing a man put down black people and watching 100 people laugh at it on screen is just adding to the fuel of racism and justifying racists views. Or is the comedian mocking the view of the racist? Is it a satirical view of a racists stupidity and blind-sightedness? Who knows, it could be either one.
Humour makes the world go around, without laughter we would all be miserable! But laughing at other people’s misfortunes is usually what makes us smile! Does someone slipping in a banana skin make you laugh? That’s someone’s misfortune! But there is a fine line between laughing at a fall, and mocking someone’s way of life because its seen as an inferior way of living.
There’s a fine line between what is an acceptable level of mocking someone’s faults and what is not! And it appears that if that person can laugh with you at their faults, it defiantly is acceptable. But its difficult not to cross the line.
Jimmy Carr is a so called “bad comedian” and he’s is hugely popular in society at the moment. Go to http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/jan/05/raceintheuk.bbc for an insight into the kind of jokes he has offended people by.
Friday 18 April 2008
Bad Cinema - KIDS
Larry Clarke’s movie KIDS centres around the life of a young teenager, Telly. This character’s life revolves around sex and his young age makes this quite unnerving to watch. He is not only obsessed with sex, but particularly sex with virgins. No strings attatched relationships, he shamelessly lulls young, virgingal, innocent girls into a false sense of security. Giving the impression that he will stay in a relationship with these girls he instead uses and abusses them and disguards them. Unfortunately this seems to be quite a fair representation of teenagers today. Whether they have copied behaviour from films or people like this, or whether they simple believe that treating people in this way is acceptable. The youth of today appear to have indifferent views about relationships. It seems that having notches on your bedpost is more important than having a loving environment in which to enjoy sex in.
The teenagers in the film use drugs, mainly canabis, ectasy and what appears to be ketamine or rohypnol in one of the final scenes. Regrettably, again this is not unexpected behaviour of teenagers today. Recreational drug use is very common in today’s society, whether people realise it or not. Kids experiment. Unfortunately the age that kids want to experiment with more “adult” or perhaps more dangerous things is getting younger. So I think that the film was quite a good representation of today’s society in that way. Unfortunately these kids don’t seem to have had any sex education as Teddy does not use protection. So not only are these girls unprotected against pregnancy, but both the girls and the boys are not protected from any STI’S, and it appears that protection is exactly what these kids need. Not only against HIV which Teddy and his “virgins” contract, but against this adult world of drug, drink and sex in general.
The very shocking scene of the movie showed rape. Which I don’t really see how it fitted into the film. Teddy having HIV was shocking enough, but one of the other characters raping Jenny while she slept was an extreme shock. I don’t know why the director, Larry Clark, thought it was integral, and the film ends on an ambiguous note with the character coming to his senses and asking the question “what have I done?” Perhaps Clark posed a wake up call to the entire of society. Get protected, use drugs responsibly, maybe even a wake up call to drug dealers to sell their drugs more responsibly i.e. not to children. Regrettably I don’t think many people would have seen it as much of a wake up call, definitely not the drug dealers! But I think it was a good informative film for those people in society that do not realise the gritty issues. Sadly this is the same reason why I think it’s an unpleasant film. Innocence is bliss!
The very shocking scene of the movie showed rape. Which I don’t really see how it fitted into the film. Teddy having HIV was shocking enough, but one of the other characters raping Jenny while she slept was an extreme shock. I don’t know why the director, Larry Clark, thought it was integral, and the film ends on an ambiguous note with the character coming to his senses and asking the question “what have I done?” Perhaps Clark posed a wake up call to the entire of society. Get protected, use drugs responsibly, maybe even a wake up call to drug dealers to sell their drugs more responsibly i.e. not to children. Regrettably I don’t think many people would have seen it as much of a wake up call, definitely not the drug dealers! But I think it was a good informative film for those people in society that do not realise the gritty issues. Sadly this is the same reason why I think it’s an unpleasant film. Innocence is bliss!
