Responses

Claire – Bullying - http://clairemcareebeingbad.blogspot.com/2010/03/those-who-can-do-those-who-cant-bully.html Your blog was just heart breaking! I honestly want to go back in time and save you from bullies who, well, just didn’t know what they were saying. Bullying is something that affected me too during school, and as you said something that stay with you forever. Mine was mainly about my teeth and the way I talked which has made me overly self conscious of these now, even after braces! However, I’m not sure it’s the same for you, but I found as I progressed up the educational system this sort of behaviour ceased. Whether that comes with age / maturity or just when you reach college and university the people there are more serious about their studies and therefore better people. But whatever it is, I’m very glad of it. Unfortunately though I never think bullying will ever stop. Someone will always find some reason to pick on someone else. I just live in hope that the children of the future can be strong because if you battle through it the people you meet in the future make it all worth while.

David – Boozing - http://davebeta.blogspot.com/2010/05/boozing.html I completely agree with what you said. I think, as long as it isn’t peer-pressured, drinking is a perfectly acceptable way to have a good time. It’s legal, as long as you’re over 18 that is, and I think sensible people, even when way over the limit, can handle their drink. You go out, get drunk, have a good time, have a good laugh and then return home safely. But then if this was the case for everyone, I doubt there would be so much of a problem surrounding alcohol. There always have to be some who spoil it. You mentioned drink driving in your blog but to me that’s only half of it, there’s also the people who walk out into the middle of the road jeering at cars, the people who are sick all over somebody else’s property and the people who start fights. It’s these people who I feel should be stopped from buying alcohol or at least from consuming it anywhere outside of their own home.

Nasher – Manners - http://ortonnasher.blogspot.com/2010/04/bad-manners.html Oh my, how strongly I agree with you! I’m only 19 myself, but back at school my parents were literally congratulated for my upbringing as I was one of only a few children in my school who still showed respect and good manners around school and to my teachers. I now help run my local drama group and you’re so right, I find children demand for this and that and a “please” is only uttered if they’re trying to get around me for something I’ve already said no to. Your point about this being the foundations of adulthood is also true and it makes me dread what the future generations are going to be like. I always say please and thank you, especially to my bus driver!, and to be honest I don’t think I’ll ever stop and I’m glad.

Laura – Body Modification - http://laurasbeingbad.blogspot.com/2010/05/body-modification-blog.html I felt exactly the same after this lecture. I was never aware of the emotional and saddening stories attached to tribal tattoos and especially the ignorance displayed by whites who imitate such markings. Considering it was the Westerners that practically wiped out such tribes, I even feel guilty. In fact, when I see people with tribal tattoo around in the streets now, it makes me question the tattoos origins and also if that person is even aware of what they have.

Katy – Football Hooliganism - http://katesbeingbad.blogspot.com/2010/04/2010-world-cup-never-mind-wags.html I wasn’t aware it was mainly us Brits that start the football hooliganism! That makes me ashamed. Personally, I’m not a football fan and don’t agree with the fighting at all, so you can imagine how I feel about the two combined. I’m terrified to walk the streets of Wolverhampton when there is a Wolves match scheduled let alone walking the streets in a country that is playing during the world cup. I find it just so rowdy and intimidating; I don’t think my nerves would survive a match. However, as you’ve proven it’s not all fans which is true. I have friend who absolutely adores football yet she’s so delicate, I couldn’t imagine her in a fight, she’d break or something. As I said in my blog though, I don’t think it’s the football at the end of the day that leads to the fights. It’s just an excuse for a fight. So don’t be ashamed and go and enjoy the football!

Jennie – Plastic Surgery - http://jenniesbeingbad.blogspot.com/2010/05/plastic-surgery.html I do agree with your opinion that plastic surgery should be a personal choice. I mean I feel so sorry for celebrities like Marilyn Monroe, who are told they need to be altered in some way so they can be the “perfect image”. However, personally I do find it more acceptable for people to have plastic surgery for a medical reasons rather than vanity. I was watching a TV programme a few weeks ago and they were discussing how plastic surgery can become addictive. Women were spending millions on making themselves into sticks when there are people out there having to live with burn scars because they can’t afford the extortionate prices that people like Jordan have made be set so high.

Zack – Teenage Pregnancy - http://zack-bloginator.blogspot.com/2010/04/teenage-pregnancy.html I agree with the side of the argument that teenage pregnancy is not a bad thing, as long as it is what the teenager wants. I’m 19 and many of the girls whom I went to school with now have children. To me this idea is a little crazy, as I couldn’t imagine myself being a Mother. However, I’ve known teenage mothers who have made amazing parents. I think it’s up to the individual, if they’re ready they should be allowed to do what they want and as long as they have people who support them and the child will have a mother who will love them I see no problem at all.

Hannah- Louise – Underage Sex - http://hellokittyyyx.blogspot.com/2010/03/underage-sex.html I disagree with the amount sex education there is in schools. When I was at school we use to have sex education once a week every week for three out of my five years in high school education. It was literally shoved down our throats and I remember as child learning about every STD known to man and being absolutely terrified. I knew and still do know more than my own parents! I understand that sex education is needed in schools and the idea of safe sex is one that needs to be learned, but I think it should be kept to later years in high school education as explaining it to younger children gives them ideas!

Angie – Prostitution - http://dziunia350.blogspot.com/2010/05/prostitution.html I do understand your opinion on prostitution however, I disagree. As I said in my blog, despite all the bad perceptions surrounding prostitution it is actually a display of confidence and self pride. Prostitutes have to be comfortable with their own bodies surely… because if they weren’t how could they be comfortable selling it to somebody else? Also from my research I found that men can be prostitutes just as much as women can. It’s just more stereotypical for women though, so I guess that’s why they are the main targets in such discussions as this.

Mr. E. Kelly – Shoplifting - http://mr-e-kelly.blogspot.com/2010/03/shoplifting.html I agree completely. It angered me to find out the amount of people who steal because they think they can justify it because shops are overpricing their goods etc etc. What angered me more though was to find that it was not ever the lower classes who are the main culprits anymore. It recent years it’s been found that it’s actually the middle classes who are now more lightly to shop lift and mainly because they can. I would never shoplift. Not just because I don’t think I’d get away with it, but because my mind wouldn’t rest afterwards. I don’t know how these people sleep at night knowing they haven’t only robbed from a shop, but also cheated innocent citizens who have bought the same or a similar product but for the full price!

