Lecture 8 -Bandits and Outlaws

Hasn't Outlaws always been Villains? Not really.
Robin Hood is probably will known to millions as the guy steals from the rich and give to the poor, the myth has been used in Films (famously by Kevin Costner, Walt Disney) and a recent BBC TV Series (Famously played by Jonas Armstrong).
Outlaws are known to be portrayed as a decent and honourable, is this because they only kill in pursuit or in revenge? Of course because as for an example the character Robin Hood would never steal where he came from as they had respect for the people they cared about. But are they Political? No! Because as the Robin Hood character shows he always fought for the rights and liberation of himself and the people who couldn't fight.


As for the Bandits.. . . . They aren’t so Nice.
‘Bonnie and Clyde’ and ‘Pretty Boy Floyd’ are just two examples of Bandits that didn’t care about the people they killed. By looking at the FBI files on 'Bonnie and Clyde' it shows how their backgrounds had links to crime to start with such as Bonnie was married to a 'imprisoner murderer' at 19 I ask myself what could have made get be married to a murderer was it the excitement of the crime? the excitement of the danger? When Bonnie and Clyde went on their 'Crime Spree' as the FBI files call it, they started out with low key crime such as on December 21 1933 they Robbed an innocent citizen and then gradually commited more dangerous crimes such as freeing prisoners on January 16 a year later I think this time space of events shows that they learnt to enjoy the rush they got when commiting the crimes and thats why they moved on quickly to the more worse crimes. As for Pretty Boy Floyd the proof of his evil crime can be shown in an article from the Eufaula Indian Journal in 1932 as it reports how he cold blooded murdered a sherff when caught by the sherff, the figure that 3500 !!! attended the popular sherffs funeral shows that Floyd didn't care who who he killed even if the victim was popular by locals.

Can bad guys really be good guys?
I don't think so as the saying goes 'a leopard will never change its spots' is kind of true but then again I also think that someone can change if they want to change, but I don't know if this can be said when talking about a criminal. when it comes to prison rehabilitation it is questionable whither it works or not as figures from Minstry of Justice shows that 'Adult re-offences fell 13%, from 167.9 re-offences per 100 offenders in 2005 to 146.1 in 2006. Between 2000 and 2006, the frequency of adult reoffending fell 22.9%.' I guess that rehabilitation can work in some cases but there are some cases when the rush of adrenaline gets so addictive that the criminal will always not care about the people they hurt.

As for in what contexts can villains become heroric figures????
When I think about it looking at the examples of when the criminal become champions of the weak like social bandits as stated in 'Bandits' by Eric Hobsbawn as that will result them in changing their lives. Am I wrong in being Optimistic or Should OUR law system change as I don't personally have any faith in our Justice system as the criminals don't really suffer like they should.

Lecture 7-Drugs

Drugs is still a problem even though its by law illegal.

There are are different types of drugs theres hypnotics, stimulants inebriants and of course theres Hallucingens!
In the funny clips shown there's the evidence of the effects of the drugs in the experiment clip by Dr Humphrey Osmond; which showed a man under the effects as he said 'had experiences but out of film' which is kind of true as as when under the influence you are more likely to do something that you may not remember.
I was also interesting how it was in used in social when it was just being discovered by authors such as Aldous Hoxley and Timothy Leary. the pictures that were seen also shows how life in the 60's were just as carefree when drugs were in the streets not illegal like now.
There was also clips that shows how the drugs were used in war, i was surprised to realise how they were used in the british army and to 'spray on army' in otherwords to gain an upper hand and have control over others;
Is it true that the govermant still have control over the public by having laws such as the restriction of drugs ?

Headlines in recent years like 'Britain on verge of ecstasy epidemic:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-197808/Britain-verge-ecstasy-epidemic.htmland 'Ecstasy pill puts party girl in coma': http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/ november/13/newsid_2516000/ 2516593.stm may show how drugs can mentally and physically damage peoples lives so is this the reason why we need restrictions such as the law to protect others from the consequences of drugs as the drugs alter peoples minds.
BUT! isn't there other things that can have the same effects? like alcohol? glue solvent abuse?