For more information Larry Clark and his view on the movie go to: http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,,2256529,00.html
Thursday 17 April 2008
Body Modification
There are many different reasons why people modify their bodies. For fashion, decoration, some people such as the Maoris inscribe their bodies with their life history, religious beliefs, rebellion, initiation, sexual purposes/feeling enhancement, and as a form of control in certain patriarchal societies where men control their wives and force them to be obedient. In widespread society, at least in the west, body modifications such as tattoos or piercings are considered “normal” fashion necessities.
There were many examples of body modification outlined in the lecture. The question posed to us at the end was what aspects do you find “wrong” and which do you find acceptable? I believe that any form of body modification that people can consent too under fair circumstance is acceptable. Chinese foot binding is not an acceptable form as the bandaging takes place when the girls are only children. It usually occurred between the ages of four and seven. This is “wrong” as children can not consent to life changing body alterations. And for me loving parents could not watch their child endure the pain of their foot flesh rotting away, oozing mucus and infection. Mine is obviously a western viewpoint as over one billion women had their feet bound before it became illegal in 1911. But I find it hard to understand why these women would do such a thing. Having the torturous process executed by their mothers, the children in turn, turn into their children’s torturers. All because Chinese men didn’t believe their women should have big feet? I think there is a more sinister reason behind breaking women’s feet. This patriarchal Chinese society inflicts these traditions upon their women to keep them obedient, submissive and dutiful. Rather like the Padaung tribe in Thailand. These women have a coil that forces the chin upwards and elongates the neck. The coils are added over a period of time so no pain is caused. These coils keep the women under check as their oppressive husbands can threaten them with the removal of their coils so they will consequently live a very weak life, perhaps even death as the neck muscles will be so weak without the support they cannot hold up their own heads. I believe everybody should have independence, and the threat of more severe, detrimental body modification over you, if you dare defy your society’s rules, to me is immoral. It astounds me that these women allow themselves to be dominated in this way, for a sense of a patriarchal view of fashion and beliefs.
For a personal account of the effects of foot binding and some more depth information go http://www.angelfire.com/ca/beekeeper/foot.html.
Friday 28 March 2008
Comment 3 - Infidelity
In response to:
"In the United Kingdom monogamy is the law of the land. People, independant of their status or wealth, are allowed by law to marry only one person. In other parts of the world such as South Africa and some parts of the Middle East polygamy is allowed by law. Infidelity is therefore a culturally bound concept.
Infidelity has always been more acceptably committed by males than females. Many well known male figures, such as royals and politicians have been known to have mistresses. A good example of a high status male having a mistress is that of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles. The list is however endless.
It only takes watching one show of Jeremy Kyle to find out that infidelity is just as prominent amongst most of society. This ITV website playing the 'catch-up' editions (http://www.itv.com/Lifestyle/jeremykyle/default.htm) have some prime examples of infidelity including:Friday 5th October 'Confess you're a cheat or I'll prove I'm the father of your eldest daughter' : Tuesday 2nd October 'I'll prove I didn't abort another man's baby - the results' amongst many others.
Monogamy in my opinion is a strange concept when we reduce our behaviour to our basic instinct which is to reproduce. Psychologists believe that it is in our nature to have several partners in order to make the most of our genes and produce the strongest, healthiest offspring. Monogamy therefore goes against our nature. Yet even though monogamy contradicts our whole nature people feel hurt and humiliated if their patner has been found to be unfaithful. Maybe this is due to modern day pressure to have the perfect home, with the 2.5 children, the perfect husband and the perfect wife. Maybe it's due to the unrealistic love stories constantly bombarding us from every single film we watch.
Infidelity has become a more open concept in modern society. This may be due to the increased ways in which people looking for other relationships can meet. One contreversial website openly offers married people the oppportunity to have an affair. (http://www.illicitencounters.com/?gclid=CIaJ79ichZICFQUWuwodH2jK2Q).