Swearing.

Swearing is a part of bad behaviour that I feel is becoming more socially accpetable as time goes on. I found this article, http://people.howstuffworks.com/swearing2.htm , that takes a detailed look at "social reposenses to swearing" and there were a few points raised in this that I would like to comment on, mainly in favour of swearing.

Firstly, I think the quote, "All languages have swearwords..." speaks for itself. I think the fact that every culture has a set of words that are considered "bad behaviour" does go in favour of them. If they were so taboo and so immoral why hasn't there been a language made without them. I think a funny little anadote I can add here is that the first thing my friend, who was forigen exchange student from Germany, asked me was to tell her all the swear words in order of serverity. They are something people do care about as it was the firs think that she wanted to know something she was very aware of... not a taboo at all.

Also "Most languages also have a hierarchy of swearwords" again can be read as going in favour of swearing. People obviously spend time to deciding these things. Would they really spend that much time on something if it was so immoral that it would never be heard of again?

Finally, a point that I can disagree with, "Western society generally views swearing as more appropriate for men than for women. Women who swear appear to violate more societal taboos than men who swear". Although this is perhaps the "general opinion" I will argue it's wrong, especially in the sub-culture of rock music. For women to swear in this sub-culture it's very acceptable and even attratcive and "kinky", it adds to the bad girl attitude.

Although I do know many people who still do not like swearing and I hate to say, but mainly the older generation, I find that nowadays in modern culture it is very common place and in amongst a group of teenagers, when counting the swearwords used I bet you'd be able to reach 100 in minutes. I've got to say it though, the plosive quality of these words and violent gestures of their symbolism is great stress relief.

Booze Britian?

Are we really booze Britain?

"According to the Institute of Alcohol Studies, young people in the UK are the third worst binge drinkers in the EU. What's more, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that over 50% of 15 to 16 year-olds have participated in binge drinking, and another report showed that 44% of 18 to 24-year-olds are regular binge drinkers."

( http://www.thesite.org/drinkanddrugs/drinking/problems/bingedrinking )

According to these statistics and their definition of binge drinking, I am also a binge drinker and part of 44% of the 18-24 years old who regularly binge drink, but I don't feel like one. Me and my friends meet up and we go for drinks. We don't do it all the time as we're usually busy, so when we do meet up we make the most of it.

In recent times I think the government have come up with this term "binge drinking" and basically put everyone into this category who has more than one drink every so often. I don't think it's very fair and I do believe it is worrying a lot of teens and young drinkers, like myself, who are actually drinking responsibly.

My advice, just be aware of what you're drinking, be aware of the consequences but still go out and have a good time! If they're gonna call us Booze Britain surely we should give them a reason to... right?

Homophobia

I personally couldn't believe this took so long...

"Finally, an anti-homophobia school film. For the first time, gay equality can be promoted with Stonewall film FIT, and in a language pupils will understand."

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/31/fit-film-homophobia-schools)

It actually wasn't until I read this article that I was made aware of the fact, but something I am shocked about now, that when I was in school we did watch equality videos, but we never had one about gay equality.

And then I was even more shocked to discover...

"Just seven years ago it would have been illegal for local authorities to "promote" homosexuality in schools..."

I couldn't believe it. Personally, I have never understood homophobia, to me love is love. Some people happen to be attracted to the same sex. To me it's not a problem. So I am so glad this has finally started to be recognised within schools. I just hope it will make a difference and the community as a whole can start to realise and accept the different views and ways of life that are all around.

Euthanasia

There are many debates that surround the topic of euthanasia, yet I find myself being in favour of the act. However, I do believe that there would have to rules set down and circumstances met for the act of euthanasia to be acceptable... and apparently that is one of the hardest things to do.

"Euthanasia opponents don't believe that it is possible to draft laws and guidelines that will prevent the abuse of euthanasia." (http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/infavour/infavour_1.shtml#section_5 )

I can see why this is, despite having conflicting views. There are so many different reasons why euthanasia might be appropriate that it would be quite impossible to make a stable and permanent set of rules, every case is different and the decision is final. It's a lot of responsibility.

But then I look at it this way, euthanasia is available abroad. If a family or individual is set on it why make them suffer the travel and lose money as well as a loved one in a unfamiliar place when, if the issues concerning euthanasia could eventually be resolved, they could do it here and perhaps make the departing easier and more peaceful?

Identity Theft.

Are you aware of how high the risk is of becoming a victim of identity theft?

"One in four British adults either had been affected by identity theft or knew somebody who had, with 100,000 people per year being affected and costing victims £1.3 billion per year."
(http://www.identitytheftprotection.org.uk/identity-theft-statistics.html)

One in Four... that's a 1/4 of the population that have even been effected or have experienced the effects second hand as they know someone who has.

My family were a victim of this last year when our "internet shopping" account was somehow hacked and used by a person in Holland topping up their mobile phone by about £50 a day for four days. We were unaware of the problem until the bank contacted us and by then they'd got away with. It's very hard to track something like this and the only thing you can do really is close the account and stop them until they find their next victim.

You have no idea who it could be, where it could be or how it happened. I am definitely not in favour of this type of bad behaviour and the idea of someone actually posing as you, even for a short amount of time, really creeps me out. A word of warning, check all your accounts regularly and if something seems out of place of suspicious... act on it.

Blackmail

When someone mentions blackmail to me I naively think about the less extreme cases, like your friend saying they'll put that terrible picture of you on Facebook if you don't come down the pub tonight. If this was the case, I'd be all in favour of blackmail, it definitely means it would be easy to get some of my friends to come out sometimes and also a good laugh when they don't!

But then I researched and found out the laws and extreme cases of blackmail and now I'm not so sure.

One interesting and rather scandalous case I found was about David Letterman and how he was blackmailed by his producer. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8558781.stm)

"The attempt prompted Mr Letterman to make an on-air confession about his affairs with production staff."

