Am I asking to be raped?

Now, you'll never usually see me writing about feminism. Trust me, I am not about to stop shaving and start burning my bras. I'm not afraid to say that I like men to be men and women to be women. If a light bulb blows, I will find a man. If there's a spider in the room, I go to a man. If I'm about to get beat up and a guy decides to step in and protect me, you won't find me screaming that I have the right to be beat up just because I have a vagina. By all means protect me!

I am physically weaker than most men. I have different hormones to men. My body is different to a man's. I have no reason to start getting up in people's grills (sorry but I had to pay a bit of homage to my favourite MIC  playa there) about wanting men and women to be treated in exactly the same way. We are DIFFERENT. We both have strengths and weaknesses and it's ridiculous to say anything otherwise.

However there are some cases when it's less about being a feminist and more about being a normal human being, and I think that disagreeing with articles like the one I'm about to disagree with is just common sense. You can find it here: http://jaxchristian.com/christian-living/marriage-a-family/807-emotional-adultery-how-husbands-and-wives-disrespect-each-other- and it's probably best you read it before you continue with this because otherwise what I'm saying won't make any sense.

Now, before I say anything about the article, you'll notice that it is taken from a Christian website. I just want to say that although I class myself as a Christian, this is not what my faith is about and it sickens me to see something I believe in portrayed in such a disgusting way. But that's the church for you. Sadly, the majority of Christians believe whatever the church tells them, because if something is in the name of Jesus then it must be right, right? Wrong.

When I first started reading this article, I had high hopes. In a society saturated with sex, it makes a nice change to see somebody saying that if you are being mentally unfaithful to your partner then it isn't a good thing. I always feel like I sound like a prude when I say this but it's something I really agree with. It's one thing to notice somebody attractive but it's another thing to want to fuck somebody other than your partner and excuse me if I don't go around wishing I could whip my knickers off every time I see a good looking guy. Loyalty is something that isn't given enough credit in today's society.

It was only when I read further and saw that the article actually sees women as the cause of blame in this that I started to get angry. In case you ignored my advice and didn't read the article, the gist was this: if a man is married and a woman walks past him wearing a short skirt, it is the woman in the skirt that is to blame if he gets the wrong idea and starts "ogling, flirting, or touching" her. Apparently, the poor little mite is not to blame if he starts doing these things. It is the women's fault for tempting him.

The article asks "Should a married woman dress to please her husband or please her ago?" Honestly? She should dress to please herself. She should wear clothes that make her feel good, clothes that she likes. Any man that feels like a woman should dress for him needs to re-evaluate his attitude. A woman is not the property of a man*. If anything, a man should be proud to have a beautiful wife, not desperate to hide her away from the world. I may be just speaking for myself here but if a girl fancies a guy I'm with then I'm more likely to take it as a compliment than tell him to start putting a bag over his head so that people can't see how attractive he is.

The article then says that as a woman, if our partner tells us that our clothes are too revealing than we should think ourselves lucky for being with somebody that cares about us so much. I have an ex that held this view. He was of the opinion that I should no longer go out in public wearing skirts, dresses, or make up because I was with him now and if I defied him by getting a bit dressed up to go out then it meant that I was craving attention off men and was therefore a slut who didn't deserve him. It is attitudes like this that can quickly lead to mental (and often physical) abuse in relationships and I'm pretty sure that this wasn't what Jesus meant when he advocated fidelity.

This is surely something written by a man, I hear you saying. Well no actually, it was written by a woman, who, on the topic of 'unwanted male attention' (which can be anything from a glance to rape, by the way), that 'we do it to ourselves'. Now it is this, this more than anything that makes me want to hunt her down and prevent her from ever being able to communicate with anyone ever again. I suppose that we ladies are 'asking for it' when we get dragged down a back alley and raped, are we, you perfect little Christian, you?

Believe it or not, as a woman, I can say, without hesitation that if I happen to wear a skirt in public, I do not do it to make random men want to have sex with me, grope me and shout lewd comments at me. I do it because I happen to like that particular skirt. It's as simple as that. Sure, I want to make the best of myself and look as nice as I can but that isn't just for men! Society dictates that, as women, we must look a certain way. Tell me, why is it that if I start wearing plain clothes and stop wearing make up, society will tell me that I am ugly and that I need to change myself, whereas if I do what the magazines say, if I buy the clothes that they tell me to and stick to the diet they want me to, I'm a slut who is asking to be raped? I can't win!

Unfortunately, this is an attitude that isn't just confined to fundamental Christians and gossip rags. A friend of mine was sexually assaulted last year and do you know what her therapist asked her? 'What were you wearing?' Really? Really?! As it happens, my friend had been wearing a tracksuit on the night in question so the therapist was left with nothing much to say but I'd have been interested to hear the response had my friend answered with 'Oh, a bodycon dress and high heels.' Would the therapy session have turned into more of a Life Guide on how to be less of an attention seeking slut? Hearing this made my blood boil but the saddest part is that victims of rape or sexual assault hear this daily. I'm sure I don't need to provide you with evidence for you to believe that rape victims are often discredited in court because they were drunk or 'dressed inappropriately'. This stuff happens. Traumatised women are left in bits while their attacker runs free, and all because they dared to wear a nice dress.

Besides, by insinuating that women only get unwanted attention because of the way they dress, this article is at best misleading and at worst just a blatant lie. A beautiful woman is a beautiful woman, and if a guy has a flirtatious nature and a wandering eye then chances are he's going to notice her whether she's wearing a bin bag or a bikini. (Of course, it's still her own fault though. She probably looked at the guy in the wrong way, or was too friendly when she said hello.)

Of course, I know that there are some women who dress exclusively to please men. I'm not stupid. I know that if you go out wearing nothing but lingerie and start grinding with strangers then you are probably not all for female empowerment. However, even if you are 'asking for' a bit of attention, I highly doubt that any woman is asking to be sexually assaulted and 'Christians' would do well to remember that.


* Even in the biblical sense. Of course the bible says that women should keeps their husbands happy but it also says that husbands should do exactly the same for their wives and this is a fact that the church (and bigoted Christians) conveniently ignores. 

