Legitimate Rape

How the term 'legitimate rape' can ever be uttered astounds me. 'Legitimate'? How can rape be illegitimate? - Of course you get those rare scenarios where a woman claims rape where she is cheating, or for whatever reason: but really the term 'legitimate rape' should never be used. Rape is rape and that's it. There's no disputing that. What's even more detrimental in this debate upon the term 'legitimate rape' is that it was coined by the Missouri appointed senate nominee and member of the House of Representatives, Todd Akin, who claims that 'legitimate rape' should never lead to pregnancy. Akin's 'theory' is that during legitimate rape the female's biological defences work to prevent pregnancy. Rape is sex- sex leads to pregnancy: simple. You can't make these ridiculous excuses- I'm sorry but Mr Akin what the fuck would you know about female rape? It's appalling that this pathetic excuse is being used to try and justify the pro-life attitude of many Republicans so that basically even if I'm beaten horrendously, raped savagely, and then fall pregnant this is not rape and therefore I cannot have an abortion. I am left with the memories and product of this savage attack: which benefits Mr Akin in no way, neither does the abortion of this foetus- so why does he, and other Republicans care so much? It's a point of principle: controlling and restricting women is just what men love to do, this is a matter that has nothing to do with them, something that they can never understand. Us women would never prevent or make men have a vasectomy, I'm sure they'd find it pretty ludicrous if we did, so why should they try and impose on our rights? More importantly why should other women impose on our rights? This attitude is only pushing us backwards as a society rather than forwards. Equality and human rights should be cherished not opposed upon by Republicans and Conservatives and that is legitimate.

American Psycho

The coverage of the 20th of July cinema shooting was more than extensive. Almost everyone can recall the crazed look, orange hair and those eyes of 24 year old James Holmes; former neuroscience PhD student and murderer. But what about the even more recent Sikh temple shooting? The face of Wade Michael Page should haunt us too, but the media has not contrived him of the lunacy that James Holmes abhors; although each act equally cries lunatic, fanatic and pure evil. James Holmes was motivated by pure insanity, randomly killing innocent people with no particular reason. Maybe this is what makes us more scared? These are everyday people, visiting the cinema, just like us. No particular age, gender or race was targeted which in the media has fuelled more fear. However, Wade Michael Page is motivated by hatred and racism to an exclusive group: Sikhs. This kind of behaviour is not unbeknown to us, and for the majority we are not part of this group. In adherence to this, media coverage on the Cinema shooting completely outweighs that of the Sikh Temple shooting. But is this right?

America, a country never celebrated for it's acceptance of other races simple disregards this shooting as another racist attack- nothing different from the lynchings of Black Americans in the 1920s, the mistreatment of Native Americans and the restrictions upon certain 'types' of immigrants also in the 1920s. When will they ever move onwards? Even our own media reflects this idea though; the notoriously right wing Daily Mail have put stories about fraudsters and benefit cheats above a serious and shocking incident: the Sikh Temple shooting. However, the Daily Mail had the story on the Cinema shooting as front page news and have followed it meticulously since. This difference in coverage is wrong. Both stories should be treated equally.
The only difference that I can highlight is that of race and this is something that we should be more scared of: 

this blasé attitude towards racist acts.

The Drugs Don't Work

I remember a few years ago when I could affirm that I did not know anyone that did drugs, had never been offered drugs, or even seen them. A couple of years later and everyone's a casual drug user. People who you thought had back bone and self respect are just another pill pusher. I find it hard to comprehend why someone would want to put an unidentified pill, powder, plant- whatever, into their bodies. For what? A high- a low? the kick that it gives you knowing that you're just killing yourself? It makes no sense.

The worst part is that young drug users are too egotistical to even think that they might get addicted. Addiction is for low-lifes, the unemployed, the lower class. Addiction is only correlated to these stereotypes because this is a cause of drug abuse. Those who become addicted to drugs don't start out as low-lifes; they start out as anybody and then dissolve into addictive turmoil leading to the loss of pretty much everything: family, home, health and even the use of vital organs.

 On the other hand there's the glossy glorification of drugs in the upper classes. The rich banker and cocaine snorter. But that's okay, we as a society can accept that. As long as it doesn't bother us or riddle our streets then everyone turns a blind eye. Someone who took drugs to be part of the 'crowd' to be 'popular' gets pushed aside by society as soon as this recreational use turns into the wrong type of addiction. So, that ket, weed, pill, powder, injection doesn't seem as 'fun' or acceptable now, does it?

To be honest, it probably does, and this is too late for you: you're addicted.