From this statement alone I could perhaps agree with the blackmail because Letterman had committed infidelity. However, I don't think these possible consquences were worth it...

"Mr Halderman agreed to a plea bargain in which he will serve six months in prison, perform 1,000 hours of community service and give up his right to appeal against his conviction. He will be formally sentenced in May.

He could have faced up to 15 years in prison had he gone to trial and been convicted."

Blackmail, I think it's ok when done light heartedly and as a bit of joke between friends. But serious blackmail leads to serious conciquences which I personally don't believe are worth the orginal action.

Underage Drinking, could it be a good thing?

Out of all the "bad behaviour" I have researched for this module I personally feel that this is the one that I would quite openly admit to doing in the past. I would even go as far as to say it perhaps one of the most common types of "bad behaviour", obviously performed by anyone under the age of 18 living here in the UK.

Through http://www.drinkaware.co.uk/ I found a link to the results of a survey done in 2008 about the smoking, drinking and drug habits of younger people aged 11-15 years old. (http://www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and-data-collections/health-and-lifestyles-related-surveys/smoking-drinking-and-drug-use-among-young-people-in-england/smoking-drinking-and-drug-use-among-young-people-in-england-in-2008-full-reportnd-drug-use-among-young-people-in-england-in-2008-full-report)

The results showed that "52 per cent of pupils have tried alcohol at least once and 18 per cent drank alcohol in the last week" which was the largest percentage on the survey as only 32 per cent had tried smoking and 22 per cent had tried drugs.

However, I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing. The survey did give a disapproving tone, but being part of the NHS, I guess this was understandable.

Personally, I think children trying alcohol at a younger age can be beneficial to them in later years. I mean I'm not saying that children should be allowed to drink constantly, but the occasional taster I believe actually does them good.

When I was an early teen my parents would allow me to drink on special occasions. I think this actually was good for me because it meant that when I was left alone or was out with friends when they were desperate to go drinking I didn't feel the need. I had already tried it, and at that time found alcohol disgusting to the taste and would opt for strawberry instead.

I mean yes, I am in favour of underage drinking but only under the supervision of a trustworthy adult and in moderation. I think this goes in favour of alcohol and underage drinking because now, when I'm actually legal enough to drink, I don't feel the urge to go drinking all the time because I never felt drinking was inaccessible to me so now it's not something new and "bad" that I have to go and test to the extreme. I believe a little underage drinking can help give youngsters responsible drinking habits in the future.

Graffiti: Art or Vandelism?

To me the main debate surrounding graffiti is the argument between is it art or is vandalism?

Personally, I do like to think of graffiti as art, with my favourite example of this being Banksy. (http://www.banksy.co.uk ) . I just think his work is so unique, funny and they hold such interesting and poignant messages. I love them and whenever I see one I just can't take my eyes off them.

However, I am aware that some graffiti is just vandalism, "I WAZ ERE '10" or just general "tagging" to me isn't beautiful or meaningful, it's just scrawls of boredom across somebody else's property and that's to me where it becomes vandalism and no longer art. The thought isn't there and the creativity is lost.

I found this video on the BBC website by Stoke High School in Ipswich as they investigated graffiti in London and the public's opinions. It sums up my opinions nicely, so I thought I'd include it, especially the man in the green coat and glasses around 1.10 mins, agree completely.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7940611.stm

Overall, I think there should be a line drawn between what is vandalism and what is art as I do believe graffiti can be applied to both of these terms.
I'm all in favour of art, it's expressive and creative and it's this type of work that goes in favour of graffiti. Vandalism, that's got to stop.

Abortion

I am aware that there are many debates surrounding the issue of abortion. Most of these debates I tend to sit on the fence with because I could say I agree it's wrong and then think of a million and one exceptions to the rule. However there is one issue that I am strongly against and that is when women use abortion as a form of contraception. Just because you can't keep it in your panties doesn't mean you should continuously terminate lives. I mean, I'm not talking about one or two abortions in a life time here. I'm talking about numerous.

I found this article on the Daily Mail website which, unfortunately, proves that some women do do this. Link: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-348906/Women-abortions-again.html

"A dramatic rise in repeat abortions has reinforced fears that women are increasingly having terminations for lifestyle reasons."

"One in three abortions is now carried out on women who have had at least one before."

"Earlier this year it was revealed that one woman from London had six abortions in just 12 months."

... and so it continues.

As I touched on before, I do understand women who have more than one abortion in a life time. If something is wrong and it would harm the child is it worth it? It's about quality of life as much as it is quantity. However six abortions in 12 months! I don't think that's right at all and that's why I am, in this case against abortion. As long as the women has a legitimate reason for an abortion then I'm all in favour. But if it's just because they are unaware of how to use a condom or forgot to take the pill... well I don't think they should be allowed the operation.

Only Joking: The Nasty Comedian.

The term"nasty comedian" is a phrase that I believe can be applied to any comedian. It is an individuals' morals, upbringing and personal background that determine when and to who they apply this phrase to. I also believe it is a description that is subject to change, easily and rapidly, as I will explain later.

I found most of the jokes and comedians mentioned during the lecture on this subject funny and entertaining and nothing mentioned offended me in anyway, although I understand that this may not have been the case for everyone. However, whilst I was sitting there one memory did spring to mind and, as he wasn't mentioned in the lecture, I will use it as a personal case study for my blog.

I'm talking about Jimmy Carr.

As a rule, I do find Jimmy Carr's humour funny and entertaining. He makes me laugh, maybe not a very hard thing to do I admit, but it meant I went out, watched his DVD's and became quite a fan of his about 2 years ago. So it was logical I went to one of his live shows in 2008.

Like many comedians, Jimmy Carr's comedy is reactionary. It relies upon an audiences' reactions to subjects mentioned within his jokes to make them laugh. If you get the wrong crowd and tell the wrong joke you may as well call it suicide, stand up suicide anyway.

I found this link to some of Carr's most memorable jokes:http://www.funny-haha.co.uk/Joke.asp?J=1193 In this collection alone he touches upon reactionary and "sensitive" topics such as the elderly, poverty / third world victims, the homeless and homosexuality, to just mention a few. For me I can find these jokes funny and have laughed at them. I don't believe this makes me or Carr a bad person, however you may not feel the same. Depending on who you are and what you believe in you may or may not find these jokes funny and that's what I mean when I say that a "nasty comedian" is not a universally agreed term when applied to any one comedian. So back to me and Jimmy...