I'm not sure whether I see infidelity as a bad thing or just people following their natural instincts." http://beingbadjess02.blogspot.com/
My comment:
Do you not think that humans have evolved far beyond primal instincts? I find your comments interesting, and do agree with people, like psychologists, that it is in our nature to produce healthy, strong offspring. Having several partners obviously helps you change and develop and you can find the man that you believe will help you produce said offspring. However how does cheating on someone produce this? I do not feel that people are hurt and humiliated when their partner has been unfaithful due to modern day pressure to produce the perfect 2.5children. People are hurt and humiliated because they have been betrayed by the one that they loved and trusted. Monogamy is in our nature. it’s a basic, unspoken rule that exists among humans. When you love and trust someone you do not expect to be deceived, betrayed or mislead. You expect equality, love, affection and faithfulness and truthfulness. Love stories we watch on TV aren’t unrealistic, they just haven’t finished yet. We see the romantic parts, not the fights. But all relationships, even friendships come with both the good and the bad. Love isn’t unrealistic, it’s a feeling. You can’t cheat love, and I don’t believe you can cheat on your love. If someone cheated on you could you really put it down to their primal instinct and forget it? Or would your natural instinct to feel angry, cry, blame, hurt, lash out or hate take over?
"In the United Kingdom monogamy is the law of the land. People, independant of their status or wealth, are allowed by law to marry only one person. In other parts of the world such as South Africa and some parts of the Middle East polygamy is allowed by law. Infidelity is therefore a culturally bound concept.
Infidelity has always been more acceptably committed by males than females. Many well known male figures, such as royals and politicians have been known to have mistresses. A good example of a high status male having a mistress is that of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles. The list is however endless.
It only takes watching one show of Jeremy Kyle to find out that infidelity is just as prominent amongst most of society. This ITV website playing the 'catch-up' editions (http://www.itv.com/Lifestyle/jeremykyle/default.htm) have some prime examples of infidelity including:Friday 5th October 'Confess you're a cheat or I'll prove I'm the father of your eldest daughter' : Tuesday 2nd October 'I'll prove I didn't abort another man's baby - the results' amongst many others.
Monogamy in my opinion is a strange concept when we reduce our behaviour to our basic instinct which is to reproduce. Psychologists believe that it is in our nature to have several partners in order to make the most of our genes and produce the strongest, healthiest offspring. Monogamy therefore goes against our nature. Yet even though monogamy contradicts our whole nature people feel hurt and humiliated if their patner has been found to be unfaithful. Maybe this is due to modern day pressure to have the perfect home, with the 2.5 children, the perfect husband and the perfect wife. Maybe it's due to the unrealistic love stories constantly bombarding us from every single film we watch.
Infidelity has become a more open concept in modern society. This may be due to the increased ways in which people looking for other relationships can meet. One contreversial website openly offers married people the oppportunity to have an affair. (http://www.illicitencounters.com/?gclid=CIaJ79ichZICFQUWuwodH2jK2Q).
I'm not sure whether I see infidelity as a bad thing or just people following their natural instincts." http://beingbadjess02.blogspot.com/
My comment:
Do you not think that humans have evolved far beyond primal instincts? I find your comments interesting, and do agree with people, like psychologists, that it is in our nature to produce healthy, strong offspring. Having several partners obviously helps you change and develop and you can find the man that you believe will help you produce said offspring. However how does cheating on someone produce this? I do not feel that people are hurt and humiliated when their partner has been unfaithful due to modern day pressure to produce the perfect 2.5children. People are hurt and humiliated because they have been betrayed by the one that they loved and trusted. Monogamy is in our nature. it’s a basic, unspoken rule that exists among humans. When you love and trust someone you do not expect to be deceived, betrayed or mislead. You expect equality, love, affection and faithfulness and truthfulness. Love stories we watch on TV aren’t unrealistic, they just haven’t finished yet. We see the romantic parts, not the fights. But all relationships, even friendships come with both the good and the bad. Love isn’t unrealistic, it’s a feeling. You can’t cheat love, and I don’t believe you can cheat on your love. If someone cheated on you could you really put it down to their primal instinct and forget it? Or would your natural instinct to feel angry, cry, blame, hurt, lash out or hate take over?
