Response to extreme tattooing and piercing

After reading Manpreet Sokhi's blog on extreme tattooing and piercing I believe it would be true to state that the writer does not agree with extreme body modification. Sokhi upholds the belief that people choose to modify in order to self express or seek attention due to insecurities, overall concluding that the behaviour is wrong.

Below is the image that Sokhi used to back up his beliefs:



In correlation to the image presented I personally do not believe it was done under the purpose of religious reasoning. Instead I would predict it is a rebellion against social norms, a statement of his individualism. However he could just think it makes him look pretty.


Personally I believe this type of body modification should be accepted and should not be deemed bad. The modification is on the man's face and therefore does not affect any other person, therefore what is wrong about it?

Gambling

Gambling, the act of playing for stakes in the hope of winning. There are many different types of gambling, including casino gaming which may be table or electronic and non casino gambling including for example bingo, dice and card games.

Personally I have never been a big gambler. My stake goes as far as a pound on a football match or a pound on the lottery if it is a roll over. My main reasoning for choosing to not participate in such activity is due to that fact that I would definitely become addicted. Becoming addicted is a core reason to why gambling could be perceived as a bad behaviour. According to the website http://www.overcominggambling.com/facts.html it was found that 15 million people display some sign of a gambling addiction. An opposing reason to why gambling is bad, could stem from religious beliefs. For example in the bible it states how gambling is a sin and participation in such behaviour means defying Gods wishes.

Even though gambling as presented above has several reasons to why it may be seen as a bad behaviour, it must be questioned whether it is completely bad. As discussed to Gamble some people wish to only spend a pound on a lottery ticket, therefore if the behaviour of gambling is control, it is then not acceptable? Contradictory to this, if the behaviour is acceptable what is the extent point at which it turns bad.

Personally I believe, being a casual social gambler is acceptable as it is infrequent for entertainment purposes. In comparison I also believe relief-and-escape, compulsive or anti-social gambler is bad. I believe this as it can cause harm to a person mentally, affects family members, it can increase debts in turn leading to psychological stress and can also lead to further forms of bad behaviour such as lying and stealing. With 65% of pathological gamblers committing crimes to support their gambling habit.

Swearing

Swear words also known as profanities are words, gestures or expressions that are socially interpreted to be insulting and rude as a sign or disrespect. According to Steven Pinker in his book 'The stuff of thought', there are five different types of profanities; dysphemistic, abusive, idiomatic, emphatic and cathartic. Pinker also believed the content of profane language can be broke down into categories of negative emotions including supernatural, bodily effluvia and organs, diseases deaths and infirmity, sexuality and disfavoured people or groups. http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/go-pinker-yourself

Personally I believe it could be questioned whether one type of profanity is worse than another. For example carthartic profanities are used when something bad happens such as dropping a plate. In this instance no other person is being directly insulted in comparison to abusive profanity. Therefore is all swearing bad if it means no harm to another person. In comparison, if to this idea, if a person was to use cathartic profanities in the presence of for instance my grandparents or younger siblings I would be offended.

In 1939 'Gone with the wind' by Margaret Mitchell was the first to use profanity in a major American film. "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76Aj7lkIHp0&feature=related This was voted number one movie line of all time by the American film Institute. From media attention such as this I believe it presents why swearing is somewhat socially acceptable because when famous actors who are role models to many are doing it, it reinforces the behaviour and people are more likely to do it.

When looking at individual words that are said to be swear words it is found that many priginate from other meanings. For example bastard and bitch both have a non offensive meaning, therefore should these words be labelled bad when it is still the same word but in a different context for a double meaning. An example of this could be rather them naming a female canine a bitch a person may state "Life's a bitch", does this then become bad? Another example is the term 'Crap'. 'Crap' is said to originate from the name of the person who created the toilet Thomas Crapper. Therefore if it is simply a last name which refers to excrement, is it really bad as there is not much difference therefore between "crap" and "poo"!!

Even though there are many arguments to why swearing should not be deemed bad there are cases which would argue against this. For example according to religion it is a sin to swear therefore should all swear words be deemed bad. Another example includes, when in an interview it is very unlikely that a person would choose to swear. To know not to use profanities in situations such as these does it not insinuate that there is a bad factor attached to it's use.

Personally I believe when a person chooses to swear due to the discovered shock value reaction it can create through it's usage. Personally I would prefer someone to swear then act out physically on emotions, however there is a time and place when it should be used, out of respect for people whose religion or culture is against it. Generally I believe people need freedom, the Government and law already try to restrict people from doing so much therefore if swearing gives a person freedom of speech, why not.

Alcohol & Binge Drinking

Personally I believe it would be true to say that the average person over 18 enjoys a glass of wine, shot of spirit or can of larger and I do not believe there is much wrong with this. However, conversely I do believe binge drinking is very, very bad.

To begin with, the evident health aspect that is attached to binge drinking begins to present how drinking excessive amounts of alcohol is bad. In 2008, in the UK there were 9031 deaths reported due to alcohol related incidents, http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1091.