For much of the show I found him hilarious and was having a good laugh and a good time. Well I was, until about two thirds of the way through and then he made a joke about diabetics and their need for sugar. (I've searched and searched for this joke online, but I can't find it anywhere. Maybe I'm not the only one it offended and that's why you can't get a hold of it. But anyway...) This hit a nerve with me and I didn't laugh for the first time all night. Diabetes is a subject I am very sensitive to as one of the closest people to me is a sufferer. It's not funny. It's not a joke. It made me feel ice cold and I looked at the figure on the stage with harsh and disapproving eyes. It was in that moment I realised how offensive Carr's jokes were to anyone with a connection to one of his subjects and I understood why so many people I'd talked to recently had disapproved of me going to see him live. For the rest of the show I felt uncomfortable and guilty for laughing at anything he said.

There is the debate that reactionary jokes like these aren't and should not be offensive as long as the comedian telling them does not say that any claims made within these jokes are true, e.g. blondes being dumb etc. However, I do not entirely agree with this. As I have proven above, it is easy to be offended by such jokes if they are meant light-heartedly or not. Because of one joke alone I would now consider Jimmy Carr a "nasty comedian" and it has tarnished my view of him despite still being able to laugh at some of his material.

It's not like I hate Jimmy Carr or anything now, in fact I still find him funny and would probably go to another of his shows if a friend made the suggestion. I was lucky enough to go and meet Carr after that live show and despite everything I'd experineced during his set, I enjoyed meeting him and had a good laugh at some of the jokes he cracked while talking to me and signing my ticket. He is a funny guy, I can't deny it, I just can't watch him now without feeling a tinge of offense despite how hypocritical and silly it may sound.

If asked, I would say Carr is a "nasty comedian", but it's totally my personal opinion and I know many people who both agree and disagree with me.

Tattoos have meanings too.

One of the most beautiful things I personally find with tattoos, but also many types of body modification, is the stories behind them. You'll find that many people have a personal meaning behind what they have and, to be fair, this is in favour of people part taking in body modification because the story behind the tattoo I want is the only reason I want one.

Before I share my research on this though I do feel I can back my point with personal experience. There are three ways in which I have modified my body for reasons that I shall now remember forever. The first is the piercing in the top of my ear. Me and my Mother both had this done within a space of a week and it was to mark my 17th birthday. I had my nose pierced when I was at college and that was the mark the end of my exams. (I literally had it done straight after my final drama exam. I think I was more stressed about getting that done than I was my paper!) And I also dye part of my hair rather obscure colours. This started soon after I saw the film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and the idea of applying you're personality and mood of that time in a paste stuck with me... so that's what I did. Also, when my Nan passed away last year I changed my hair colour to Violet in respect, as Violet was her name. It's a beautiful thing to be able to show and express things like this in a unique way.

So this is what attracts me personally to body modification and it has literally made me smile so much that I have found this website during my research: http://www.tattales.com/tattoo_stories.php

It's called "tattales" and basically indivudals upload pictures of their tattoos and their stories behind them for others to read. A few of my favourites are "What Goes Around, Comes Around", a girl who has her Father's portrait in memorial of him and"Memorial Tattoo", about a girl who lost her Grandpa and has had a very symbolical tattoo to mark what he means to her, similar to what I want. I'm sure there are many more I just haven't read yet.

Basically, my claim is tattoos or any type of body modification are appealing but not just as a fashion statement or a way of conforming with a sub-culture. Anyone can have a tattoo or a piercing for any reason, but many stories behind these markings are sentimental, personal and so touching that how could anyone frown upon ink or metal etc. when it means so much?

Film: The Firm (1989)

For this blog I have chosen to focus on the film The Firm, but more importantly it's portrayal of the immoral and bad behaviour that the film highlights fully: football hooliganism.

Basically, the film focuses on a group of men in the 1980s whom all have good middle class lives, jobs and even the nuclear family. They are living the "Thatcher dream" but are not happy. So in order to express their unhappiness, they group together and become football hooligans, violent football hooligans.

However, there is one moment of the film, right at the end, that could be viewed as being in favour of this form of bad behaviour. In the final moments one of the members of the groups toasts and says, "if they stop us at football, we'll just go to boxing or snooker."(source: http://www.screenonline.org.uk/tv/id/439285) The reason I say this could be viewed in favour is because it is implying that it isn't football that causes the violence, it's the people and they'd end up causing violence with or without football. Football just gave them an excuse and being a "social realist" film, I fully believe this point can and is translated into reality.

Infidelity

There is one myth surrounding infidelity that through this blog I want to cover and possibly expose as being flase or well to prove that peoples perceptions of this are very much exaggerated. I'm talking about the idea that men supposedly cheat much, much more than women do.

So I did some research that led me to: http://www.infidelityfacts.com/infidelity-statistics.html , and I found some statistics to back me up.

"Percentage of men who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they've had: 57%

Percentage of women who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they've had: 54%"

also

"Percentage of men who say they would have an affair if they knew they would never get caught: 74%

Percentage of women who say they would have an affair if they knew they would never get caught: 68%"

As you can see, the figures here do prove that men do or would commit infidelity, however, only buy a minor percentage difference. Still over half of each gender has or would consider an affair. In short we're both as bad as one another.

Bandits and Outlaws: in it for the fame?

There was only really one issue surrounding our lecture about Bandits and Outlaws that I did not agree with. This was how, as a result of being dangerous criminals, can people become so famous and even become celebrities in their own right?

How can it be that people who have wronged, have freely taken innocent lives and caused the world upset and uproar have the luxury of becoming a household name and have their faces plastered in books, magazines and even have their lives glamorised and portrayed on the sliver screen. How can it be right?

One of the most obvious examples of this, to me, is the story of Bonnie & Clyde.

In the lecture the extent of their fame in their day was highlighted. The hype that surrounded them while they committed their crimes in their life time, I could go as far as to understand. It was big news, it was happening right there, right then. What shocked me was the amount of coverage that this couple still gain almost 80 years after their deaths.