Stuff I hate people saying

Okay so I kinda enjoyed being able to rant in my last blog without having to research the fuck out of what I was saying first (I put off writing blogs that take research, I have so many drafts that really need finishing) and so I thought I'd do another. This is my top ten thirteen list of things I really can't stand people saying, but things that millions of people still seem to say anyway. Enjoy.

1. I'm bipolar/I self-harm because I'm depressed

Are you really though? I don't know why it's suddenly become the in-thing to be bipolar or anorexic or depressed or whatever but I just want to say that suffering from any of those things ISN'T FUN and you shouldn't be wearing those labels like a fashion statement. So you're 15 and you have mood swings. They might even be really extreme mood swings. I'm sure it's horrible feeling so low sometimes, but have you considered that it could just be part of being a teenager? I see so many Twitter accounts called things like 'Bipolar bitch' and the like and it really fucking frustrates me because having a mental illness shouldn't be cool. I guess it's kinda good that the stigma attached to these things is practically non-existent anymore but we shouldn't be glorifying this shit. Aside from being potentially dangerous in the case of eating disorders, it's also insulting to people who really do suffer from mental illnesses. Why are you posting pictures of your self-harm online? If you can even call it self-harm. My cat leave deeper scratches than you can but whatever. People who self-harm do not show off their scars. Period. Attention seekers show off cuts because they want to be "different" and "deep" but people with real issues do not take to social media to show off about their "issues". Grow up.

2. I have trust issues

Oh God this is one I really hate. Relationships begin and they end, and sadly, in many cases, one person in the relationship feels it is okay to lie or cheat on their partner.Yeah, it's very sad but my sympathy for you ceases to exist when you let this boy (or girl) taint your judgement of the entire male (or female) population. Not all men are cheating bastards. One guy cheated on you. Get over it. Telling all your future boyfriends that you have trust issues is basically punishing them for something they've not even done and telling them that you're not only still hung up on an ex but that you have no faith that this relationship will work.
We've all been lied to or led on or cheated on at some point. It happens. It is simply not logical to assume that everybody will do the same thing. On a whole, I'd say the world was mainly made up of good people who don't get kicks out of hurting their partners. Why don't you trust them until they give you reason not to rather than starting out every relationship with a defeatist attitude? It's boring.

3. What kind of music do you like?

Is this really going to affect your judgement of me as a person? I've told people before that I like popular music such as...I don't know, Rihanna, and had those people literally lose any respect that they had for me. I don't get it. What I listen to when I put my make up on does not say ANYTHING about me as a person. It's fucking music. I mean, asking which politicians I'm into may give you reason to change your opinion of me (I'm guessing being a fan of Hitler wouldn't win me many friends) but my music taste, really?
It's a sad situation all round really because while you may lose respect for me for not listening to the shit that you listen to, I also lose respect for you for losing respect for me. Not cool.
Oh, and by the way, to all those people (usually moshers who never wash their hair) that think anything that doesn't sound like ogres being killed isn't worthy of their time, read some of Eminem's lyrics. He's got more talent in his little finger than your narrow-minded little brain is ever going to be able to comprehend.

4. I wouldn't get a tattoo unless it had real meaning

This one really infuriates me. I have nothing against tattoos with meaning. Hell, I got a poem tattooed on me that has a fuck load of meaning, but I also have tattoos that I got for no reason other than that they look fucking cool. I could say that the tiger on my back is meaningful because I, uh, really like tigers, but that's a given really isn't it? Of course I'm going to like whatever I get permanently inked onto my body. It doesn't mean that it's particularly meaningful. A tattoo is a piece of art, and like any other work of art, it's primary purpose is to look good. Look at the other things you do to your appearance  Dyeing your hair pink, getting your lip pierced, wearing some funky shoes. Nobody expects those things to reflect anything other than your personality and the fact that you want to look a certain way so why should tattoos be any different? I know they're permanent but that shouldn't make a difference. If I think something is going to make me look better, whether that be a tattoo, a pair of fake tits or some new nail polish, I'll do it. It doesn't always have to have a hidden meaning. It is what it is.

5. She's definitely wouldn't get it

I've spoken at length about this here but it definitely still deserves a place on the list purely because I've seen so many boys on Facebook talking about girls' appearances as if they themselves are God's gift and it really winds me up. The worst part is that I never even see a good looking guy talking about girls in this way. It's always either a fat virgin or a chav riddled with STI's for whom it is only a matter of time before they end up dragging chairs around on The Jeremy Kyle Show.
Calling people ugly is never a nice things to do but you need to make sure before you do it that you are flawless because if you're not, there will always be someone sitting at their computer cringing at the irony of your comment. Trust me guys, the girls you're commenting on are far better looking than you can ever hope to be and everybody knows it.

6. She's such a slut

Er, and? I hate people that do this, and it's usually girls slagging other girls off for it. If you're a girl and you've slept with over a hundred guys, I couldn't care less. Unless you've given my boyfriend an STI, what you get up to is your business. It may not be my thing to pull random people in clubs every week but if you wanna do it then go for it. You won't find me hating on you. Just use protection.

7. People who listen to RnB and watch TOWIE are stupid

I got an A* and two A's at A Level. Four A*'s and four A's at GCSE (and a B in art but we won't talk about that). I watch the news. I debate for fun. I read books about theology. I have a favourite scientist. I'm pretty sure I'm not stupid. I'm also twenty years old and excuse me if I want to go and get drunk or watch some trash TV once in a while. The thing I love the most is when people less intelligent than me assume I'm thick just because I don't go around rubbing my IQ in people's faces when the situation doesn't call for it. I could go on all day about this but I won't because I don't feel the need to prove anything to these geeks who vent their insecurities on anyone that they feel threatened by. Go masturbate over Steven Hawking.

8. I've not eaten all day

Yes you have and you know you have so just admit it.

9. I hate One Direction/Ed Sheeran/Justin Bieber

(Note: I only hate teenage boys saying this). Oh do you? What have they ever done wrong to you, apart from be more successful than you, better looking than you and reap in way more female attention than you? Jealously isn't attractive. So what if their music isn't your thing? It's no reason to start a hate campaign against the poor guys. Let's be honest, they're not really interesting enough to hate. Don't waste your time bitching and moaning about them. Just get over the fact that even if you don't think they deserve to be famous, they are, and there's really nothing you can do about it.