Another issue that should be accounted for when considering binge drinking is the fact that that consumer may exploit themselves to harmful situations. For example especially for girls, when binge drinking the consumer may lose consciousness of their surroundings, this then could expose them to being sexually attacked and could even lead to the passing of sexually transmitted diseases. Due to these factors, is binge drinking not an extremely bad behaviour?

It could be argued that what a person wishes to do to their body is their own personal choice. However binge drinking does not only affect the consumer. Binge drinking can lead to harm to other from the person under the influence of alcohol. It can also increase general crimes such as drink driving and speeding.

Every year money, time and resources are wasted in public services to attain the need of people who go out up town binge drinking. This presents how drinking mass consumptions does not only affect the user, or close family but instead masses of people yearly. Binge drinking takes away resources and money that could be better used elsewhere on those who genuinely need to. This enforces my personal reasoning into how and why binge drinking is bad.

I believe those who choose to binge drink are selfish, their egocentric ways cost people who pay tax more money each year and have even lead to increased prices of products such as wine. For example according to the website http://www.decanter.com/news/197670.html , it was said that a rethink in the wine market and pricing in the UK was made to change the culture based on discounts and cheap pricing. This culture is binge drinking.

Overall the behaviour is bad. Similarly to smoking and drug use, the intake of the product has health related effects and long term effects for masses of people.

Drugs

We as individuals are always in a constant state of change, meaning intoxication is natural. When taking this fact into account does this mean drug use is not deviant as it is only another form of being intoxicated.

There are many different types of drugs including; hypnotics, stimulants, omebriants and hallucinogens, all varying in types of stimulation. It could be questioned whether drug use of one type is bad where another is acceptable, this would mirror the fact that different drugs are given different classes. Drugs can be taken for health reasons or personal enjoyment, in correlation to this it could also be argued whether personal use is bad in comparison to someone's health.

Hallucinogenic drugs include cannabis and LSD, they are drugs that occur naturally, changing a person's mental state. Going back into history it is apparent that Vietnam War troops took drugs to incapacitate themselves from the reality of death and insanity. Being a form of pain relief I believe from this aspect drug use should not be seen as a form of bad behaviour as they can help their users.

However from the use of drugs many unbeneficial effects can arise. LSD mirrors a psychotic episode of a schizophrenic. When in this state what a person does may not be their own conscious choice but can lead to harming themselves or other. From the website http://www.thegooddrugsguide.com/lsd/faq.htm it presents many types of drugs and their affects. It presents how from many drugs a person can get captivated by how the drug makes you feel under influence, this can lead to physical or psychological addiction. Addictions to drug have been seen to increase crime rate not only by the general use of drugs but also as criminal act are carried out to feed drug habits.

In correlation to the use of drugs the Government are trying to control drugs. Personally I do not believe this is a great idea. When drugs are illegal the cool factor increases therefore if the ban is taken away people may feel less of a need to indulge in the given behaviour.

Overall drugs are not that great, for many of us we do not need them to live, yet so much money is wasted each year on them, death each year is increased because of them and tax payers money is wasted on those addicts. I personally believe there should be a ban on drugs however people always want to defy the law.

Response to: Infidelity

In correlation to other peoples views upon infidelity a read a blog via the link http://hall90.blogspot.com/. In the debate Emma Hall successfully presents facts and figures and gives her own personal opinion upon the behaviour. Similarly to Hall I stand by the belief that infidelity is immoral and cheating only presents that truth that a relationship is flawed.

However, in he debate Hall provides the view that committing infidelity emotionally is worse than committing it physical. In relation to this view I disagree. I personally believe both behaviours are respectively just as bad as the other.

If you were to find out a partner had feelings for another person I believe this can greatly cause psychological effects. In the long term this can lead a person to be for example less open to trusting. However if you are cheating on physically, are you not then similarly cautious over the people you choose to trust.

It is argued that if a partner cheats just physically it is not bad as they do not have feelings for another person. However to commit infidelity primarily does it not present how the adulterer feels no emotion for their partner anyway. Being cheated on physically is also bad due to the fact that is can expose a person to harmful diseases.

The fact is, when a person is cheated on emotionally, usually it is found that the infidelity is physical also. Therefore both types of cheating are as bad as one another, as they can occur simultaneo

Nasty comedians

A nasty comedian could be defined as a comedian using crude and offensive jokes to humour. Jokes could be based upon for example race, culture, religion, death or disabilities, reinforcing prejudice and stereotypes. However do not all comedians do this to some extent?



Fir example after watching Al Murray's DVD 'The pub landlord' his love for 'Beautiful British' people was apparent, with a differentiating attitude for other countries. Personally I do not believe this to be bad behaviour as no matter if your black, white, male female, fat or think jokes will always be made, therefore if they are not directly insinuated towards you as an individual offence should not be taken by them.



Contradictory to this when following the link, http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2010/apr/20/frankie-boyle-review I found an article investigating how comedian Frankie Boyle highly offended a women and child by his jokes upon down syndrome. Frankie Boyle is well known for his crude jokes upon for example cancer, rape and Baby P. When taking this into account, is this type of comedy bad? As in these cases it causes upsetting disrespect and stress to those who have lost someone or to people who have had to experience for example sexual attacks.