Whilst researching I stumbled upon this biography of Bonnie and Clyde on a sit called "Crime and Investigation Network". (http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/crime-files/bonnie-and-clyde/biography.html)

The site contains an in depth look into the "Bonnie and Clyde" case with six sub-categories. However, what stood out for me with this article was the tone the writer used to portray these criminals. For example, "...at the time of their death, their gang was believed to be responsible for at least 13 murders", the use of the word "at least" here stressing 13 as minimal figure instead of emphasising the double figure number of lives that these criminals took. Also Bonnie's description, "Slender and only 4 foot 11", the adjective "slender" glamorises the woman and her height accompanied by "only" makes her appear cute and small. You could almost forget we were talking about a murderer couldn't you?

But to be honest it was this that really made me think. The story of Bonnie and Clyde has been adapted for film numerous times over the years. Every film brings back the couples fame and again glamorising them. So here we are in 2010 and there are plans for yet another Bonnie and Clyde film, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1355646/. Do they not see how glamorous they are making these criminals look? They're story will live on forever, but not necessarily portraying them in the negative light they surely deserve? I mean Hilary Duff is set to play Bonnie in this version, she's too much of a "nice girl" within the acting world for us to go around hating for killing all these people ... surely?

This left me with this final thought: does not such celebrity status and fame encourage people to commit and imitate such "bandits and outlaws" as Bonnie and Clyde, purely because they think this will offer them fame and even immortality as their story could, like this one, live on long after their death?

Film: A Clockwork Orange (1971)

One film that is famous for its portrayal of "bad" behaviour is Kurbrick's now cult classic: "A Clockwork Orange".

In 1972 Kurbrick self censored and banned his film from being viewed in the UK after suffering pressure from the media and politicians. After they blamed his film for the rise in crime within the UK during the 1970's.

As this article fully explains, http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0012.html , Kurbrick banned the film in the UK for rest of his life time after reports of "copy cat" crimes. Tramps being beaten to death and rapes of young girls to the soundtrack of "Singing in the Rain" were reported.

However, the press only emphasised the extreme cases. Besides murder and rape A Clockwork Orange also deals with the less extreme yet still immoral behaviour of drug taking, speeding, driving under the influence and vandalism. Things that I believe viewers of the film were more likely to "copy cat", yet the press never covered them as these are things that did and still happen almost everyday.

Now, eleven years after Kurbricks death you can pick up a DVD copy of A Clockwork Orange for £3 and myself, only having being legally able to watch this film for two years, have already viewed it twice and own a copy. In fact, it is one of my favourite films, but although I possess no urge to mimic any of the behaviour this doesn't mean everyone will feel the same way... does it?

Personally, I believe placing such a heavy ban on the film only upped the film in appeal. I've heard stories of how people travelled far and wide just to watch it. It was dangerous and that was exciting. Some people like to rebel, fact. By banning the film the actions and behaviour shown were made appealing.

Ok, so it isn't like the main character's, Alex, bad behaviour, extreme or otherwise, is not punished. Audiences watch Alex find himself in prison and also enduring aversion therapy. The film does express that these actions do have consequences. Just because these do not work on Alex does not mean that Kurbrick is implying it is ok for audiences do these things. I think it was more about the idea that Alex is a "bad egg", to put it lightly, and the mature and intended audiences I think get that.

Overall, I feel the only reason this film was banned was because of it's extreme behaviour, if people really felt like the film should have been banned for it's easily mimicked behaviour there would have been more coverage given to the immoral issues than just the extremes. But more importantly a lot of modern films e.g. Trainspotting, would have never made it past the cutting room floor. In a way A Clockwork Orange did immoral and "bad" behaviour a favour, as it made them look harmless in comparison to the extremes that they are placed against. Although it is quite obvious that the "bad" behaviour was the beginning of the extremes it appears this was over looked due to the shock of the extremes and is why, in many cases, it is still over looked today.

Drugs!

Drugs! Drugs are bad. Drugs are illegal. Drugs can kill you! - I'm sure you've heard this all before, or at least something similar. However in their defence, I do believe there is quite a lot to be said in favour of drugs. But before we begin, just for the record a) I'm talking about illegal drugs and b) I have never taken any illegal drugs in my lifetime.

Everyone frowns upon drugs, especially in the "real world". I know quite a few people who if they found out their best friend or someone close to them was doing drugs they would be disappointed or ashamed. I know there are people who might find it "cool" or "hard" but I'm sorry to say that's probably because they are or haven been in the drugs scene themselves. Outsiders, usually, frown upon them and disapprove. (There are exceptions, I mean I myself am starting to believe there could be a correct way of using drugs. But I'll get to that later.)

However, for celebrities it's a whole different situation. We idolise and give major publicity to drug using celebrities such as Amy Winehouse and Pete Doherty and whenever a star admits there is a problem and trundles off to rehab it's plastered over magazines for days, with continuous updates of how they're doing. Drugs give fame, perhaps not the right kind of fame, but fame none the less.


So there's one reason in favour, if you're fame hungry and all that. But that isn't my main argument. My main argument is drugs, hallucinogenic drugs especially, give a person creativity beyond human realms. I mean, I'm a writer and personally drugs aren't for me , but I would say I do possess some creativity without them. It's not like I'm saying drugs = creativity it's just you can't deny some of the pure genius that has come as a result of drug taking. For example, The Beatles and more so "Yellow Submarine". This is one of their most popular songs and I think it's pretty safe to say they were off they're faces when they came up with. "We all live in a yellow submarine"... come on. But despite this that song and it's logo get everywhere. I mean when trying to buy a ladies fit Beatles t-shirt it's pretty much the only one available. (Trust me...)

Also, in the more "high brow" part of culture there are still drug influences. One of my favourites is a poem called "Kubla Khan" or "A Vision In a Dream: A Fragment." (http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_2/coleridge.html) As the mini biography in that link suggests, poet Coleridge was "addicted to opium. He claimed that this poem came to him in an opium dream." Evidence that drugs were involved in a widely appreciated poem and one that is still taught in colleges today.

