Bad Cinema: Kids

(http://www.nataliedee.com/121007/safe-sex.jpg)

I have to say that this movie was rough for me to take in, not necessarily the message that it sends because I think it's an important one but more the way that they went about filming the movie. I mean I think that the movie is a little over dramatic in what they had the kids doing. I'm from the states and I know that there is partying and sex in high school, I mean that is definite-not for every student but overall it happens but I wouldn't say its much like whats seen in the movies. There are house parties where the major drugs are alcohol and maybe some marijuana. Every once in awhile you'll find the group of kids that venture out and try more hardcore things like coke and pill popping but its rare. Now sex on the other hand has become more and more common and I know that even in just my graduating class there were at least 6 girls that had kids before they graduated. I thought the movie did a good job talking about STDs because to be honest its not something that people really think that can happen to them-I think even more so in the States. When I started thinking about writing this blog I started doing some research on the number of teens affected by STDs a year in the U.S. The most recent article I could find included statistics from 2007 and discussed how rates for teens infected with STDs has been on the increase. In 2007, Teens from the age of 15-19 with Chlamydia were 379,418-Gonorrhea: 98,579-Syphilis: 664 (STD Statistics-Teen STD Statistics). This wasn't the only age groups the website included but I thought it was most fitting for the ages of the kids in the movie but to be honest some of the other numbers were even more shocking. To me I guess it shows that we are slightly uneducated in how to practice safe sex-no matter how much we'd like to think that out sex ed lessons in health class teach us everything it doesn't. I think its time for everybody to get a little educated (its not hard to practice safe sex, really) before it gets too "bad".

John Dillinger: Gangster or Robin hood of his time?

(http://crashlanden.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/wantedjohn1.jpg)

I wish I could think of a creative title for this but I just couldn't. It may have something to do with the simple fact that I've had a hard time really getting into this topic. Sure, I see the connection with the module and after a little procrastination I actually was able to start analyzing if these bandits we discussed in class really were "helping the poor". The story of Robin Hood was the one I was most familiar with and I still do believe other bandits we talked about I realized that the people of their time might have been a little misled. The one that caught my attention the most was John Dillinger. I knew of some movies that were based around Dillinger, including the most recent one with Johnny Depp in it, but I hadn't bothered to see any of them. Clearly gangster movies aren't my thing. But I started to read up on Dillinger and learned about how he was a bank robber and gangster during the great depression and how people of his time looked to him as a hero almost. Since there was so much drama during that era with banks pretty much stealing the peoples money I see how they may have thought somebody robbing from those same banks that were basically robbing them (of their homes and money) would seem almost heroic but were they receiving any of this money from Dillinger? No. So even though the bank and ultimately the government was being retaliated on by Dillinger the people of the country were still suffering. They weren't receiving anything personally so I don't think that he could be compared to as a Robin Hood. The research that I found on Dillinger was more of a historical line going through his life and the different crimes that he had committed. His story is an interesting one and the article is as well. I especially found it interesting that Dillinger was a leader of a gang when he was only 16 and the gang used to rob old coal mines. Heres a link to the article (I suggest if you have any interest in Dillinger to check it out, hell check it out if you don't it might spark an interest like it has for me): John Dillinger Biography

Nobody likes a copy cat.

(http://crazy-tattoo-designs.com/maori%20tribal%20tattoos.jpg)

This lecture was by far my favorite so far. Its not like I'm tatted up or pierced from head to toe but I've always had an interest in tattoos and have one of my own. The lecture was packed with history about tattooing and piercing that I knew slightly but not nearly to that extent. It got me thinking about if it is a compliment or an insult to tribes when we mimic their tattoos and piercings. The picture above is a 'copy cat' style Maori tribal tattoo. The Maori tribes are part of New Zealand and for them the tattoos are part of special rituals that celebrate specific and special events in a tribe-persons life. They receive their first tattoos as a rite of passage from childhood to adolescent and would be added whenever there were important events in their lives. Tattoos represented courage and strength of the individual and most of the time the men would cover their whole face (as seen in the 'copy-cat' picture above) while the women only covered their cheeks, the lips and sometimes their necks (What Are Maori Tribal Tattoos-Bernice Eker) So is the copying of these tattoos insult or flattery? I think to some extent it probably is insulting because to them those tattoos represent a huge part of their lives. Like the tribe that gets the face tattoos that literally tell their names to other tribe members. They get them for pride reasons and we get them just because we think that they are cool. Just like the chinese word tattoos that we get, I know many people that get them without even researching and just trust that they mean what they are told. They get them because they think they look cool but don't really know what they mean or represent to that culture. It just shows how easily we fall into "trends" without even considering that they may mean something more than just a cool design. I'm not saying that everybody that gets these tribal tattoos don't do the research or history behind them and what they mean to their designated tribes. If somebody take the time to learn about tribal tattooing and decide that they really appreciate the meaning behind something and what it represents to that tribe and decides they would like to get that tattoo then I don't think it should be seen as insulting. I mean people in every different country and culture has adapted something from one another at some point in their history, its only natural, so I don't think that somebody should be penalized or looked down upon if they have done their research and have a real appreciation or interest in the type of tattoo.