Personally I do not believe comedians mean what they say or mean to make offence. Instead I believe similarly to any job comedians strive to be the best, trying to be different and go the extra mile to stand out, however when doing this it could be portrayed crudely. Overall I believe nasty comedians are not bad and most have good intentions, pleasing their audience. However they may not be the most considerate of people, but if you do not like them or what they say do not watch them.

Bandits and Outlaws

A bandit could be described as a member of an organised gang well known for robbery, especially at gun point. They are thought to act outside the law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw The terms bandits and outlaws were more commonly used in the early 19th century. Eric Hobsbawn's thesis on outlaws states that outlaws were "individuals living on the edges of rural societies by robbing and plundering."

Some famous bandits and outlaws that can be easily recognised include; The Kray Twins, Jesse James and Bonnie and Clyde. The duo Bonnie and Clyde are known for their series of bank robberies and murder of civilians. This was during the Great Depression in America from 1931 to 1934. The motives behind the duo's actions were for pure self greed of money. From these factors it presents how they both had no morals or felt no remorse for their actions, overall being bad. Even though it is said how defiantly bad the duo were, Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow are among the first celebrity criminals of the modern era. From the types of bandits mentioned it would seem believable to say that all bandits and outlaws are bad, but are they?

The famous story of Robin Hood falls into the category of bandits and outlaws. 'stealing from the rich and give to the poor'. Even though this was therefore under the category of stealing, due to his morals and intentions being in the right place does it make the behaviour acceptable? The story has created a honourable heroic figure from an arguable villain.

Bullying

Bullying entails emotional, verbal or physical abuse from an individual or group to any given target. Bullying has no age limit or a set place for attack, it can occur in schools, in neighbourhoods or in the workplace. It exists between for example social groups and classes.

Unlike some proposed bad behaviours such as lying and masturbation bullying however can be prevented. According to the NSPCC http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/statistics/bullying_statistics_wda48744.html 31% of children experienced bullying during childhood in the setting of school. From this a quarter of the children said to suffer long term harmful effects lasting into adulthood. Some long term affects of bullying include anxiety, lack of self esteem, trust issues and interpersonal issues including avoidance of social situations.

Over the last few years, it is apparent that the use of the internet has thoroughly increased, in correlation there has also been a rise in the use of social networking sites, for example Facebook. Along with this increase in usage of technology, it has also seen an increase in cyber bullying. Via the link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/article-1158736/Facebook-Twitter-fuelling-epidemic-online-bullying.html it proposes that social websites such Facebook stem cyber bullying, with one in every three British children being the victim of abuse via the internet.

The fact is, bullying is immoral. It makes victims of the innocent with harmful side effects. It is definitively a bad behaviour. This given behaviour can cause malfunction to a person's life and has even been seen to increase levels of suicide. There are many books, articles, websites, phone lines and people that are in place to tackle the issue which I personally find an extremely worthwhile cause.

One night stands

After publishing posts on both infidelity and prostitution, the behaviour of one night stands interested me greatly. When prostituting one's body it entails an endless count of one night stands that are paid for, similarly in many cases of infidelity it can also include one night stands. Therefore if it is not being paid for and you are not cheating on another person are one night stands bad?



When analysing the behaviour of prostitution I put forward the argument that it is an invasion if a person's body which should be treated as a temple therefore if a one night stand does this, does it make the behaviour just as bad? Again from prostitution I stated that sexually transmitted diseases are increasingly caught therefore in a one night stand is this behaviour not exposed one again? From these proposed arguments I believe it would insinuate that a one night stand is a bad behaviour.



However, unlike prostitution one night stands do not break the law, similarly in the case of infidelity one night stand do not cause direct harm to a third party, therefore if the behaviour is carried out for natural pleasure is this really bad? In an earlier blog masturbation was investigated, when comparing this to one night stands would it not have to be said if one behaviour is bad so it the other, as both are carried out to create pleasure.



It could be argued that a one night stand is behaviour far worse than both prostitution and infidelity. This could be due to the fact that, at least from prostitution some type of entrepreneurial motive is the reasoning for the behaviour. Also, for infidelity in many cases it is found that affairs can last for years meaning emotions and feelings are felt for the other person rather than it being simply meaningless sex.



Via the link http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2000/aug/06/featuresreview.review1 it presents you with an article 'I had a one-night stand. It could have killed me' from the Observer in 2000. Personally it did not tell me anything I did not already know but presents in a real life story the fact that one night stands can expose for example HIV, from people you hardly know. The article draws to the conclusion that overall one night stands are bad.

Prejudice; racism

Racism is discriminatory or abusive behaviour to members of a given race under the belief that one race is intrinsically superior to members of another race. It is an issue that has affected people for hundreds of years and continues to do so to this day. According to the website http://www.soundvision.com/info/racism/statistics.asp racism has been the cause of over 62 million deaths in the last 100 years. Racism has been the cause of wars, apartheids, deaths and disputes, it has caused heart ache and loss to many people and for this reason I believe it is undoubtedly a bad behaviour.