10. RIP (insert name of previously unknown artist here)

Yeah so the guy from Suicide Silence died and trended WORLDWIDE on Twitter. I'm not mentioning his name because most of you will have forgotten it now because you were, after all, just hopping on the bandwagon weren't you? I refuse to believe that SS were that famous before this started trending on Twitter. Guys, someone dying isn't a "trend". It's not something you should be pretending to care about in order to look cool or gain more followers. If you didn't know who he was/listen to his music before he died, then there's really no need in you pretending otherwise. And before anyone attacks me for this, no it's not a mark of respect. If he could see you he'd probably be annoyed at you pretending to mourn his death in order to "fit in" on the internet. (If anyone cares, I've listened to Suicide Silence since I was about 14. They follow me on Twitter. Be jealous).

11. Mary Jane Mary Jane Mary Jane Mary Jane

ALL OVER FACEBOOK. I can't even begin to tell you how much this amazes me. You do realise that your not-so-subtle references to your extra-curricular activities will prevent you from ever getting a job, right? Potential employers can stalk like the best of us and if your Facebook is absolutely infested with pictures of your bong, the massive spliff you had last night and status' about how high you are all the time then you're an idiot. End of.

12. Dani "mummy2be" Leigh uploaded 4789340 photos to the album "My baby"

NOBODY WANTS TO SEE YOUR BABY. I don't know how to make it any clearer. To be quite frank, your baby is ugly. I guess it's what happens when you fall pregnant aged 12 to one of the inbred ogres that you've let defile you. Seeing stuff like this makes me want to delete Facebook and just fall off planet earth. It's bad enough (I imagine) hearing people drone on and on and on about their new baby face to face (I wouldn't know, my friends don't have kids because I'm only 20), but what's even worse is seeing it on Facebook. Hey, person that I went to high school with 4 years ago, I really do not care if you are pregnant or if you have three kids by now. I don't want to see your kids. Or read status' about them. Just concentrate on looking after them and if you must use the internet then surf Gumtree, not Facebook.

13. I'm not homophobic but being gay isn't natural

Try telling that to my best friend. I'm sure she'd love not to be the butt of lesbian jokes all the time, to be able to get legally married, to adopt children without the state making it difficult (or even have her own) and do to all the other things that heterosexual people take for granted but guess what, she can't because she doesn't fancy men. Never has, never will. Being a lesbian comes naturally to her, there are no two ways about it.
I kind of understand your point that if everybody was gay then humanity would cease to exist (although it wouldn't because we are clever and have science) but you know, not everyone is gay so it doesn't matter. Some people are gay and believe it or not, it is something they don't necessarily choose to be. It's not something you can just opt into if you fancy it.

Nice Guys DO finish last

It's an argument I've been hearing ever since I can remember. Now, Nice Guys finishing last is something I've already touched upon in my blog about The Friend Zone, which you can find here, but I feel like I need to elaborate on the Nice Guys themselves and why womankind hates them so much and so here we are.

'Nice Guys finish last, all girls want to date assholes, there's no point being nice to girls because Nice Guys finish last so I'm gonna treat all girls like shit instead.' 

I'm sure almost every girl has heard this at somepoint in her life and I'm even more sure that there are a lot of guys on my Facebook friends list who have uttered something along the lines of this upon being rejected/dumped/bored of masturbating and wanting some no strings sex with a real live woman.

Probably then, a lot of these so-called Nice Guys are going to disagree with what I'm about to say and mask their own insecurities as anger in true caveman style aaand to be honest I don't care. It's my blog. That means I'm right. Also, I am a girl, and therefore in a better position to know whether or not I am attracted to assholes or genuinely nice guys (note: not Nice Guys. There is a difference between a nice guy and a Nice Guy) than every single one of you bitter little boys who thinks that they have the monopoly on the female brain just because the hottest girl in high school rejected them in favour of some asshole who highlighted his hair and played football better than you.

Okay, so first of all, what is the difference between a nice guy and a Nice Guy? If I have to spell it out to you, you're already doing it wrong but here we go. A nice guy is somebody who takes others feelings into consideration and doesn't treat girls badly by lying to them or cheating on them etc. It's a simple as that. It is not to say then, that a nice guy cannot also be confident, flirtatious, stylish and successful with the ladies. A nice guy is every girl's dream man. He knows what he wants in life, has his own hobbies and interests, knows when to take the lead but also treats his girl with respect and as an equal. Sometimes he gets rejected by girls but he just accepts this as a fact of life. He isn't bitter about all the girls that have treated him badly in the past and he doesn't hold the entire female population responsible.

A Nice Guy on the other hand, is the complete opposite. You can't fail to spot a Nice Guy because he will spend the majority of his time telling you just what a Nice Guy he is. If a girl rejects him, it cannot be because they have nothing in common or that she just doesn't find him attractive. It will be because he is a Nice Guy and all girls just want to be abused because we all have daddy issues and would rather be smacked about by  some asshole on a motorbike than treated like an actual human being (even though motorbikes are undeniably hot). Nice Guys blame the entire female population for their own inadequacies and will consequently see any successful guy as an asshole, based solely on the fact that he is confident and secure in his own skin..

So why then, do Nice Guys finish last?