Ok, so many I do sound like I'm being ignorant to the consequences and bad side of drug taking but it's just so heavy emphasised with any mention of drugs that I thought the brighter side needed a little bit of fame. Also, I do have a counter argument about these negatives aspects.

The main danger with drugs is the risk of getting hold of and taking unclean ones. The famous yet tragic case of Leah Betts, http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/13/newsid_2516000/2516593.stm, is an example of this. In the article here it states that police believe that the pill "may have been contaminated. "

I've heard stories of everything and anything, including washing powder, being used to create contaminated drugs and why? Because they are illegal and hard to get hold of but make good money. So why not make some duff ones and roll around in the profits?

I think that right there is the problem, not drugs themselves. As it was discussed in lecture, if drugs were made legal surely the number of tragedies concerning them would decrease because drugs from well known pharmacies, such as "Boots", would be clean and also include instructions of use like all legal drugs do. Also the appeal of drugs may decrease because they were no longer "bad" etc and yes the government could tax on them. Plus it allows creative souls to freely experiment and create beautiful things without restrictions and none drug users still have the option of saying no. It's just a thought and this happens in other countries and from what I've heard it's only holiday makers, such as us Brits, who abuse the privilege. Wouldn't making drugs legal cure a lot of the problems that surround them in present times?

Film: Kids (1995)

‘ Truly, what people have said about Kids (1995) is more disturbing than anything put on the screen.’

Watching this film as part of my University course was actually my second viewing and the above statement for me was one of the best and probably most truthful statements about this film that I have ever read.

Before the film began my friends were a buzz, recalling for me all the "horrors" they had heard about this film. I couldn't believe how sucked in and genuinely scared they were about watching it, but after doing some research now, I can see why.

Most of what you read about the film "Kids", I believe, is there to disturb you and turn you off watching the film before you've even come into contact with it. I mean I generally find the Internet Movie Database (imdb) a reliable source when discussing movies, but even their "key words" about the film give off the same vibes as the rest of the articles and reviews.

e.g Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113540/keywords

I mean that put "Teen", "Drugs", "Virgin", "Sex" and "Disturbing" in the top ten of that list.

I find it all a little extreme and overly exaggerated personally. There are reasons for all of these and more to be included in the film, it's not just a film made to disturb you for life and nothing more, if you're looking for that why not try the Saw films?... but I'm getting off track. I'll come back to this later.

I told my friends that yes the film was shocking and rather explicit with the way it deals with the issues and "bad behaviour". However, I reassured them that they'd still be able to sleep that night and hearing there comments on their way out of the cinema... I wasn't wrong.

In fact for every "disturbing" moment in Kids I believe I could suggest a valid reason for its inclusion in the film and also an argument why an audience of various ages could benefit from a viewing of it.

What makes the film so "shocking" is the way that it explicitly shows "bad behaviour" that may be better described as taboo issues. But isn't that the problem here? The issues explored are only shocking to viewers because they are taboo within society and therefore unheard of in everyday life thus making them mysterious, "the unknown" and to some individuals even appealing. My point is, I believe this film should not be banned or classed as "bad", "disgusting" or "inappropriate" but actually an educational viewing for both teenagers and parents.

I see the film as a way for teenagers to experience such "bad behaviour" with the inclusion of consequences in a way that leaves them out of danger. "Kids" takes much of the glamour away from such immoral behaviour which should prevent many teenagers from practicing themselves.

Also adults watching the film would benefit as it will make them more aware of the type of world their children are or can be exposed too. They'll be more awar of what could and does go on and perhaps have a better understanding of their own teenagers needs, wants and also troubles and concerns.

Overall, I agree that "Kids" is not a film to be watched for entertainment purposes alone but is a film that could be a benefit to many viewers if watched in an educational context.

Prostitution.

Whenever I hear people discussing prostitution it is always in a negative manner, as if being a prostitute is the lowest of the low that a woman can reach. However, this is something I disagree with.

I went to "politics.co.uk" to look up the "facts" surrounding prostitution, http://www.politics.co.uk/briefings-guides/issue-briefs/policing-and-crime/prostitution-$366674.htm, and I found some interesting facts to back up my argument.

Firstly, "prostitution itself is not illegal but there are a number of offences linked to it." Therefore, prostitution could be classed as a job just like any other. As the saying goes, prostitution is the oldest profession.

Also,"Although there are exceptions, most prostitutes are women selling their services to men." A person of either gender can be a prostitute, it's just uncommon (or perhaps just less heard of) for a man.

And, "There are estimated to be around 80,000 people involved in prostitution in the UK." Surely, it can't be so "low" if so many people are involved, baring in mind that is just the figure for the UK.

But on top of this I also think we should take into account the individual who takes on the role of a prostitute. I've heard people talk about the poor girl, with low self esteem and pretty much zero reasons to live turning to prostitution as a last resort, however, personally I think this is wrong. I believe prostitutes have an amazing amount of confidence to do what they do. I mean would people with zero confidence and self esteem really think they were capable to please a customer enough to earn their pay? I've also heard people say that it's the easy way out of a financial situation, and although this may be the way they get the money I doubt it's easy. Surely this job is about making your client happy and well every client is different, surely it can't be that easy to have to adjust that quickly and flawlessly. Prostitutes aren't just sex personified, they're actors too! Plus, I think they are well in their right to set a high price. Your body is your own and you know it's value, so if anyone has the right to put on price on it, it should be the owner.

Basically, what I trying to say is that prostitution should not be so disapproved of, it's way that many people make money and well to be able to go through with it shows a very strong and confident person. Just the kind of thing that most job applications ask for. At least prostitutes are earning their own money and not necessarily turning to theft or other more criminal and offensive activities and if "everyone" thinks so badly of prostitutes, why are they always in business?

Religous Discrimination.

I like to think of myself of a person who supports equality of every kind. I think issues that still continue around different religion in these modern times are terrible. So you can imagine my shock when I heard about the protests, so close to my home, against the building of a mosque in Dudley town.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7549964/Violent-clashes-at-mosque-protest.html

"Some demonstrators held placards reading ''Muslim bombers off our streets'' and ''Say no to the mosque''."