Through the link http://www.youthnoise.com/page.php?page_id=2694 it presents how in 1998 4,468 racial hate crimes were reported. I believe this presents the reality of racial abuse. Throughout the years more media has been given to racial problems with films such as "Do the right thing" and "Boyz n the Hood" being created to illustrate these problems.



Personally I do not believe Martin Luther King's dream has been seen as of yet, however today, with a variety of celebrities, schools and the government racism is slowly getting stamped out. Aside bullying I find this to be one of the more appalling behaviours, being bad.

Response to verbal abuse

Verbal abuse as said in it's name is a form of abuse through the use of language to insult and disrespect a person. This form of abuse does not cause direct physical harm to a person but does this mean it is not bad?

After reviewing Kamaljit Kaur's blog upon verbal abuse, I found myself with the agreed assumption that verbal abuse is just as painful as physical abuse.

http://random-kam28.blogspot.com/ Verbal abuse is found greatly within domestic violence, this is a great example of how verbal abuse can be harmful. For example if you was with a partner for the time span of two year, and for a year of the relationship you were put down and made to feel unworthy,. These feelings could in turn form a state of depression. Depression creates a psychological and physical change in a persons body therefore being unhealthy. In many cases physical abuse has lead to instances of suicide, as described on the website http://www.suicide.org/suicide-causes.html

To conclude I agree thoroughly to the beliefs of Kaur. Verbal abuse is harmful and those doing it are bad. Below is a website that offrs insight into what verbal abuse is, physical effects, behavioural effects and emotional effects.

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4910363_effects-verbal-abuse.html

Response to Swearing

After reading a post from Graham Quirk via the link http://theblackheartofgrahamquirk.blogspot.com/ I must be honest, I was confused. Generally I found the post extremly humourous, due to his display of love for profanities. However I personally believe there are aspects of swearing that should be questionned rather than a person just stating how they enjoy swearing.

Most swear words if not all originate from a meaning, therefore is it not wrong to use them for crude unecessary language rather than in the incorrect context. It could be debated whether swearing is unacceptable if it is a direct remark towards someone but is acceptable if used to express emotions of for example anger. This is because if it does not harm a person is the behaviour truly bad.

I believe location and setting are important factors to account for when deciding whether swearing is bad. For example when I was young I was always told that swearing was bad and there was the monsterous consequence of soap if i did. However besides this I was then exposed to familiy members cursing. As a child the double standards can cause great confusion therefore is this not an example of how if people wish to swear they should do so in discreation, or at approriate times otherwise when the behaviour effects others it is then bad.

Infidelity & General cheating

Infidelity is known as violating mutually agreed boundaries in an intimate relationship. These mutually agreed boundaries define what infidelity is, this is because one persons idea of what infidelity is may differ from another's. For example infidelity could be one if not all of these; having an affair, a one night stand, flirting, lusting. porn and masturbation.



According to Richard Henriksen infidelity is a multicultural perspective. For example in specific parts of Africa it is acceptable for married partners to have casual sexual relationships with third parties. In comparison, in specific Arab societies if a woman was to commit adultery they could be put to death. This concludes how infidelity is based upon the individual, their morals and cultural beliefs.



Especially in Western societies it is blatantly evident that infidelity now occurs more commonly. However it is less apparent the reasoning to why people participate in cheating. It personally baffles me why a person would cheat on a partner rather than just end the unhappy relationship. A person may choose to cheat due to the thrill which may stem from it, including the rule breaking and idea of getting caught. This would suggest why they would not finish with their current partner as without them the chance of getting caught is nonexistent.



Presently infidelity may be portrayed as more socially acceptable, this may be due to the media. Over the last two years through media such as 'The Sun' newspaper it has been reported with photographic evidence that footballer Ashley Cole cheated on his current wife Cheryl Cole. Serial cheat Ashley is a role model to many young men therefore by him cheating does this not instigate that the behaviour is acceptable. Similarly by Cheryl Cole forgiving the 'love rat' does this not say to the young girls who admire her dearly that again this behaviour is acceptable?



Apart from the fact that cheating is immorally disgusting; it is also bad due to the string of bad behaviours attached to it. These include, lying, manipulation, the passing of sexually transmitted diseases and hypocrisy. In many cases cheating can also lead to violence adding to my beliefs into why cheating is bad. The consequences if infidelity can also have dramatic affects for further parties such as offspring, who then face the ordeal and stress of unhappy families. In many cases cheaters often state they immorally committed adultery due to being drunk, however is it not bad in its self to allow yourself to get that drunk to the point of having no physical control over one's body.



According to Annette Lawson, she believed that when women commit adultery it gives them power, being able to grow, gain confidence and the ability to control their marriage. Personally I believe she speaks utter nonsense. Personally from the cases of infidelity I have witnessed, by a partner cheating it has not gained the person confidence but instead made them paranoid. Bringing in a third party does not fix a relationship; it's overall a selfish act.