Heres an extra link that I thought was kind of interesting, its a brief time line of Tattoos which include some tribal tattoos and descriptions of the types of tattoos those tribes get: A Brief History of Tattoos

Flirtation: attention without intention? That is the question.

(http://michaelreeve.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/cheating-girlfriend1.jpg)

After the lecture on infidelity it really got me thinking about whats considered cheating. I mean sure theres the obvious sexual affairs that people may have but what about something as innocent as flirting? Luckily I'm single so I can flirt with as many people as I do please but I've watched a lot of my friends struggle with this issue. One of my best friends has been dating for her boyfriend for 2 years now but she has insisted in the past that he was flirting with one of their mutual friends, who just so happens to have been dating somebody for almost 6 years. So did my friend have the right to get upset? Personally at first I thought not. I mean to me it was like even if her boyfriend was casually flirting with their friend, which lets be real I know a lot of guys that flirt without even realizing that they are doing it, he wasn't trying to get her into bed or even making a sexual move on her at all. But after doing some research online it got me thinking that maybe I was wrong. I read the article, "When Does Flirting Become Cheating" which discusses that when a person is in a committed relationship even the lightest flirting can become dangerous because it's a very emotional act. See I was looking at cheating as being mainly physical but the more I thought about it the more I realized the reason people flirt in the first place. I mean sure sometimes you flirt just to have fun with somebody but regardless you are trying to stir up some kind of emotion in the person whether its for laughs or not. Taking a look at myself I realized I usually flirt based on the obvious attraction I have for somebody and at times I flirt with people that I may not have a huge attraction to but I know they have one for me. I can see now that maybe, just maybe flirting could indeed become hazardous to your relationships and could turn into cheating, whether emotionally or physically but should it be considered bad behaviour? I wish I could give a yes or no answer but personally I'm still torn and until I'm put in that situation I'm not sure I'll be able to, at least not honestly. Feel free to let me know what you all think.

"When the world ends, we'll be burnin' one."-Dave Matthews Band

(Image link: http://www.bongsbay.com/funny/marijuana-not-crack.jpg)

Are all drugs bad? I'd personally answer that with no. For me the majority of drugs can be bad and can clearly make people do bad things-especially drugs like: heroin & cocaine-I do believe that its probably best to avoid trying those but what about marijuana? I imagine a large portion of students in our module have at least tried smoking weed once in their lives. I also know a large amount of people that smoke in their daily life and still function normally. It's like a smoker who is addicted to smoking fags only they are smoking joints instead. I found an article online that discusses common myths about smoking weed and then presents the actual facts on the topics. One in particular that I liked discussed the myth that smoking marijuana is highly addictive. The article states the facts that read: "Most people who smoke marijuana smoke it only occasionally. A small minority of Americans - less than 1 percent - smoke marijuana on a daily basis. An even smaller minority develop a dependence on marijuana. Some people who smoke marijuana heavily and frequently stop without difficulty. Others seek help from drug treatment professionals. Marijuana does not cause physical dependence. If people experience withdrawal symptoms at all, they are remarkably mild" (Drug Policy Alliance Network). I'm not trying to sit here and tell everybody that they should go out and become stoners or that they should even occasionally smoke weed but I am asking everybody to really take a look at marijuana and if it's really that "bad" or not. I think that in some cases if it helps somebody relax, like me with a glass of wine or a pint of beer, and isn't doing harm to them or their bodies then they shouldn't be penalized for it.

For more Myths & Truths visit the Drug Policy Alliance Network's article online at: Myths and Facts about Marijuana

But if everybody else is doing it, it can't be that bad, right!?