Thursday 27 March 2008
Litter
The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act enforces fines from £50 to £80 for people who litter. It also requires occupiers to clear their land of litter, stop people handing out flyers and leaflets in designated areas and fine shops selling take-away food if they refuse to clear up litter outside their premises. For more information go to http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_10035330.
But people still litter! Why? It’s devastatingly bad for the environment with an ever increasing landfill we are creating. Pretty soon it’s going to be that high we’ll be able make trips to the moon without the rocket!
So the only explanation I can fathom for people littering is that they don’t care or they think that disobeying standard societies rules is “being bad” or deviant. It’s their way of saying that rules don’t apply to them, they’re too superior to bother with insignificant things like bins. Someone else will pick it up. In fact, the council does employ people to pick up after litter bugs but they are very rarely seen. At least around Birmingham, and I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but everywhere I look all I see is rubbish polluting the streets. Birmingham’s grey enough. Why do lazy people have to make it worse by piling junk everywhere? Can’t an apathetic nation even take pride in its appearance?
But people still litter! Why? It’s devastatingly bad for the environment with an ever increasing landfill we are creating. Pretty soon it’s going to be that high we’ll be able make trips to the moon without the rocket!
So the only explanation I can fathom for people littering is that they don’t care or they think that disobeying standard societies rules is “being bad” or deviant. It’s their way of saying that rules don’t apply to them, they’re too superior to bother with insignificant things like bins. Someone else will pick it up. In fact, the council does employ people to pick up after litter bugs but they are very rarely seen. At least around Birmingham, and I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but everywhere I look all I see is rubbish polluting the streets. Birmingham’s grey enough. Why do lazy people have to make it worse by piling junk everywhere? Can’t an apathetic nation even take pride in its appearance?
Saturday 15 March 2008
Bandits
Banditry can be another form of theft. The abuse of someone, by stealing their personal effects, to gain what you need. You can argue that for people on the same social economic level it is wrong for them to steal from each other, but is it alright for the poor to steal from the abundantly rich? Morally it is wrong. Even if the poor are starving and steal a piece of bread to eat, or some money to feed themselves with. Stealing is ethically wrong. However it appears that it is not frowned upon for the poor to steal from the rich. Throughout history there have been famous outlaws that have been hailed as heroes for this very deed. Robin Hood being one such character. The story of Robin Hood emerged in the 9th century in which the poor were the property of the rich. They had no freedom or rights and longed for justice and liberty. Robin Hood stole from the oppressive, controlling land owners and masters to provide food for the poor. In today’s society we probably view this as acceptable behaviour as history tells us that rich land owners starved and controlled their workers very harshly. If you were not rich in this time, you were dirt poor. There was no in-between class. If you did not have money, you were owned by somebody that did. Or you were a rebel that had to steal to survive. As people of the 21st century, being owned by someone is not something that we can fathom as we were born with freedom of choice. So if the only way to escape the cruel, strict bonds of oppression for these people was to steal from their oppressors. We can understand that, not as right but perhaps as a necessary evil.
Today’s society is a world apart from the days of Robin Hood. The rich are not the working classes tormentors anymore and classes have changed drastically. The word poor itself has taken on a whole new meaning. The “poor” of today are helped by the government, given housing, money, freedom and help to better their situations. Not everybody is handed out money or their own shelter. There is a sad reality that there are an estimated 100 million people in the world that are homeless. But these people are not homeless due to the act of a cruel persecutor, but unfortunate circumstances and a lack of housing.