Whatever you're trying to achieve: the drugs won't fucking work.

'Leftie Multi-Cultural Crap'

One can be as cynical as they want about the Olympic opening ceremony including the suitability of it's expense in this ever deepening recession. However, perhaps a display of what is quintessentially British was what was needed to remind us that, although we've fucked up, we have a lot to be proud of. After all, money is money but happiness; that is something else. I'd like to think that the Olympic opening ceremony made people happy and if that costs 27million quid then so be it. Restoration of pride is what is needed in Britain to remind people that, although David Cameron wants to cut the NHS, we have something great going on here. Mr Cameron: take a look at the Olympic Ceremony and realise what makes US proud to be British and don't attempt to sabotage something that is so defining of our country. Leftie multi-cultural pride.

Fifty Shades of Fucked up

The frenzy surrounding the Fifty Shades trilogy is saturating society. I myself, becoming entranced by such hype bought myself the first book: Fifty Shades of Grey. Now I see the frenzy. It is an easily accessible holiday book giving women the thrill they lack in reality. But does the plot not seem somewhat familiar? Fifty Shades of Grey is just a rewrite of Twilight. People may gasp at this comparison, but read between the lines (to be honest you don't even need to go that far) and you'll see it yourself. The socially awkward protagonist, propelled into a world previously unbeknown, be that S&M or Vampires- it's all pretty arousing and violent either way. The role of both Christian Grey and Edward are very similar. They both want to protect Bella and Ana from their own demons and are portrayed as somewhat domineering throughout each book. Both female characters seem to 'change' the male, and bring him something that he has not experienced before. Although these examples may be deemed as common plot leads, there are more similarities. Christian's dislike of Ana's old beetle is somewhat reflective of Edward's fear of Bella driving her own beaten truck and the eminence of love rivals is another similarity with Jose and Michael posing a threat to Christian and Edward's efforts. All in all these are both stories about a woman giving up everything for a man- why is this so appealing to women?

 I feel increasingly antagonised by this plot in Fifty Shades of Grey rather than in Twilight, after all Twilight is simply a teen book; I expect a lot more from an adult novel. E L James' attempts to portray Ana as some sort of heroine through reference to her subconscious or her 'inner goddess' just makes me cringe with embarrassment at this literary faux pas- the term clique springs to mind. I find it almost offensive that James attempts to justify the abuse that Ana is undergoing for Christian (yes, abuse- it is very clear that she does not enjoy half of the sexual acts including the spanking) by suggesting that this is pleasing Ana's inner goddess. Is the term 'inner goddess' just another form of female submission? This is something that female writers should be propelling us out of rather than into.

 Overall the plot is poor- purely a sexed up, fucked up twilight, the character's are unrelatable, and the creation of 'darkness' is weak (so his mother was a crack whore, how does that justify his obsession with S&M and the likes?). It is safe to say that I will not be reading more.

Technical Difficulties

Recent issues in major companies, RBSG (The Royal Bank of Scotland Group) and O2, have posed the question as to whether we have become too heavily reliant upon technology.

Some people are unable to fathom how a 'computer' is able to cause such issues, and continue to blame the 'computer' profusely for this. The majority simply blame the programming or find some way in which this must have been some extravagant human error. To some extent these people forget that the technology can only be as good as its creator: us. Therefore it is purely egotistical to presume that technology is flawless.
The principle in which we presume that technology is  a perfect, magical creation is purely myth, and this idea only highlights how humans have deserted their own responsibilities and left them to 'the technology'. For example: remembering someone's birthday. For many this is no longer a responsibility and is simply retrieved from Facebook, or more usefully from your mobile phone's calendar in the morning which is nevertheless connected to Facebook and alerts you of this birthday. In some way this removes the sincerity of human actions. How can someone be appraised for wishing a 'happy birthday' or 'happy anniversary' any more? Surely forgetting to do so is simply pure idiocy- or ignorance of the new technological age. A new technological age which is, although leading us technologically forward and showing the abilities of man kind, is leading the common man backward; to laziness and forgetfulness, an age in which 'learning' is retrieving a fact from Google. Regurgitation over understanding. Computer games over reading. A lower breadth of vocabulary and understanding. Unrealistic idolisations plastered everywhere in this virtual world in which some have difficulty deciphering from reality. Utter absorption into something that does not exist, be it video games or social networking. Dependence upon technology to wake us up at the best time, rather than using our best resource: the sun. Our whole world lays in the palm of our hands, our journal, our agenda, our contacts and our information. Without this, what are we?

Animals.