When investigating into the behaviour of infidelity, the first aspect I researched was the statistics. According to the website; http://www.infidelityfacts.com/infidelity-statistics.html it is found that the percentage of men and women who admitted to committing infidelity in any relationship was over 50% for both genders, 57% for males and 54% for females. I believe these statistics present how there is no significant difference in whether a person cheats and their gender. People will always cheat, but that does not make it right.

Body Modification

Body modification has been happening for many hundreds of years, in relation to religion, society and culture. Body modification entails a deliberate alteration to the human body for a non medical reason. Daily, people modify their bodies, from cutting their hair and nails to tattooing.

Body modification can be temporary or permanent, and invasive or non invasive. in correlation to these varying modifications it could be argued whether this behaviour is bad. One reason to why body modification is deemed bad is due to religion. For example some believe it is a sin to modify the body as it presents no appreciation for the natural body they was given, attacking their God, changing their natural state. In correlation to this if non invasive practices are carried out does it mean this type of behaviour is acceptable as it does not enter the body beyond flesh. In comparison to the proposed religious beliefs, other opposing religions do believe in body modification. For example in Judaism, men are circumcised, presenting how modification is part of their religion and how to not modify their body this way would be bad. From this debate I believe it presents how in correlation to body modification it it not easy to say whether the behaviour is bad as it must take into account a persons morals and beliefs.

Unlike religious reasoning, some people choose to modify their body for aesthetic reasoning to enhance beauty. Even through religion would argue against this, is it really wrong. Changing the state of the modifiers body does not harm anyone else and it is not a crime therefore how can it be deemed bad. In Western societies body modification has been increasingly more common, personally I believe it is a great way for self expression and could even lead to increasing crime. For example people who express themselves through modification may feel less of a need to express themselves through other forms for example through rebellion in crime such as graffiti.

One way in which modification for personal enhancement may be deemed bad is because it could be portrayed to insult others. For example in Hawaiian tribes tattooing on the face is used to symbolise what people have done in their life, their status and who they are. The website http://www.buzzle.com/articles/hawaiian-tribal-tattoos.html presents the meanings of the tattoos. This has then been copied and incorporated in Western societies with no cultural meaning in turn insulting certain cultures and their way of living. From this is could be questioned whether Western body modification is worse then Cultural.

Overall, I personally do not have any tattoos but I believe they are a great way of self expression and I definitely do not believe they are a bad behaviour.

Stealing

Inevitably stealing is categorically a bad behaviour, due to the law which says so. Even though it is a bad behaviour, similarly to prostitution, lying and infidelity it is a behaviour that consistently occurs daily. I would comfortably say that we all know someone who has stole something or know of a situation where something was stolen. Due to the fact that stealing will always occur it could be said that some types of theft are worse than others.

After discussing the issue of stealing it became apparent that many people feel stealing from large companies is acceptable in comparison to small companies and family households. This was due to the belief that larger companies would not feel the effect in comparison to families and smaller organisations. However isn't stealing still stealing and no matter what the size of the organisation or person being stolen from does it not all have an effect on someone.

Personally I uphold the view that all stealing is bad, if you cannot afford it you go without. However, not everyone who steals does so because they cannot afford a product. In some cases of stealing it has been found a person has not stole due to deprivation or scarcity, but instead for the excitement from the theft. Similarly to how drugs can thrill an addict, it is believed stealing is a thrill-inducing behaviour. When investigating why people steal I came across the link http://neuroanthropology.net/2010/04/26/stealing-pears-we-all-want-to-but-why/ from the document it presents neurobiology into stealing. It describes that belief that stealing is pleasurable due to the brains reward system, the excitement of stealing can release neurotransmitters such as dopamine and norepinephrine, which could be said to put the given thief on a high.

Generally if stealing was not bad it would not be a criminal offence. Previously it has been said that large organisations do not feel the affect of stealing, however if everyone was to feel that way and more people stole from shops, levels of profit margins would decrease. This could mean that prices of goods for consumers may rise and for colleagues bonuses may be little or nonexistent, therefore stealing even from large companies has side effects. To conclude, those who steal should go to jail.

Bad Cinema

In concordance to the topic of 'bad cinema', the film 'Kids' was reviewed. The film is based upon sexually active American children. Produced in 1995 the film formed much controversy due to its inclusion and focus on the teenager's attitudes and behaviour towards substance abuse and sex. The film is ideal in representing bad cinema due to its variety of bad behaviours including explicit sexual dialogue, drug dealing, physical violence, theft, sexual display, substance abuse and date rape.

More deeply, the film is based upon a teenage boy character named Tilly, unaware of being HIV positive his goal is to sleep with virgins, some of whom are underage. The character also participates in many instances of drug use. Through the film characters contract sexually transmitted disease, partake in gang violence and other areas formerly discussed.

Due to the issues examined it is understandable why the film raises so much debate as not only does in entail these topics but also uses adolescent actors and actresses to do so, immorally exposing them to these behaviours. Due to the abundance of immoral behaviours Mirimax films rated 'Kids' a NC-17 certificate, yet it was later released unrated.