However the rich are not obligated to look after anyone but their family anymore. It’s a dog eat dog world and it’s everyone for themselves. Therefore if the poor stole from the rich in today’s world, I do not think it would be acceptable.
Bandits are often seen as lovable rouges rather than dangerous villains due to the depiction of people like Robin Hood. If we met a liberator of people like Robin Hood in a dark alley we would not recoil in fear. Whereas if we met a hardened criminal we would turn and run. People perhaps see people like Bonnie and Clyde as bandits too. Its fun to watch people rebel against society’s rules and steal from profitable businesses that aren’t going to miss a few pieces of stock. Its interesting and comical to follow the news and see if they’ve been caught yet. This is due to ignorance. If you were caught in their line of fire. Shot or hurt because you refused to hand over your prided possessions. You would not see them as fun loving criminals then but abusive, intrusive creatures of immorality.
Interestingly Guy Fawkes is one of Britain’s lovable rogues in today’s society. He’s famous for plotting to blow up the monarchy and Parliament. Why do we have a fascination with turning past criminals into hailed individuals? Is it time that makes us forgive and forget?
Friday 14 March 2008
Comment 2 - Smoking
In response to:
“Everyone has a choice to smoke or not to smoke!Whether you started through peer pressure or just fancied a fag, it is your body you are damaging. Smoking is bad behaviour to your body. It can cause horrendous internal damage, leading to cancer and also external effects on your appearance for example: dry skin, rotting teeth, yellow fingers, smelly breath plus many more.
But why with so many health warnings why do people still choose to smoke? One answer is because they are addicted and like any addiction the way to giving up is never easy.Taking into account the continuous showing of characters and actors in films and TV smoking, they do so by ‘glamorising’ it. It adds to the theme, either being sexual or in many gangster films a sign of masculinity and toughness. With these images being portrayed as ‘normal’ behaviour to people on screen do smokers pay less attention to the health warnings? Is the viewing audience tempted in any way in trying a cigarette because it looks so attractive? I feel that young viewer's are tempted by the way it is shown and feel that they are more likely to try it when exposed to certain images from TV or Film.”
http://r3615.blogspot.com/
My comment:
Isn’t that the question on every none smokers lips; “with so many health warnings why do people still make the decision to smoke?”
I am a none smoker and have been all my life. My parents smoked when I was a child and so did most of my family, so consequently, according to your argument, I was brought up to believe that smoking was “normal.” I have never felt the urge to smoke, or even attempt it. From a young age the health warnings always struck a cord with me and I tried (in vain) to get my smoking family to stop.
I can see the sexual allure of smoking, watching someone’s long, lean hands reach up to their plump, red, parted lips to take a drag. Yet the effects of yellow teeth, bad breath and serious health problems largely out way the sexual magnetism for me. A lollipop works just as well!
I think young viewers would perhaps think the same way if given the right education. But maybe todays society's idea of rebelling or “being bad” does not have too wide a scope, and young impressionable minds perhaps see smoking as a way to not conform?
“Everyone has a choice to smoke or not to smoke!Whether you started through peer pressure or just fancied a fag, it is your body you are damaging. Smoking is bad behaviour to your body. It can cause horrendous internal damage, leading to cancer and also external effects on your appearance for example: dry skin, rotting teeth, yellow fingers, smelly breath plus many more.
But why with so many health warnings why do people still choose to smoke? One answer is because they are addicted and like any addiction the way to giving up is never easy.Taking into account the continuous showing of characters and actors in films and TV smoking, they do so by ‘glamorising’ it. It adds to the theme, either being sexual or in many gangster films a sign of masculinity and toughness. With these images being portrayed as ‘normal’ behaviour to people on screen do smokers pay less attention to the health warnings? Is the viewing audience tempted in any way in trying a cigarette because it looks so attractive? I feel that young viewer's are tempted by the way it is shown and feel that they are more likely to try it when exposed to certain images from TV or Film.”
http://r3615.blogspot.com/
My comment:
Isn’t that the question on every none smokers lips; “with so many health warnings why do people still make the decision to smoke?”