When I heard about this protest I was appalled, especially with their use of inclusive pronouns like "our". I'm from Dudley, those streets are mine as much as theirs yet I didn't want them "off our streets". When petitioners came to our door about this my parents wouldn't let me answer as they knew how I would react to our elderly and otherwise quite reserved neighbours. I couldn't believe why everyone seemed so against something that didn't concern them. Just they didn't belong to or understand the Muslim religion they didn't want it. Would they have been the same if the plans were to build another church?

I personally believe these protests do not go in favour of... well anything at all. Yes, I suppose these riots were "bad behaviour" with a cause but to me the cause was not a legitimate one. These protesters are going to have to live side by side the Muslims for probably the rest of their lives, mosque or no mosque. We not let things run more smoothly and let them build something which they have obviously have to gain planning permission for first anyway?

Masturbation.

Over the years it has become apparent that the act of masturbation and talking about said act is more socially acceptable. It has come a long way(no pun intended!) since the times of gruesome looking anti-masturbation contraptions, put it that way. However, I still think people casually walking down the road and getting off is pretty unacceptable, so how am I so sure it's so much more socially acceptable I hear you cry! My answer... popular music.

When researching this I found more songs than I was aware of containing lyrics about this topic. Some crude and obvious, some more ambiguous and hidden., but either way, it was there.

A few examples I gathered from my own iPod were:

So Happy I Could Die - Lady Gaga.
"I touch myself all through the night..."

Longview - Green Day
"When masturbation's lost its fun..."

All By Myself - Green Day (The whole song.)http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/greenday/allbymyself.html

... and I'm sure I found more while I was listening to my shuffle but right now the track names and singers escape me, but I'm sure you get the point.

These are all quite modern though, so I was surprised, but also happy to find this countdown on the internet of some earlier music stars also freely expressing and singing about masturbation.

It's called "The 15 Best Songs That Are Totally About Masturbation" and here's the link: http://www.cracked.com/article_15114_the-15-best-songs-that-are-totally-about-masturbation_p3.html

Billy Idol, Prince, The Buzzcocks... just to name a few.

Obviously, with such mainstreams stars such as Prince and Lady Gaga spreading the message it's got to show a new level of acceptance about masturbation . I mean I know stars, such as Lady Gaga, give the impression that they don't care, but do you really think they'd release songs about something that could really damage their career? Yes, singing about masturbation is risque and that's probably something that attracts more listeners. But I think the fact that this sort of the material is actually allowed to be put onto CD proves it's more acceptable nowadays. Also, all this mainstream exposure definitely goes in favour of the act. If the celebrities can sing about it, do it, get away with it and basically not be ashamed to tell us about it, why can't we?

Cyberstalking

As the internet has grown in popularity and become the phenomenon that it is today case after case of cyberstalking has been reported. As a result warnings are now everywhere... but still we are addicted to social networking sites, how can this make sense?

One case I found through the BBC website was about Angela Westwater whose personal details had been posted on a "graphically sexual dating site - and that a distant relative living in Florida was responsible." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/378373.stm

The stalker even went as far as to super-reimpose pictures of Angela's face on porographic images and even post the fact that she walks to work leaving her exposed to potential danger.

"That was back in 1996 - but the National Criminal Intelligence Service is warning that cyberstalking - harassment on the Internet - is set to escalate in the UK." - and it has, especially now with social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace.

Personally though, despite the extent and extremity of cases like this on, I am still slightly swaying in favour of talking online,which could of course make you a potential cyberstalking victim. I've met some brilliant people through the internet and now have strong friendships which I would have never had otherwise. I do think it is just a question of being safe online and keeping your wits about you, just like in any other interactive situation. I've heard stories of people I know finding love and happiness which all started as light hearted cyber stalking. It can work out for the better, you just have to be careful in first place.

Lying IsThe Most Fun A Girl Can Have Without Taking Her Clothes Off?

Definitions: (courtesy of http://www.dictionary.com/)

lying - the telling of lies; untruthfulness and telling or containing lies; deliberately untruthful; mendacious; false.

lie - a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood and something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture; an inaccurate or false statement.

integrity - adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; honesty and the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished.

Is there ever a time in life when lying can be justified? Can we really lie with integrity? Can lying ever be seen as the right thing to do?

The answers to these questions differ from person to person. It depends upon your personal beliefs, morals and experiences. In this article I found, http://www.gotquestions.org/right-to-lie.html , the writer addresses this debate with support from the Bible. Although on a whole the Bible is against such behaviour, because when it does occur misery and loss follows, this article does highlight two instances when lying ends well.

"...the lie the Hebrew midwives tell Pharaoh seems to result in the Lord’s blessing on them (Exodus 1:15-21), and it probably saved the lives of many Hebrew babies. Another example is Rahab’s lie to protect the Israelite spies in Joshua 2:5."

For me, I know my opinions come from who I am and what I've been through. Lies can be hurtful, lies can break hearts but they can also make someone happy and make a horrible situation just that little more pleasant even if that pleasantry only exists for one person. When my Nan was seriously ill and in care she continuously asked if she could go home (which she couldn't.) Me and my family made the decision to lie and tell her that when she was better she could. Truth was, that was never a possibility. Was it really that wrong of us to tell that lie? It kept her calm in a dreadful situation and telling her the truth would have only made things worse. It is in situations like this that I believe lying is the right thing to do. I am well aware of the hurt lying can cause but I can also support the fact that lying has benefits to.

Shoplifiting isn't a habit, it's a crime.

To me shoplifiting is:
- Entering a shop with the intent to remove something without paying for it.
- Seeing something in a shop and intentionally making the decision to remove it without paying.
- Intentionally hiding something on your person whilst in a shop and walking out with it unpaid for.

To me shoplifiting isn't:
- A child in a push chair innocently removing something from a shelf and their Parent(s) leaving the shop and not noticing until they've gone.
- When an item gets attached to a person in some way, without them noticing, and they are unaware it's their until it is too late and they have left the shop.
- Somebody forgetting they have an item on them, which they intended to buy, but genuinely forgot about and exited the shop.

Exceptions
- If someone is stealing food or other necessities because they genuinely cannot afford it.

In my opinion, bar the exception above, if it's intentional and the shoplifter is well aware of their actions, then it's theft, it's a crime, it's shoplifitng and personally I believe it should stop.