1. Nice Guys oversimplify. They think that if a girl isn't interested in them, it must be because he is Nice. This is bullshit. I have never met a girl who doesn't like nice people. Everybody likes nice people. Have you ever heard anybody saying 'I fucking hate that guy. He's so nice. Ew.' No, you haven't, because nobody fucking says it. The reason she's not interested probably has nothing to do with the fact that you're nice and don't get kicks out of killing kittens.
2. Okay, so some girls do end things with the excuse of 'you're just too nice.' I'll make it simple for you: she's lying to spare your feelings. What she really means is that she just wants to be single and sleep around and being with you is just not exciting enough for her. Or that you're boring. Or that she's sick of always taking the lead in everything because you're so bothered about not upsetting her. Maybe she means that you're not funny enough. I don't know. What I do know is that she isn't ending it because you're too nice. She just doesn't have the heart or a decent enough vocabulary to say anything else. Or maybe she's just not that nice. Ever considered that? A Suicide Girl isn't going to date fucking McLovin. Shit like that just doesn't happen. No girl wants to feel as though she is corrupting an innocent little virgin. It doesn't make us feel good. There is a reason Megan Fox isn't dating a maths geek who nobody has heard of. We want someone that's on a par with us. 
3. Nice Guys are boring. Sorry but they are. A girl doesn't want conversation that never progresses beyond 'how are you?' and 'what are you up to?' Give her some excitement! God, include a winky face every once in a while. It's not hard. Honestly, keep doing what you're doing and it won't be long before some smouldering hunk whisks her away with his cheeky text messages and innuendos and you'll be sitting there complaining about how she is a witch who hates nice people. 
4. TRY HARDER. Just make some fucking effort.
5. Don't pretend to be her friend. It's creepy. Make your intentions clear. There's nothing worse than a guy who worms his way into a girl's friendship group, does everything he can to hide his true feelings and then complains when a guy comes along and woos her with a more direct approach. Even worse is guys who pretend to be a girl's friend in the hope of something magically blossoming and then moaning about being Friend-Zoned. Well of course you've been friend-zoned, you've been acting like her fucking gay best friend for the past two years. 
6. Don't be clingy. Ever heard of the saying 'treat em mean, keep em keen'? Nice Guys like to take this literally and use it as evidence for their stupid claims about Nice Guys finishing last but in reality it means don't come on too strongly. Most people get put off by somebody that moves too quickly, that texts them every five minutes and wants to see them every minute of the fucking day. She has a life of her own and so do you. Don't forget about it as soon as you meet a pretty girl. Nobody likes to be put on a pedestal by somebody they've only just met. It's creepy. 
7. Something Nice Guys tend to acquire is 'Girlfriend Syndrome'. This is where a guy desperately wants a girlfriend. He doesn't much care who the girl is or if they have anything in common, he just wants somebody to treat like a princess. As cute and romantic as the latter part may sound, a girl wants to feel special. She doesn't want to feel like your third choice. Oh, and don't do clichés like flowers and chocolates and chick flicks. While stuff like that can be okay sometimes, a girl will know when you're doing the same things you've done to woo all your other girlfriends. Pay attention to her and what she likes.  
8. It is not a girl's fault if she just doesn't like you. We all like different people and if she just doesn't feel a connection or any sexual chemistry with you then it doesn't matter how nice you are to her, it's not going to work. If it did work, you wouldn't be finishing 'first' because eventually you'd both realise that you aren't well suited and probably end up more miserable than you would have done had you just accepted that at the start of the relationship. A woman is not a 'reward'. A girl isn't something you get given in exchange for doing certain things. The bible says that good works do not earn your place in heaven. It's the same with Nice Guys and vaginas. 
9. Nice Guys spend too much time feeling sorry for themselves. They are so egotistical and bitter about the female species that I would go so far as to assert that they are not nice at all because nice people are not as arrogant and bigoted as this. Maybe if all the Nice Guys of the world stopped obsessing over their own nice-ness and instead concentrated on somebody else (namely, the girl in question), they would have better luck. If you are genuinely nice, you won't need to tell everybody how nice you are and as a result will reap the benefits. 

Understood?

I just want to end by citing a couple of real examples about Nice Guys vs. nice guys and why the Nice Guys finished last. I don't want to be too specific so I'm not going to tell you whether these people were in my life last week or last year but that shouldn't matter anyway so here we go. 

A Nice Guy I met was possibly the most arrogant and bigoted person out of every single boy I have ever been involved with. He droned on endlessly about how all his ex-girlfriends were bitches who had cheated on him or lied to him or some other shit that I didn't and still don't care about, told me over and over how nice he was and how all his friends were more successful with girls than he was even though he was a much nicer person. He took me on a date and turned up about two hours late without an apology, and upon arriving at the restaurant told me that he'd already eaten so we'd just be having starters. He then spent the entire date talking shit about girls who had treated him badly by behaving like sluts and whores and how much of a moral person he was. He then told me he could see no future with us because I was friends with my ex. As if I wasn't already spitting with indignation! I'd actually already kissed one of his friends about two years earlier but it was more down the the fact that the guy was funnier, more flirtatious and less on his fucking moral high horse than whether or not he was a fucking "Nice Guy."

Now onto the nice guys. I don't have one specific example of a genuine nice guy because I go for nice guys. I like people who make the effort to see me, pay me compliments, text me, yada yada yada. Genuine nice guys aren't bitter and constantly putting down other people for not living as moral a life as they are. THAT IS WHAT IS APPEALING ABOUT THEM. They are themselves, happy in their own skin. They may drink and smoke and have sex but they are still nice. 

The difference between a nice guy and a Nice Guy is that a nice guy gets the girls by being himself whereas Nice Guys will always finish last because they are forever in a bubble of bitterness, indignation and warped logic regarding women. Nice Guys just aren't nice people. That, my friends, is why they finish last. 

Sisterhood and The Homewrecker

I've been wanting to write about this concept for a while but I've not really known just what to say, or how to say it because I've never really met anybody who shares my opinion on the matter, and so, at the risk of alienating everybody who reads this here goes...

We've all heard of The Homewrecker haven't we? She's that girl that you don't really know, sometimes the one you never even met, who has a devastating impact on your life by taking away that which is everything to you. She comes, seemingly from nowhere, and takes that which is yours with no apologies, only a smug grin as she runs her fingers through your (now ex) boyfriend's hair.

And wasn't life just perfect until she came along? Everything was going so well until her. You had a future, he was The One. You'd even, fleetingly, when you were both cosied up in a post-coital embrace, spoke about forever together. And now, because of some heartless bitch who, for some reason, has made it her life's mission to destroy your happiness, it's all over.

Perhaps you found out through a text message. He was in the shower, his phone winking at you from the table, and before you knew what was happening it was in your hands. You don't quite know why you were looking. Of course you trusted him completely. You just wanted proof, right? You didn't need it but you were bored, you just knew there'd be nothing to see anyway so what would be the harm in just taking a sneak peak, right? Wrong.

Instantly you blame the girl. 'Who the hell is she, putting too many x's and flirting with my little puddikins? Who does she think she is? I'm gonna find that bitch!' and from then on that's what she is. That's what she is when you tell all your friends about her, when you send her an angry message calling her every name under the sun, when you see her around school and glare at her. You hate her. She ruined your life.