Below is a link which presents the uproar created from the production of the film:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/106520

Personally I believe the concept of the film the producers were trying to create was a wakeup call to parents of the situations teenagers realistically face. Generally I believe the creation of the film is effective and offers parents a way of becoming more aware, it also offers parents a tool to implement to their children to become more educated to life pressures and could in turn help to decrease for example HIV. However I do not believe the film is immorally incorrect for using such young actors and some form of parental guidance should have been put on the film on release.

Stalking

Personally I believe that to stalk a person it is undoubtedly a bad behaviour. On the search engine Google, stalking is described as unwanted attention by individuals or groups of people to others. I do not believe that is the best way to describe stalking however that term unwanted emphasises why the behaviour is bad. Previously in my blogs I described bad behaviour as 'an act that harms one's self or another person' therefore as stalking can potentially lead to harming a person for this reason I believe the behaviour is bad.

The level of immorality within the given behaviour could be measured by the extent of observance, however this is difficult. By this I mean it could be hard to distinguish when a concerned interest in someone's activities becomes stalking, as for example in light of creations such as Facebook and other social networking sites we are able to observe and attain information, pictures and conversations of other people, therefore if stalking was defined as watching a person, many people could be claimed as stalkers.

Not long ago I watched a film, unfortunately I cannot remember its title, but for me it defined stalking. In the film, a male character, took hundreds of photographs of his friends wife, he set up cameras in their bathroom, toilet and bedrooms, stole family videos and clothes of the victim. I believe this presents inappropriate observance, which invades the victim's life with unwanted attention. This example of stalking therefore includes theft, breaking and entering and other unlawful behaviour.

When researching stalking I came across a study by Mullen et al (2000), "A Study of Stalkers" http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/156/8/1244 In the study 145 stalkers were used. From the investigation five types of stalkers were recognized: rejected, intimacy seeking, incompetent, resentful and predatory. The stalkers were found to have varying motivations from reasserting power over an ex partner who rejected them, to the quest for a loving relationship. Stalkers were generally lonely, socially incompetent people who all had the capacity to frighten and distress their victims. In the study 36% of the stalkers attacked their victim. Due to studies such as these it backs up my beliefs to why stalking is unquestionably bad behaviour.

Response to masturbation

After reading Karrie Webbs blog upon masturbation via the link http://www.kazwebb.blogspot.com/ I felt she successfully investigated the behaviour in great depth.

Similarly to Karrie in the lecture I found myself feeling embarrassed when it come to the words used in replacement for masturbation, half of which I had never heard! I also agree that reasoning to why people may feel uncomfortable when it comes to masturbation is religion. As stated throughout history Christianity has told how 'sexual fantasies are forbidden' in turn making masturbation a sin.

An alternative reason why masturbation may be a topic of awkwardness is the media it receives in films. In films such as 'American Pie' masturbating is a behaviour which creates embarrassment to the individual doing it. It is portrayed as an alternative to someone unable to obtain a sexual partner, this therefore enforces the ideology that masturbation is shameful.

In comparison the only aspect of the blog I did not agree with was the belief that society should be more open to the idea of masturbation. If you a person was to masturbate in public, this would be a criminal offence due to indecent exposure, personally I believe this presents how the behaviour may not be bad but some form of discretion should come with it. Contradictory to this however, if two people were to have sex outside again this is indecent exposure yet people will more openly talk about sex then they will masturbation.

Overall masturbation is not bad, however similarly to being on the toilet, other people and society do not need to know what you are doing.

Lying

Lying, something we have all done and something that we will all continue to do. It is questionable whether lying is bad or justifiable.

From a young age many of us are lied to. Across many cultures fictional characters are created such as Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the Tooth fairy. These lies do not cause harm therefore are these lies bad?

Even though many parents lie to children, emphasis is put onto children not to lie themselves. With fictional stories including the boy who cried wolf and films such as Pinocchio lying is portrayed negatively. Due to this, it presents why lying could be seen as bad behaviour, as this is our mind set from a young age.

Is the ability to lie a good quality? To some extent, I believe being able to lie and lie well is a good quality to have. Work related, lying could be portrayed positively. For example lying may give a person the ability to please others. If you were for example a lawyer or a member of the Government the ability to lie is extremely important. The film 'Liar Liar' is a prime example of this. In it, Jim Carey plays the role of a lawyer who lies consistently at work, to his colleagues and his family. By the character lying he hurts many people including his son. However, when his ability to lie was taken away, emotions flare and feelings are hurt. This insinuates the idea that lying may not always be bad.

It is questionable whether there are sub group categories to lies. Being acceptable or non acceptable. Personally I believe the worst kinds of lies are simply those that hurt another person. By this i mean, parents creating happiness for children through Santa Claus, or the Government hiding information from citizens to protects them or a person lying to their friend to save their feelings from being hurt are all examples of lies which should be acceptable. In comparison unacceptable lies, are lies that have motives to hurt a person, or lies to cover wrong doing. For example lying is condemned bad due to lying about drug use, prostitution or infidelity.

Between genders I believe lies do not differ drastically. Lies are used to give a person power or increase their status, however I believe women are more likely to lie to make a person feel better.

Would the world be a better place if everyone always told the truth? If everyone were to tell the truth I believe the world would definitely not be a better place for relationships, friendships, businesses and society. In comparison I do believe in correlation to the law and the justice system, the inability to lie would be very useful.