I am a none smoker and have been all my life. My parents smoked when I was a child and so did most of my family, so consequently, according to your argument, I was brought up to believe that smoking was “normal.” I have never felt the urge to smoke, or even attempt it. From a young age the health warnings always struck a cord with me and I tried (in vain) to get my smoking family to stop.
I can see the sexual allure of smoking, watching someone’s long, lean hands reach up to their plump, red, parted lips to take a drag. Yet the effects of yellow teeth, bad breath and serious health problems largely out way the sexual magnetism for me. A lollipop works just as well!
I think young viewers would perhaps think the same way if given the right education. But maybe todays society's idea of rebelling or “being bad” does not have too wide a scope, and young impressionable minds perhaps see smoking as a way to not conform?
Thursday 13 March 2008
Speeding
Being “bad” gives you a sense of power. A thrill, a sense of exhilaration and excitement that you are not conforming to what the masses are saying is the norm, the rules, the law.
Like all rules or laws, they are put in place for a reason. Speeding is against the law. Why?
In 2006/07 there were 5,615 road traffic collisions that resulted in injuries. 9,232 of these injuries were casualties, just under 11% of them were children under 16. The most common cause of injury collisions was inattention (977 collisions) with excessive speeding having 612 collisions.
Travelling at 30mph the stopping distance is 23m 75ft which is roughly equivalent to 6 cars. Travelling at 40mph the distance to stop is an extra 13m at 36m 120ft so roughly about 10 cars! For 10mph that is quite a difference. So if a child runs out in front of your car when you’re doing 30mph you may have a chance at missing them, but if your doing 40 there’s a much slimmer chance! If you’re doing 70mph you probably wont even see the child until you feel a bump on your windscreen. At 70mph it takes 96m 315ft to stop and that’s the length of 26 cars.
Why do people find it so difficult to stick to the speed limit?
Do speeders think that they’re bigger, better and cleverer than the rest of society? That someone wont step out in front of their car. They they’re such good drivers they can navigate through built up areas full of houses, shops and people at 50mph and not cause any damage?
Why does this sense of “being bad" appeal to so many even though the consequences are so terrible? Speeding fines, points on your license, a tarred record, higher insurance premiums, the guilt of injuring someone from speeding on your conscience, the fear of driving again after an accident, perhaps even the guilt of someone’s death to bear. None of these are things we want. So why are we still speeding?
Take a look at the “injury road traffic collisions and casualties report 2007” for some more information and some informative graphs on speeding and road collisions. All statistics were taken from this site also. http://www.psni.police.uk/5._injury_road_traffic_collisions_and_casualties.pdf
Like all rules or laws, they are put in place for a reason. Speeding is against the law. Why?
In 2006/07 there were 5,615 road traffic collisions that resulted in injuries. 9,232 of these injuries were casualties, just under 11% of them were children under 16. The most common cause of injury collisions was inattention (977 collisions) with excessive speeding having 612 collisions.
Travelling at 30mph the stopping distance is 23m 75ft which is roughly equivalent to 6 cars. Travelling at 40mph the distance to stop is an extra 13m at 36m 120ft so roughly about 10 cars! For 10mph that is quite a difference. So if a child runs out in front of your car when you’re doing 30mph you may have a chance at missing them, but if your doing 40 there’s a much slimmer chance! If you’re doing 70mph you probably wont even see the child until you feel a bump on your windscreen. At 70mph it takes 96m 315ft to stop and that’s the length of 26 cars.
Why do people find it so difficult to stick to the speed limit?
Do speeders think that they’re bigger, better and cleverer than the rest of society? That someone wont step out in front of their car. They they’re such good drivers they can navigate through built up areas full of houses, shops and people at 50mph and not cause any damage?