Not him of course. He was your everything, incapable of doing wrong. You know him better than anyone, so you know that he wouldn't ever do anything like that if Devil Woman hadn't tempted him. He'd have gone to his grave only having eyes for you had she not come along.

Now if you will, let me please fucking rewind a minute. HE, your little angel, your everything, he who purported to care about you has gone behind your back to flirt with another girl, or even cheat on you with her, and you blame her? How is she expected to have any loyalty to you? She's never met you, she may not even know about your existence. It does happen, you know.

I've had it happen to me. A boy spins you a line about how he's so unhappy in his relationship he's thinking about ending it, all he wants to do is go on dates with you, kiss you, .... you. The next time you see him and he says that he's finished with her. He buys you drinks and of course you have a flirt with him. And maybe a cheeky text or two the day after. Why wouldn't you? Are you, the female public, telling me that you would do any different? I'm sure some of you would, of course, tell the guy where to stick it but unfortunately the world cannot be full of angels and I am not one of those people. Fucking shoot me. If it's any consolation, I wouldn't have done had I known the amount of people that would want to crucify me for doing so. It apparently doesn't matter that I'd been told the relationship was over (that's a fact that has been happily ignored in the midst of what a terrible person I was for doing so and how I'm going to burn in hell). Of course, the guy's now back with his girlfriend and I am the Wicked Witch of the West for giving him the time of day. Point in hand.

'Oh but you can't understand how it feels if you've never had it happen to you' well actually, yes I can because I have. After I saved my wacko ex boyfriend's life (literally, don't even ask) I received messages off a girl telling me of how he'd been cheating on me since before we even made it Facebook official. She sent me printscreens of conversations, photographs of the presents he'd sent her (the same as the ones he'd given me, aah!), all sorts. Do I blame her? Of course not! Yeah, she knew I existed but when a boy with a silver tongue is feeding you a line, somehow the girlfriend seems irrelevant. Why would I be pissed that somebody that doesn't know me is being taken in by my boyfriends lies? If she was my best friend or something then it may be a different story but I'd never even met the girl, I didn't really see a point in disliking her.

I've heard so many girls say that if their boy cheated then they'd take him back and only hold it against the girl. I can't understand it. What is this concept of 'sisterhood' that we, as girls, are expected to adhere to, even when we've never met the girl whose feelings we are supposed to be protecting? Sisterhood is bullshit. Sisterhood is just another word for friendship, and should only apply to friends. Of course I'd never do something that would hurt one of my friends, and that has, in the past, resulted in me stepping back from a guy I like because I know a friend does That's not called 'sisterhood' though, it's called not being a cunt. I wouldn't do the same for somebody I didn't know. Fuck, if I saw some random in a club trying to get on a guy I liked I'd be hopping on him quicker than...anything. (I tried to think of a funny analogy there but things in my mind just got very rude and I didn't think it appropriate to write what I came up with).

Why should we spare the feelings of girls we don't know? If I can see a future with somebody then I'm not going to compromise that for anything. After all, what would last longer, a relationship or a brief drunken friendship with some girl whose name I won't remember in the morning? Humans are selfish creatures. You can go to religion or science to find the answers about humanity, and while they may differ in many ways, both will lead to the same conclusion about humans and their selfish desires. While religion sees that as a fault, a product of Satan, and science sees it as survival instinct, neither deny The Selfish Gene and neither should you. Richard Dawkins even wrote a book about it, and we all know he's right about everything so it must be true.

Is every paedophile a child molester?

It's 3.03am and I'm staying up drinking hot Vimto and reading strangers blogs and I've just stumbled upon the blog of somebody who is in his words, 'a male survivor of childhood sexual abuse' and so, perhaps as a result of this abuse, was arguing that YES, every paedophile is a child molester.

Now, as a medical diagnosis, paedophilia is recognised as a 'psychiatric disorder' (note: not life choice) that is characterised by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. Now, not everybody that is diagnosed with paedophilia sexually abuses children and not everybody that sexually abuses children meets the diagnostic criteria for paedophilia. Of course there is a huge overlap due to the very nature of the disorder and the fantasies typically associated with it but we must not forget the above.

The definition of child sexual abuse is that it is a form of abuse in which an adult uses a child for sexual stimulation and/or gratification. Forms include asking or pressurising a child to engage in sexual activities, indecently exposing them, using them to produce pornography and to engage physically in sexual contact with a child.

We must take a step back from the tabloid headlines here which highlight heinous crimes against children, thus demonising every single person who meets the criteria for paedophilia, regardless of whether or not they have actually committed any offence or caused any harm to anybody. I find this unfair. I am in no way justifying the terrible things that many paedophiles inflict on vulnerable children. I think that those people should be subjected to a lifelong imprisonment as there is absolutely no argument whatsoever to justify sexually abusing a child. However strong your desires, your morals must overcome them.

However, I do not necessarily think that every single person with these desires is an evil person. The fact of the matter is that paedophilia is a sexuality, and by that I mean a sexual preference towards a particular group of people. Obviously it is not one that should be acted upon, but it is also not something that the paedophile is choosing to suffer from. Some people may be born that way, being attracted to children alone and never adults, or for others it may be a result of some abuse which they themselves have suffered from or witnessed as a child. Freud made it very clear in his work that he was of the opinion that what happens to us as children can have a huge impact on our sexuality, desires and relationships with people.

So, paedophiles don't choose to be paedophiles. Then what? Well, the obvious answer is that they should deal with it by not abusing any children. And by not abusing any children, I don't just mean the physical act of abusing a child against it's will, but also that of grooming a young person into consenting to being in a relationship with them, consuming child pornography, everything. The whole spectrum. In my personal opinion, who a person is attracted to is their business as long as, and this is the crucial point, nobody comes to any harm. It's not as if we can stop it. This isn't A Clockwork Orange. We can't just electrocute people into being heterosexual adults.

Bestiality, though uncommon, is more than just a myth in society. Some people genuinely do fantasize about having sex with animals. But as long as they don't actually do it (and that includes refraining from buying pornography that contains animal porn), what business is it of anyones? Sure, those people have issues and could probably benefit from some counselling but is it seen as a problem or threat to society? I don't think so.