Overall I believe people more predominantly object less to lying when they are the ones doing it. Personally I believe if the lie does not hurt someone it should not be seen as bad. However, as people's opinions differ it would be hard to say what lies are okay. The fact still remains that regardless of what the lie is, lying will always occur.

The given link below from the BBC presents an in depth overview of lying, its consequences and types of lying. It also presents philosophers of lying and their beliefs.

LINK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/lying

Masturbation

The 19th century's disease, and the 20th century's cure, masturbation is a topic that is far less likely to be discussed in comparison to love or sex, yet is the primary sexual activity of mankind. Commonly, within film's masturbation is associated with humour and embarrassment. For example, being walked in on when carrying out this deed is seen as shameful. This is a prime example of how socially masturbation is condemned as bad behaviour.

According to the psychologist Sigmund Freud, he believed as early as infancy accidental stimulation of pleasure can occur and is likely to be repeated later on in life. Personally in this light I find Freud somewhat twisted, although his beliefs do highlight how it is a natural behaviour and therefore instigates the belief that this behaviour should not be condemned badly.

In comparison, the practice of 'self abuse' could be portrayed sinfully due to cultural beliefs. For example, masturbation is seen as sex which does not create children, in turn being seen as wasteful of valuable resources, going against Gods wishes.

As now in time less emphasis is put into religions, further reasons to why masturbation could be depicted badly are plausible. One reason could be due to law. If a person was to masturbate publicly, they would be breaking the law, therefore to some extent this behaviour must be bad. In conclusion to this it could be fair to say, publicly masturbation is bad, however privately masturbation should not be perceived as a bad behaviour.

Even though reasoning to why masturbation is viewed positively or negatively has been highlighted, it does not propose why people wish to do it to begin with. Apart from the obvious pleasurable principle, masturbation could be due to the level of control it gives to a person and the individualism that stems from it. In males, terms for masturbation are characterised in animalistic and aggressive ways, being typically violent against animals. For example ' spanking the monkey' and 'chocking the chicken', offering natural masculinity and power. For women masturbation and associated terms for it are less aggressive, more playful, giving them a sense of nurture. Over hundreds of years, laws have ruled the earth, therefore to masturbate it gives the person control which no one else has. By laws not being able to have control over this, it could lead to the reasoning to why masturbation is frowned upon.

Overall, I personally believe masturbation should not be labelled a bad behaviour as long as it is conducted in the correct environment and does not harm any other being.

When researching into beliefs upon masturbation I came across a website that offered their view upon the given issues. LINK:http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/masturbation-guide

What does bad mean?

So far throughout my blogs, a variety of potential bad behaviour has been discussed. However no definition has been given to suggest what I believe general bad behaviour comprises.

Bad behaviour could be defined as an act that harms one's self or another person; physically or mentally. This may be through the use of substances or other. An individual's idea of what bad behaviour is could be determined by their personal morals. For example drug use may be immoral in ones opinion but a daily routine in someone else's. However, bad behaviour could simply defined as a law breaking act.

I do not believe there is one set definition of what bad behaviour is and it would be hard to attain one from a search engine!. Regardless of its definition, bad behaviour takes place, a behaviour being bad varies by person and what their idea of bad behaviours include.In correlation to what behaviour is, it could be questioned what makes a person act out types of bad behaviour. Below is a link to an article presenting beliefs into a criminal gene. It proposes that genetic makeup is the creation of a criminal, with the belief that some people are destined to be bad. Even though the article is based upon a murderer, which is not the type of bad behaviour I am investigating, the article does however describe Lombroso's theory of a criminal man and how genes could create for example thieves.

Link:http:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/do-your-genes-make-you-a-criminal-1572714.html

Response to speeding

After reading Debbie Potters blog on her joy for speeding, I was left thoroughly amused. http://debsbeingbadblog.blogspot.com/ I agreed with most if not all the points made, 'loud music, sunny days' and driving fast gives me such as good feeling also. However, in correlation to speeding I feel its important to take into account the consequences of the behaviour.

According to the website http://www.safespeed.org.uk/why.html in 2003 in Britain 58% of car exceeded the 30mph speed limit. With on average nine people being killed and 85 injured each day on UK roads, according to http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Publictransport/TrafficManagement/DG_10025598

In correlation it could be true to say if more people stuck to the proposed speed limit, death rates may decrease.

Generally if speeding was not bad there would not be speeding limits, cameras or laws against it. Think campaigns have been put into place because so many people who die each year due to the behaviour. Speeding is a selfish, it puts both ourselves and so many other people at risk. Therefore this behaviour should be deemed bad.

In comparison to all said, according to http://www.safespeed.org.uk/why.html 95% of accidents occur within the speed limit therefore is speeding that bad as when driving at the speed limit it does not decrease accidents by high levels anyway.

Personally I believe in the current economic climate people seem to have less money, therefore if they did not speed they would burn less fuel, saving them money on petrol, therefore if it saves you money and more people live it gives all the more reason why speeding is bad and why people should not do it.