Why does this sense of “being bad" appeal to so many even though the consequences are so terrible? Speeding fines, points on your license, a tarred record, higher insurance premiums, the guilt of injuring someone from speeding on your conscience, the fear of driving again after an accident, perhaps even the guilt of someone’s death to bear. None of these are things we want. So why are we still speeding?
Take a look at the “injury road traffic collisions and casualties report 2007” for some more information and some informative graphs on speeding and road collisions. All statistics were taken from this site also. http://www.psni.police.uk/5._injury_road_traffic_collisions_and_casualties.pdf
Tuesday 11 March 2008
Cheating
Why do people cheat? Infidelity is a very common practice in today’s society. The world is much larger than it used to be, populated by millions of people. Therefore there is a wider choice of people as prospective partners. Perhaps because there are so many of us we begin to see people as disposable. It’s the human condition to make mistakes, but if we view people as things we can get rid of and simply get another, our behaviour lacks conscience or scruples and consequently guilt.
Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU3WH55igxY
Watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU3WH55igxY
When is the moment of infidelity for you? Is it…..
Flirting?
Feeling strong emotions for another person other than your partner?
Watching your partner kiss a member of the same sex for fun?
Holding hands?
Kissing?
Sex?
Another relationship?
For me flirting is harmless as long as it goes no further. We’re all human and harmless fun doesn’t hurt anyone. If my partner had strong feelings for someone other than me I would feel hurt and in a sense betrayed. However if these feelings didn’t progress any further I would forgive and forget as long as those feelings did not interfere in our relationship. Kissing for me is the first step of cheating. I believe if you can go as far as to put your feelings into physical contact there is no turning back. If you want any form of physical contact other than which you receive from your partner, you are dissatisfied with what your partner is providing and are willing to be unfaithful to acquire it.
Monday 10 March 2008
Comment 1 - KIDS
In reply to:
"OH MY DAYSthat film was terrible it should not of been able to come out on dvd never mind cinema!That fil is an out rage i felt like walking out at the begging but i thought id give it the benefit of the doubt i shuld of gone with my feeling!I CAN'T BELIEVE ANYBODY HAS MADE A FILM ABOUT THAT!!That person has got a perverted mind in my opinion!What do you think?????" http://beingbad19.blogspot.com/
My comment:
I find it quite interesting that you feel that outraged at watching the movie KIDS. I think that the film was relatively shocking as children as young as fourteen or fifteen had already contracted HIV. However I believe that I only found this shocking as HIV is not very common in the Western world anymore. Whereas in 1995 it was a more common and controversial topic. However I do believe that the film shows today’s society exceedingly accurately, drug abuse, rape, underage sex and violence are paramount problems in society today. Day’s like the one portrayed in the film happen on a day to day basis. In the real world days like this are common.
The period of childhood is becoming shorter and shorter which is very unnerving and intimidating. Would you be comfortable with your eleven year old child behaving and conducting themselves as you? I would find that extremely unsettling. It would be interesting to try and pinpoint why children today do not want to be children. Is it to fit in? But who are they fitting in with, the adults? Surely the adults do not want children to “fit in” to the mature world of harsh realities and responsibilities, but to enjoy and take pleasure in their time of freedom. So where does this warped sense of maturity stem from?
Did you find it shocking because it is a common occurrence or perhaps because someone dared to make a harsh reality into a picture? Most of us are aware of these issues but have never seen it with our own eyes. Did you not like it because it made you uncomfortable to watch it?
"OH MY DAYSthat film was terrible it should not of been able to come out on dvd never mind cinema!That fil is an out rage i felt like walking out at the begging but i thought id give it the benefit of the doubt i shuld of gone with my feeling!I CAN'T BELIEVE ANYBODY HAS MADE A FILM ABOUT THAT!!That person has got a perverted mind in my opinion!What do you think?????" http://beingbad19.blogspot.com/
My comment:
I find it quite interesting that you feel that outraged at watching the movie KIDS. I think that the film was relatively shocking as children as young as fourteen or fifteen had already contracted HIV. However I believe that I only found this shocking as HIV is not very common in the Western world anymore. Whereas in 1995 it was a more common and controversial topic. However I do believe that the film shows today’s society exceedingly accurately, drug abuse, rape, underage sex and violence are paramount problems in society today. Day’s like the one portrayed in the film happen on a day to day basis. In the real world days like this are common.