Other people have incestuous fantasies, engaging in role play where they call their partner 'daddy' or (and I've heard many a teen boy brag about this) watching two attractive twins engage in incest. Some people have fantasies about being raped, raping somebody else, harming somebody, being harmed (which is becoming evermore popular due to the glamorisation of BDSM in the 'Fifty Shades' trilogy). All sorts. Why is it okay to fantasize about raping somebody or harming somebody or even engaging in sexual relations with an animal but not a child? Either they are all perversions and should all be treated with the same level of contempt, or none of them are.

'But' I hear you say. 'BDSM is an act between consenting adults with safe words and no actual harm.'  Yeah, it is, but BDSM stemmed from darker fantasies. (No, not all of it, I am aware that for some a pair of pink fluffy handcuffs is enough). I'm talking about the connotations behind BDSM. The control, the sadism and masochism that is in the very name. The 'derivation of pleasure as a result of inflicting pain'. Sounds a lot more sinister now, doesn't it? BDSM is like a Nicorette patch. It allows the adults to indulge the premise of their fantasies in a safe environment. Kind of like wanking off over a child but without anyone knowing about it.

Also, for a moment, if your narrow-mindedness will permit, step into a paedophile's shoes for a minute. Imagine how hard it must be, not only having to live with the feeling of desiring something you can never ever have, but also the feelings of guilt, shame and disgust that you're filled with for even feeling those things in the first place, not to mention the abuse that you yourself would be a victim of if you so much as voiced your desires to somebody. It's not an easy ride being born a paedophile. Not to harm a child is not like me or you simply not abusing a child. It takes willpower, self-sacrifice. I'm not saying they should be applauded for not inflicting pain on another person but I do think that it should at least be given a mention. It is at this point that I should probably mention the character of Humbert Humbert in Nabokov's 'Lolita'. At no point in this controversial novel is Humbert portrayed as a bad man. Sure, he has his faults, but it is not as a child abuser that he is portrayed. He is portrayed as a victim, somebody given an unfair hand in life, for whom every day is a struggle against the fantasies that he knows he shouldn't harbour. Of course, it's only a novel but it's an interesting concept isn't it? Paedophiles are human. Fancy that.

'Thought crime' is a crime in a fictional book (1984 - George Orwell) but it is also an unofficial crime in society. I'll let you in on a secret. There is no such thing. Technically, we have freedom of thought. We are free to believe the Queen is a giant lizard, we are free to be neo-Nazis, we are free to be homophobic, racist, sexist, whatever we want. As long as we don't voice our opinions or use them in any way that causes harm to anybody we can think what we want. If I want to fantasize about raping a pig and bathing in the blood of a million virgins, I can do it, just like I can fantasize about children. Sorry but that's the way it is. Thought crime is not a crime. Not every paedophile abuses children.

You wouldn't lock up a man for fantasizing about murder. I'm not saying that it isn't wrong to think about children in that way. What I am saying, is that it is wrong to hang a man for his thoughts. Let him choose whether to act on them or not before you condemn him.

Should cannabis be legalised?

A few months ago I attended a debate between Peter Reynolds and Peter Hitchens on marijuana and whether or not it should be not only decriminalised but actively legalised and sold in shops, on the premise that it be regulated and some sort of age restriction put in place. 

I at first thought that the answer was obvious and that there was no debate needed, but when the majority of my fellow students all raised their hands in favour of Peter Reynolds' argument that yes, marijuana should be legalised, I was surprised. Of course, for students with a penchant for getting high whenever the mood suits, legalising the drug would make life a lot easier, but I was shocked that people who are apparently intelligent enough to be studying for degrees are still of that illogical mindset. In this entry I will be arguing, and hopefully persuading a few of you that no, marijuana should not be legalised because it would not only fail to benefit society in any way but would instead actively cause damage to it. 

I will present the opposition's case and (hopefully) make it patently obvious (though god knows why it isn't already) that arguments in favour of legalising marijuana are grossly misinformed and largely irrelevant products of rebellious teenagers who just want cannabis to be legalised because it would be so rad to be able to, like, buy a ten bag from Tesco dude. 

Here goes (I can sense I'm probably not going to win any fans with this already haha):

#1 Cannabis is far less dangerous than alcohol and cigarettes and they're legal
This is probably one of the most common arguments in favour of legalising cannabis. People think that because there are more dangerous substances freely available, it doesn't make sense to keep less harmful substances such as marijuana illegal. They see the solution to this apparent inconsistency as obvious: legalise marijuana. I see a different solution, and I'm pretty sure that if it weren't for the fact that the government would lose millions on imposing it, they'd have done it long ago: make cigarettes and alcohol illegal. It's the only sensible one.
I won't lie, I'd be gutted if alcohol were illegal. I regularly enjoy a drink with my friends. However, I'm not hypocritical enough to be able to preach on about the dangers of legalising cannabis while ignoring the obvious: alcohol is harmful and if the government cared about us as much as it purports to, it would be criminalised. 
If alcohol was a new drug that had only recently been discovered, my guess is that it would be criminalised before the masses had even heard about it. Look at the (fairly) recent mephedrone, or 'm-kat' case. As soon as the government got around those ridiculous 'plant fertiliser' pretences, they criminalised it, and do you know why? Because it's dangerous and our government, believe it or not, do not get kicks from releasing poisons into society. 

#2 It's good for the economy and we need to be pulled out of this recession anyway
This is a disgusting argument. People criticise drug dealers for making money by exploiting the well-being of other people but is this not the same thing? If something which has been proven to be harmful is sold to the masses because the government are feeling greedy and want to claw their way out of the recession at the expense of the consumer and we don't see anything wrong with that then we're in the midst of a very sorry state of affairs indeed. What's more, have the people spouting this argument stopped to consider the sheer improbability of the government ever being able to prevent cannabis being sold cheaper on the black market? Why, when you have a chance of buying tax-free goods from your trusty dealer, would you pay the no doubt ludicrous prices that the supermarkets would charge? I can't see it happening. Cannabis would still be sold illegally just as much as it is now.