Response to smoking

In correlation to the factors and effects of smoking, a topic for debate is mothers who choose to smoke whilst being pregnant. Via the link http://voice-in-order.blogspot.com/ I read a fellow blogger, Herj Kaurs view upon this issue. Kaur proposes that the Government should introduce a law by which pregnant women are registered and tested for nicotine, with the consequences of being fined if the substance is found in their bloodstream.

Personally I do not believe this scheme would work. Factors affecting its success include, thousands of babies being born every day, meaning thousands of people getting pregnant every day. When taking this into consideration it would mean the time and cost of the scheme would be extremely high and a lot of controversy from this would arise. Also, it is a well known fact that nicotine is extremely addictive, therefore for someone who has smoked from many years to be told they have to stop could be extremely stressful, in turn having similar harmful side effects upon the unborn anyway.

Generally many people uphold the view that a person should have the freedom whether to smoke or not as it is their body. However, I agree with Kaur as when an unborn child is in a mother's womb they are not given that choice whether they wish to inhale those toxic substances. Therefore even though the proposed scheme may have too many costs I believe something should be put into place to protect the unborn.

If the Government were however to inflict a scheme such as the proposed it could be found somewhat useful in places of high birth rates, as due to for example addiction a person may choose to not get pregnant rather than to stop smoking.

I personally believe a pregnant women smoking is horrific, it is a prime example of bad behaviour that should be changed.

Response to graffiti

On the 23rd March Raiissah Qadir posted a blog on graffiti. http://craftyrazor-bad.blogspot.com/ In the post Qadir effectively describes how graffiti originated from for example 'inscriptions and drawings found on ruins and ancient walls' in places such as Rome and today how it is used to voice thought and views. From this point of view it is questioned how graffiti can be bad.

Unlike Qadir I personally do not find graffiti amazing. I do agree that their is some astonishing artwork created through graffiti. An example of this is seen above. However it is not all like this. Below is an example of other forms of graffiti.

The above image presents the bad side to graffiti. It depicts a life of gang crime and how graffiti is used to create divides in people for example by stating their area codes. Also, where people choose to graffiti may also instigate the belief of it being bad behaviour is it can lead to vandalism of a person's property.

Personally I believe for those who have the gift of creating such amazing artwork, art course are put in place and their efforts should be channelled into such a course. My overall view stands that more recently graffiti is bad.

Smoking

When looking back many years, through idols such as Audrey Hepburn, Marilyn Monroe and even James Bond actors, smoking has been positively portrayed. Through many sources of media, cigarettes have been characterised with for example maturity, sexiness and was even used to enhance feminism.

However, over time smoking has been publicly condemned as bad and personally to some extent I agree. When counter balancing the enjoyment of smoking with the financial factors and health risks I generally do not believe it is worth it. Yet does this make smoking bad behaviour?

Since I was born my parents have always smoked. Watching the people you love most try to give up but fail time and time again has made me more determined not to do it myself. I have never tried a cigarette therefore some may say how can you judge, but still I do have an opinion on the issue... Many smokers and in fact non smokers uphold the view that it is the individual's life and they should choose whether to smoke or not yet I cannot help but feel even though the smoker may have that choice to smoke the people around them may not have the choice to be smoking passively. For example even though smoking has been banned in public places when walking to that public place I always seem to be stuck behind someone smoking with the wind blowing it in my direction.

Generally I don't not mind if people smoke or if they do not, as said the ones I love most smoke but there is a reason why smoking is increasingly becoming band and for those who socially smoke, i hope you stop before you can't. Overall i do not believe smoking should be classed as a bad behaviour, however a behaviour that has many bad side effects.

Below is a link to a relevant website to the NHS for quitting:

http://smokefree.nhs.uk/

Field trip: (Response to Amsterdam)

In response to the proposed field trip to Amsterdam via the link http://hall90.blogspot.com/ I personally believe this would be a bad choice. Even though it is true to say that Amsterdam is profoundly known for its freedom of drugs and sex, in the duration of 12 weeks it could be found exceedingly hard to organise a trip abroad for a large University class; when taking into account the costs, possible problems with passports and difficulties for parents. Therefore i propose we stay local and save on costs as all you need to do is look on any street of Wolverhampton and you are sure to find one if not many examples of bad behaviour!

Field Trip: Week 12

In correlation to the field trip in week 12 for exploration of bad behaviour I believe, if it is possible, a visit to Wolverhampton court would be an effective choice. Personally I think nothing can say bad behaviour like a law breaking crime.

I am not too sure if it is possible, but if we are able to preview for example a case upon theft this would not only correlate to lectures within being bad but also, being able to hear someone's account upon why they carried out that act could generate great debate upon what we believe to be bad behaviour.

For example it could be found we may be more lenient perceiving bad behaviour differently towards a homeless person stealing food then someone stealing commodities for the thrill.

The link http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/HMCSCourtFinder/Search.do;jsessionid=33AE9A8CC24CDFABD2A5FFAD42782A6C takes you to information on Wolverhampton's magistrate court, which may be useful if we wanted to go there as the field trip.