The period of childhood is becoming shorter and shorter which is very unnerving and intimidating. Would you be comfortable with your eleven year old child behaving and conducting themselves as you? I would find that extremely unsettling. It would be interesting to try and pinpoint why children today do not want to be children. Is it to fit in? But who are they fitting in with, the adults? Surely the adults do not want children to “fit in” to the mature world of harsh realities and responsibilities, but to enjoy and take pleasure in their time of freedom. So where does this warped sense of maturity stem from?
Did you find it shocking because it is a common occurrence or perhaps because someone dared to make a harsh reality into a picture? Most of us are aware of these issues but have never seen it with our own eyes. Did you not like it because it made you uncomfortable to watch it?
Friday 29 February 2008
Smoking
Many people consider smoking to be sexy. It’s used in many films to demonstrate sexual prowess and “bad” behaviour. Particularly in 1950’s films smoking was used to symbolise sex. As no explicit sexual content was allowed in films, two aflame cigarettes would burn away in an ashtray. The cigarettes representing the couple and the ashtray their bed. The language used to talk about smoking sounds pretty sexy too; hot, ablaze, fiery, flaming.
Your lips are a very sensual, sexual part of your body. The fact that this is the instrument that you use to smoke has everything to do with its sexual connotations. If it was not our lips but another part of our body that we used to smoke, would it still be sexy?
Your lips are a very sensual, sexual part of your body. The fact that this is the instrument that you use to smoke has everything to do with its sexual connotations. If it was not our lips but another part of our body that we used to smoke, would it still be sexy?
Watch this; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dn50mTEGnrU
So this is what smoking does to you. Pretty powerful imagery do you not agree? Twenty six per cent of men and twenty three per cent of women smoke today in Britain. That’s almost half of our population polluting not only their bodies, but non smokers bodies too.
- Every year 120,000 smokers die in the UK as result of their habit
- Smoking kills around six times more people in the UK than road traffic accidents
- Smoking increases the level of breast ptosis (sagging), as it breaks down a skin protein called elastin, which gives youthful skin its elastic appearance and supports the breasts.
- By 2020, smoking will kill more people than AIDS, tuberculosis, maternal mortality, car accidents, suicides and murder.
Do you still find smoking sexy?
All statistics taken from
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Smoking-Can-Destroy-Your-Boobs-78407.shtml
Thursday 21 February 2008
Bad places to vist!
In regards to going on a module field trip to a suitably bad place or event.....
We should all go get tattoos! Or not :)
We should go to the cinema so we can watch a film that involves aspects of infidelity/smoking/masturbation/bandits/drugs that are all relevant to our lecture material and "being bad"
"The Bank Job" contains issues about theft, murder, government conspiracy and a sex scandal relating to the Royal family. It is based on a true robbery from the 1970's and would raise many issues of "being bad" for us to discuss.
Another "Rambo" film is also being released at cinemas soon. Rambo is branded as a "justice" killer. But is is ever ethical or just to kill?
We should all go get tattoos! Or not :)
We should go to the cinema so we can watch a film that involves aspects of infidelity/smoking/masturbation/bandits/drugs that are all relevant to our lecture material and "being bad"
"The Bank Job" contains issues about theft, murder, government conspiracy and a sex scandal relating to the Royal family. It is based on a true robbery from the 1970's and would raise many issues of "being bad" for us to discuss.
Another "Rambo" film is also being released at cinemas soon. Rambo is branded as a "justice" killer. But is is ever ethical or just to kill?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)