#3 It's good for you
Okay. Cannabis has been suggested to be of some help to people suffering from conditions such as MS. However, this 'evidence' is by no means conclusive, and the National Multiple Sclerosis Society say on their official webpage that 'studies completed thus far have not provided convincing evidence that marijuana or its derivatives provided substantiated benefits for symptoms of MS.' What's more, even if smoking cannabis did help to alleviate certain symptoms of MS, does this really mean that it is good for the body and should therefore be released freely into society?

Cannabis use has been linked to mental illnesses such as psychosis, schizophrenia, depression and anxiety disorders, and there have been numerous studies that seem to support this hypothesis. Drugs given to individuals to reduce psychotic symptoms reduce dopamine levels in the brain while other drugs such as cannabis increase dopamine levels in the brain (www.cannabisandpsychosis.ca). THC, a cannabinoid found in cannabis, increases dopamine release in the brain. Suggestions have been made that frequently smoking cannabis can increase the risk of developing schizophrenia by as much as six times (Wikipedia), whereas other studies claim it doubles the risk, or, if smoked before the age of 15, quadruples it. 

Around 750 people each year are admitted to hospital for cannabis-related problems, and when you consider that the drug is illegal and thus not freely available in every corner shop, that number seems like an awful lot and a number that would surely increase if the drug were legalised. Even if there were just one case of a person being hospitalised due to the drug, surely this would be reason enough to not pump any more of it into society?

In addition to this, a study of Australian school children found that adolescents who smoke marijuana are five times more likely to develop depression and anxiety in later life (Wikipedia, I've closed the page and can't find it again now so you'll just have to take my word for it that I'm not lying). While studies like this are not hard evidence that cannabis causes mental illness, they do provide a strong case for the argument that there is definitely a correlation between the two, and this surely is a strong enough case against releasing even more of the stuff into society and making it more readily available than it presently is. 

#4 It used to be legal, let's go back to the way things were!
Peter Reynolds says that as cannabis was legal before 1928, this must mean that it used to be okay and so we just need to return to our trusty old values. He says that for 5000 years mankind has used cannabis and that if it was so bad then at some point we would have seen sense and stopped using it. However, while cannabis may have been legal before 1928, marital rape was not criminalised until 1994 and I don't see anybody arguing that 'well marital rape was perfectly okay until the nineties so why should we stop raping our wives now?' Imagine the uproar a statement like that would create!

People wise up to harmful things all the time. Look at how popular opium used to be, and now heroin is seen by many to be the drug of the down and outs of society, a drug that only the lowest of the low will touch. Do you know why? Because we've seen the harm it's done over the years, made huge scientific advances and realised that the most sensible thing to do would be to stop using heroin. 

This is exactly what happened in 1928 when marijuana was made illegal. People realised that they'd been behaving like idiots for too long and so did something to change it. It's ridiculous to say that just because someone used to be legal than it must be okay. You only have to read the Mosaic laws in the Old Testament to see how much things change and how sometimes what used to be widely accepted is now viewed by the majority as being immoral or dangerous. 

Also 'if it was so bad we would have stopped using it'. Not necessarily. We all know the dangers of cigarettes and alcohol but yet in the UK there are approximately 40 million social drinkers, 10 million 'at risk' drinkers, 1 million problem drinkers and 200,000 dependent drinkers, with only 5 million non-drinkers (www.avon.nhs.uk). 10 million people smoke cigarettes here in the UK with a further 2 million smoking cigars and pipes. Move to countries such as China and the statistics shoot up, with around 61% of men being smokers (library.thinkquest.org). We're taught the risks of drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes in schools and yet we still choose to do both of these things. It's the same with drugs. What can I say, I have no studies to back this up but these findings would suggest that humans like to self-destruct. 

#5 It will reduce crime
People seem to think that old women everywhere are being mugged for money for criminals to spend on cannabis. They think that cannabis being illegal causes so much crime but does it really? I've already argued that cannabis being sold on the black market would be practically impossible to put a stop to, so if you're looking to reduce crime there then you're wrong, and really, what other crimes does cannabis being sold illegally cause?

If anything, legalising it would cause an increase in crime. Look what happened in Amsterdam when prostitution and cannabis were legalised. Most people are naive enough to believe that most of the sex workers in Amsterdam are independent women making a living in the way that they want to but Sarah Forsyth says in her autobiography, 'Slave Girl' that between 70 and 90% of women in the Red Light district are victims of sex trafficking, and being forced to work by pimps. 

She witnessed snuff movies being made, was forced to play Russian Roulette with other prostitutes, and asserts that in the hash cafes, you only have to scratch the surface to find hard drugs being sold under the counter or newborn porn being sold in the video shops. Of course, the average tourist witnesses nothing of this, but those in the know can buy pretty much anything in this so-called 'liberal' city, at the expense of people's freedom, sanity, health, and sometimes even their lives. One must ask, would any of this be happening if cannabis and prostitution were not accepted and actively encouraged? 

Legalising one thing opens the gateway for a whole host of other things to make their way into society and anyone with a brain knows this. 

#6 Cannabis users are subject to so much social stigma - we need to fight against this
Peter Reynolds asserts that cannabis users are subject to so much prejudice that it really impacts on their lives and that this must be ended. He says that attacking somebody for choosing to use cannabis is the same as attacking somebody for being black, gay or disabled. I really must disagree. Racism and homophobia are in no way comparable to a person being judged for taking drugs. In the past, black people have been forced into slavery, Jews have been gassed, gay people have been  the victims of endless hate campaigns and comparing heinous crimes such as mass genocide and slavery to somebody criticising a person for taking drugs is absolutely disgusting. 

If you want to poison yourself then you must be prepared for people to look down upon you for doing so. Being the victim of social stigma is all part of the territory when it comes to drugs. Some people will have a relaxed attitude to them and others won't. It is in no way the same as being a member of the KKK or a Neo Nazi and I personally think that Reynolds should take this vile statement back. It's not harmless hippie rhetoric, it's shockingly disrespectful and Reynolds would do well to remember this. 

#7 It will keep our children safe
This is another ridiculous statement made by Peter Reynolds, who is living proof that smoking weed really does addle your brain. How the hell does legalising cannabis keep children safe? Reynolds seems to think that children won't be able to get hold of cannabis because, unlike drug dealers, shops will require ID before they hand over the goods.