I have always had the opinion that shoplifiting is wrong, but recently I have heard more and more cases of what has been coined "the shoplifiting disease" and this behaviour has made my opinions against shoplifiting grow stronger.

Basically, it has recently come to light that the stereotype of shoplifters being unruly teenagers is untrue and in fact it's middle classes adults who can quite easily pay for the goods that are now taking advantage. This article I found from The Times is a perfect example: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article2923540.ece

The writer of the article claims herself to be among many who are "perfectly well-off, [but] still feel compelled to take things we could easily afford and don’t particularly want from high-street shops without paying for them." But despite what she says, it's still a crime and surely she's aware of that? At first I didn't understand why? Especially after she'd made it so clear that she could afford such.

But then further down the article I realised... shoplifting becomes an addiction. She says, "truth is that I have been shoplifting sporadically for most of my adult life and I doubt that I will get through Christmas without pilfering something along the way." and after and detailed description of her least theft goes on to lists other items she has managed to get away with. She keeps doing it, as if she couldn't stop, like an addict of any kind.

"According to a report published this week, Britain is the shoplifting capital of Europe. I am, apparently, contributing to £26 million worth of goods that go missing every day." That is quite a figure, because of this "bad habit" shops are loosing millions a day and other law abiding citizens are being cheated as a result. It isn't fair on anyone. But I did find some consolation in the fact that even what appeared to be the over confident pilferer in this article, "my heart rate barely increased", did feel guilt after the deed, "I do feel bad about it."

What I found hardest to believe about this is that the writer did not claim this behaviour to be a habit but a "recurrence" despite all the evidence she gave earlier to show this to be more of an addiction. Although, I stand by my belief that most addicts are in denial. Her reasoning of "because I can" blew me away and even angered me a little. I think my main reason for this is I just don't think it's fair, why should somebody walk away with something for nothing just because they're willing to break the law and the good citzens walk away so many pounds lighter in their purse. It doesn't make sense. I meanly surely it should be the other way around?

To shoplifter virgins, such as myself, cases such as this one do make the act of shoplifting more appealing. In the article the writer explains their other reasoning for part-taking in this immoral behaviour, "tit-for-tat against the large retailers who rip me off. I don’t go into shops intending to steal, but I do get taken over by fits of righteous indignation." By shoplifting she is saying "then we’ll be even" and it is this point I can agree with. Why should we pay a big stores overpriced prices for things that were "made for sixpence in China or India"?

So although I am persuaded and do believe this does go in favour of this act of bad behaviour, I still I think I'll stick to my fair trade coffee and paying the right price for everything.

Smoking.

The ideas, connotations and people's perceptions of the act of smoking, as well as the smokers themselves, has changed dramatically especially in the last few years. Since the smoking bans arrival in England on 1st July 2007, creating "Smokefree England" (http://www.smokefreeengland.co.uk/) along with it's ban in most of the American states and also the ban on cigarette advertisements in the UK since October 2002 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2350035.stm) the smoking habit is now more like a taboo and frowned upon within society instead of an accepted past time that was once considered not only common place but also sexy.

Therefore when discussing smoking in a cultural sense nowadays I believe there is generally only one kind of message being communicated. I have found that the inclusion of smoking in any media text now is very rare and if it is, it is surrounded mainly by negativity.

One example is the way smoking is now viewed in gossip magazines such as "OK" and "Hello". Once upon a time, the writers of such magazines would not bat an eyelid at a celeb lighting up and puffing away. However now, photos of celebrities in the company of a cigarette are big news. They usually end up taking up half a page, the offending cigarette in full view and accompanied by a caption discussing the activity. Celebrities such as Robert Pattinson (pictured), who are the "names one everyone's lips", are usually "tutted" at for taking part in such habits as it is "disgusting", "dirty" and a "bad thing for a role model to do". You wouldn't believe only 60 years ago it was quite the opposite with smoking being the"in thing". You would find celebrities of the time posing with their cigraettes for professional photoshoots. It even added to their appeal. Just look at Audrey Hepburn and you'll see what I mean.

When asked in lecture to think of iconic "smoking" moments within film and television, I struggled. I instantly tried to think of examples from modern times like from films and programmes I had watched recently ,but drew a blank. However, it was an idea that stuck with me for weeks later and had me watching everything with this thought : who is smoking and why?

The results were interesting and the best example that proved the new cultural reading of smoking, was EastEnders.


For starters, hardly anyone on the square smokes anymore. At one time the "Queen Vic" would be clouded in smoke, which argueably added a sense of realism and atmosphere, however now the pub, just like British pubs today, are completely smoke free.

Characters who are already established smokers within the programme, such as Dot Branning, have even cut down the habit. The only time I saw her smoke during a weeks worth of viewing was when the stress of who the murderer in the square got too much.

After this, the only other person who I noticed smoking in the programme was a few episodes later when Max Branning smoked a whole cigarette on screen to communicate to the audience the stress he felt after his son had commited suicide.

The basic message was, that people only smoke to ease stress, not for pleasure.

So, in the style of that catchy Dettol advert, Smoking has changed. Fact.

Being a non-smoker myself I do appreciate the new smoking ban in public places, however I am not an anti-smoker and do see it as a discrimination to tar everyone with the same brush, pardon the pun. Not all smokers deserve to be shoved out to the cold bus shelters for a fag in the middle of winter and nor do they all deserve this new stereotype of needing release. Not everybody smokes for the same reasons.

Personally, I do still find the act of smoking a rather attractive thing, if it wasn't for the health risks.

Week 12 Suggestion.

For the final week of my Being Bad module I believe a field trip is what is needed. (As suggested in the module guide.) Heading off of the university campus would be a great break from the lecture theatre, but also an example of how what we have learned in this module relates to real life. However, the whereabouts of this field trip is one that can be debated.

Personally, I believe a field trip to Camden, London. In one place alone, students would get to see sights relating to many subjects mentioned on this module: smoking, drugs, sex etc. and experience bad behaviour in the capital of the UK.

Can't forget a little bit of tourist information: http://www.camdentown.co.uk/

So what are we waiting for? Everybody let's grab the mini-bus and go, go, goooo!

- B