Wouldn't it be better to let people decide for themselves?
Wouldn't be better if it wasn't ilegal but people would see the effects of the drugs from others but still learn from seeing the effects from other peoples addictions?

Lecture -Bad Cinema 'Kids'

Its about Kids, but not for kids." thats what one comment was made on the film on http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113540/usercomments. I think that is true because it is about kids but becasue of film ratings and the amount of sex and drug use in the film it wouldn't be allowed to be seen by kids.

I do realise that the director and writer Larry Clark may have wanted it to be a wake up call to parents as he may have felt that it needed to be shocking and be as equally realistic to bring home the issues and what kids get up to behind their backs.

It is shocking as it features sex as an act and the consquence of it like the HIV virus as the character Jennie realise she has the virus because of the one night stand unprotected by the womaniser Telly, I call him a womaniser because thats what many would call him as he lives for sex as that is all he has as he says at the end of the film but also keeps saying the same thing to each girl in order to 'get what he wanted' as it shows he had no respect for girls/women but the sadthing was he has the HIV virus and doesn't know it as he goes around his daily life none the wiser. Another shocking thing is the main scene of the film is definitly the end as the character Casper rapes Jennie as she lays there asleep it was sickening to think that he now will have the HIV virus becasue of his selfish ways but then again many might think that he had it coming after his disgraceful attitute in the film as well as Telly.

It was also interestedly pointed out how little adults their were in film even though it was aimed at adults as a 'wake up call' the few adults includes the nurses at the clinic, cab driver and Telly's mother. maybe this to make a point that even though adults are around they aren't exactly important in the kids life.

Is this the way we want out kids to grown up?

Lecture 5: Masturbation

Somehow I don’t know how I’m writing about this topic, but as a whole I feel it should be as private as anything a couple do in the bedroom. It is normal and shouldn’t be as classed as ‘sinful’ as it once was; that’s proof how things have changed over decades.

As in the lecture it was equally as interesting to find out how viewpoint of topic has changed from it wanting to be prevented by parents telling the child to stop ‘touching yourself down there’ or even by old fashioned ways or wearable articles. When seeing the old fashion ways of prevention it was horrible to find out they would work because they wasn’t meant to be comfortable. It was interesting to find out the history and the development of the subject as not many people or parents wish not to talk about the subject openly to their teenage children as many teenagers feel it’s ‘embarrassing’ to talk about sexual matters with their parents.

When looking at the results from the survey that was taken from students the results were surprising as I noted first that in the question to do with first masturbation there was a surprising mixed starting ages for women as most men started at the age of 13, maybe this shows the difference in sexual appetites as some men and women had equally started at an younger age. The second result I noted was that men do it more regularly do it as many women don’t do it at all maybe this shows that its seems more natural to men than women. Another result I noted was that in a sexual relationship most do it less often maybe this is because when in a sexual relationship some may find they don’t need to do it alone when having a sexual partner. Another thing I noted in the results was that most men need porn as an aid as women don’t mind what aid they use maybe this is due to the fact that men and women have their own person preferences to what they enjoy. When looking into in the results it made me think how different we really are.

It’s not often that the subject comes into the news media but in 2003 researchers found that masturbation cuts the risk of cancer: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3072021.stm ; as it says in the article that men should be encouraged to masturbate as it is also in ‘part of people's sexual repertoire’ as it was found that ‘Men who ejaculated more t7n five times a week were a third less likely to develop prostate cancer later in life.’ I think is scientifically proof to a unlikely theory that a natural and normal thing such as masturbation can benefit the man in more than one area. Another scientific research found that women that are more "emotionally intelligent" get more pleasure from sex: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8044571.stm the study shows that the greater the women is emotionally smart the more orgasms she has, this theory is very interesting as it proof once again that there is so much we don’t know about the sexual side of the body.

Is it really a bad thing to teach children that masturbation is a bad thing? Or do we want it became a taboo subject like it once was?