I may be being naive here but I'd like to know just which would be easier for a 12 year old child to do:
a) track down a drug dealer and arrange a meeting in a secluded area away from home in order to illegally purchase drugs or
b) wait outside a corner shop and try and bribe some impressionable adult to go inside and buy some cannabis for them, just like children have been doing for decades with cigarettes and alcohol. 

Reynolds is stupid if he thinks that legalising cannabis will make it more difficult to get hold of. He's obviously never been a chavvy little boy with nothing better to do than hang around council estates all day and this statement alone is testament to the fact that he really has no idea what he's talking about. Call me old-fashioned but even if Reynolds were correct and legalising cannabis would result in a decrease of adolescent drug users, I don't see how it is really the states' responsibility. It is an issue of parenting, not of anything else, and it would make it a great deal more difficult for parents to prevent their children from smoking cannabis if it was sold in every corner shop.  

Furthermore, the pragmatics of legalising any drug are dangerous ones. Legalising cannabis implies that it is okay and will implicitly encourage people to do it. Of course, with it being illegal you do have the 'forbidden fruit' aspect, whereby people will try something just because it is forbidden, but far more people drink alcohol than take drugs and though I'm no sociologist, my guess would be that this is because alcohol is so culturally acceptable, which cannabis would be if it were to be legalised. 

In conclusion? I think it's obvious. Legalising cannabis would result in an increase in crime, an increase in the amount of people (including young people) who take drugs, and a general consensus that cannabis use is perfectly fine, which would no doubt lead to suggestions of other drugs being legalised. What will it be next, heroin cafes and shroom soup in restaurants? 

I've found that the majority of people who want this ridiculous law to be passed are teenagers who smoke weed and want:
a) a nice and convenient way of getting hold of it
b) a nice little debate in which they can show off how liberal and cool they are  

And excuse me if I don't take these people seriously. This blog has nothing to do with my personal beliefs about cannabis and drugs in general. My views on drugs are irrelevant and personal and therefore not something I'll be sharing on this blog. Even if I smoked cannabis every day, I would still not be in favour of it being legalised, because I'd be open minded enough to see the bigger picture and realise that it wouldn't actually benefit society in any way, even if it did give me personally some minimal benefits. 

Wanting something to be legalised just because you smoke it is all very well and good if you're willing to admit that you only want the legalisation to occur for your own selfish reasons, but please don't try and pretend that you have any sort of intellectual debate in favour of the legalisation of cannabis if you really just want to be able to get high in public without being paranoid that you're going to get a criminal record for it. 

The iPhone Brigade

As I sit in the airport, annoyed because my headphones are broken and I've finished the novel I was intending to occupy myself with on the three hour flight ahead, my friend and travel partner, Ieuan, said 'Let's just play Monopoly'.

What?! I expressed my confusion, to which he replied 'I've got a two player option, duh' and that's when I realised. He hadn't secretly bought a game of Spanish Monopoly at our local supermarket. No. He was talking about his iPhone, 7 by 5 centimetres of pure genius with an app (excuse me?) for any occasion. It hadn't occured to me that playing Monopoly on the plane would be an option. Armed with my own phone, that cost me less than ten pounds and has been a faithful companion over the twelve months that I've had it for, such things as being able to take photographs, access Facebook or play games on one's phone seems absurd to me, and so far away from my own reality that I don't feel as if I'm missing out at all because the whole concept of 'let's play Monopoly on my phone' seems beyond ridiculous to me.

33% of people that read this blog do so from an iPhone, Android, or other similar pocket robot. I must say, although hearing of any person reading my blog is always a good thing, I'm not so sure that people should be reading blogs on their phones. Phones are for phone calls (the clue's in the name) and text messaging. Not pictures and videos and god only knows what else. They're definitely not for blogs.

iPhones may be wonderful in so many ways but they have without question ruined pub quizzes, and how the hell are you supposed to cheat on your spouse with a phone that displays incoming messages for all to see? They also make stalking a hell of a lot easier (no, I didn't want my entire family to know how drunk I am right now but thanks for checking me in on Facebook), and not to mention make the most banal things appear exciting somehow. Oh here's a sandwich. Instead of eating it I may just show it to everybody on Instagram just to prove what a bloody good sandwich maker I am.

I've also heard of something called WhatsApp, which tells people when you have read their texts, and thus makes it impossible to ignore somebody that is annoying you, but also means you have to stop what you are doing right now and reply straight away to the texter in case they get the wrong impression and come to the conclusion that you are an ignorant piece of shit who hates them. I dread to think how many needy girlfriends have had their relationships ruined over WhatsApp.

More worryingly (in my opinion), is the fact that iPhones make constantly being in touch with people almost imperative. When I'm alone, I like nothing more than to make a cup of coffee, or pour a glass of wine, and chill out to do some creative writing, read a good book or watch an old film. I'd hate to be constantly monitoring Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr and Blogger, as well as keeping in touch with all my friends and feeling the need to take pictures of everything that I am doing so my Instagram followers aren't disappointed. I can't imagine the stress of it. I'm hopeless enough replying to texts as it is. No matter how hard I try, I just can't have a text conversation. I'll read a message off somebody, get distracted and put my phone down, and before I know it six hours have gone by and the person in question is wondering whether or not I'm alive and still friends with them. Lord only knows how my poor, technophobic brain would cope with all the added stimulation that the possession of an iPhone would bring.

Not only that but this way of keeping in touch with everybody, all the time, often means that you neglect the people you're actually with in the physical world in favour of replying to your friends in cyber space. I've seen too many people sat in groups but choosing to text rather than pay attention to the friends that they have apparently chosen to spend time with. And playing games! I can't think of anything ruder than to be sat with a couple of friends and playing whatever the iPhone's version of Tetris is. You may as well stand up and say 'You're all boring me so much I'd rather be somewhere else' and get it over with. The sad thing is though, that not only do people do this, but it is accepted. Getting your phone out and texting on a date in a restaurant? That's fine. At the cinema? Go for it. What will it be next, church? Funerals? Where do we draw the line?

Google Plus intimidates me enough, even though my friend Liam insists it's a must if you're serious about promoting your writing (or whatever other little bit of you you're desperate to put out there), and that's only an extension of a site I've been using since I knew what the internet was. No, I don't think I could cope with an iPhone. Give me an old Pay As You Go Nokia any day of the week.