When I googled "stalking definition" there was no one specific definition for it. In fact, the closest definition that I could find was the 'legal' definition which read: "A form of harassment generally comprised of repeated persistent following with no legitimate reason and with the intention of harming, or so as to arouse anxiety or fear of harm in the person being followed. Stalking may also take the form of harassing telephone calls, computer communications, letter-writing, etc." (your dictionary.com) Personally I think it makes perfect sense why there isn't really one universal definition for stalking. I mean if you think about it the way the world is today people can follow people and look at people in all sorts of way. With every social network on the internet-whether it be myspace, facebook or twitter (just 3 examples of the many out there)- comes some form of what could be called "stalking". I myself have probably be guilty of this. I mean I get on facebook a ridiculous amount-probably about 10-15 times a day- and I only write to somebody or comment a picture or update my status maybe 5 times out of the15 i sign on. The rest of the time spent on facebook is what I like to call "creeping"-something that not only me but most of my friends & people I've met confess to doing- where I page jump from person to person to find out any new gossip of whats going on in their lives. The most popular ones I look at tend to be a guy that I have a slight interest in or find attractive, old friends from previous school years & even my friends, friends. I don't have any want to hurt them or cause them hurt in someway but is it really necessary for me to look through their pictures and what they have written to other people? I even have to admit that this has to be some form of stalking and I'm sure most everyone is guilty of doing it. But then it gets me thinking, if I can look into all of these peoples lives, who is looking into mine? It's scary to think of how pretty much anybody has access to peoples websites-even though my stuff is on super private mode I still feel that there is some way around it. My brothers girlfriends daughter, who is 12, has myspace and before I forced her to make it private she had it open to the world to view. With how many creeps are out in the world these days I'd hate to think of the kids who don't have their information private. In fact, this cyber-stalking has become so popular that some people have formed organizations in hopes to stop it (it's especially common in the U.S.). But is all stalking really bad behaviour? I don't think so. I think that as long as you aren't obsessing over a person, threatening them or trying to commit harm to them, a simple "creep" session is okay.

To find out a little more about how cyber-stalking is becoming an issue, especially in the U.S. heres a link to an article I read about some groups that are trying to put a halt to this form of stalking: Privacy Watch: Stalking Over the Web Is a Growing Threat by Andrew Brandt

"Self improvement, is masturbation."-Fight Club

(http://www.blueq.com/modules/ecs/images/125837698_m.png)

"1.	Masturbation
	The act of touching oneself to produce a favorable feeling in the groin area. Usually accompanied by some sort of mental, visual, or audio stimulation to assist in reaching climax. jerking off; spit-shining the old water pump; waxing the brass candlestick; beating off; playing cards with only one hand on the table; riding the quarter-horse; joining the mile-high club, solo-aviator division; giving in to the hand police; self-actualization; fully realizing your potential No honey, I don't want to tonight, I'm tired from watching Oprah. Why don't you just go masturbate? That dumb broad got me all worked up and left me; so I had to spit-shine the old water pump manually if ya know what I mean. .......
2.	Masturbation
	Mass murder of millions of tiny defenseless sperm."

...There are clearly many ways of defining masturbation, these two are the first two that come up on Urban Dictionary and I have to say they gave me quite a laugh. But why is masturbation considered such a taboo? In my eyes theres a lot worse things that a person could do then sexually pleasing themselves from time to time. I mean I find it so hard to believe that they used to perform preventative "treatments" on men and women so that they didn't crave that sexual need anymore or that they created harnesses and made people wear them so that they were physically punished if they did try to masturbate. We may not have harnesses anymore but masturbation continues to be something that many people deny they partake in. I know that at home in the states many of my girl friends still to this day deny the fact that they've ever touched themselves and crinkle their nose at the thought of somebody masturbating-"I would never do that"-they all say. But as we covered in class, masturbation is a natural instinct and we all in face have masturbated whether we remember it or not-since it's known that infants and children do so without even realizing it. After doing some research online I found an article that discussed the International Guidelines on Sexual Education. It discusses how the guidelines mention promoting masturbation as a way to get kids to wait to have sex, something that I think its just absolutely brilliant. Why would we not prefer our youth to holding off on sex by pleasing themselves? It's better then somebody that is young and immature getting pregnant at a young age or getting caught up in something that they aren't ready for and not using protection and getting an STD. The article goes on to discuss how many US right-winged news groups (such as Fox News) tried to make this seem like an awful idea by discussing teaching 5-8 year olds masturbation. Personally, I wasn't shocked by this at all being from the US myself I know that this happens much too often. Too bad the right-winged conservatives have to take something that will ultimately help our youth and twist it into something else. I think its time to open our eyes and realize masturbation is natural and quit hiding the topic from the world and promote: Sex can wait Masturbate!

If your interested in the article I was referring to its called: "Roundup: Masturbation as Natural as Breathing....Let's Ban That, Too"- by Jodi Jacobson ...I think its a pretty interesting read!