von_geisterhand: (Default)
Why is there money for yet another stonkingly loud but inherently vapid Michael-Bay-Transformers-nassacre but not enough to develop films, or Cthulhu forbid!, a fucking telly series based on The Culture?
von_geisterhand: (Default)
Having now seen the trailer for the "Ghost in the Shell"-remake on the big screen three times I was reminded of just how breathtaking the film will probably look in that format. Watching trailer (and films!) on a small laptop just isn't the right way to experience them.
At the same time I also suddenly wondered why a "live action" remake of an anime was even considered necessary, except for purely monetary reasons. Particularly, as the "reality" the film presents is a very stylized one heavily influenced by.... anime and computer games. It's ouroboros of modern culture.
The same goes for "Beauty and the Beast". Just.... why..... why.... why?
Fuck this fake nostalgia!
von_geisterhand: (Default)
Just a quick note on a topic that hordes of others have already written about, and probably will continue to do so. I'll be brief.

You want less gun-related deaths? The solution is not "more guns". Although, in the interest of fairness and science, I would be more than happy to see a segregated area where they try out the "More guns mean safer streets"-approach, as long as there is nobody I hold dear anywhere in that area.

The ubiquitous flipside of this argument is of course that an alternative solution would be to have a ban on violent media, so young and impressionable people won't even get the idea of ever pointing a gun at another human being. In time I will write a post on the difference in public perception of the military in Germany compared to that in the UK/US.
The thing that gets me is that this argument is never really about "Well, the kids constantly see on telly/in films that conflicts are best solved violently and that Might is Right in this world."
They undoubtedly do. As I have said before and as I maintain, Frank Miller's/Zack Snyder's "300" is a glorious fascist wank fantasy, which tells you that being buff and dying in combat is better than living as a deformed hunchback and that diplomats/politicians are inherently untrustworthy. And that's only one of the more blatant examples. Yet this is not the sort of film/medium normally thought of when it comes to finding the reasons for massacres. Rather we end up with things like "A serbian film", "Hostel" and "Human Centipede" and the idea that if we were to ban these film and in this way in time decrease the number of people enjoying these films, we would live in a happier and safer world. Because, you know, who in their right mind really would want to watch something like that? Surely it's only weirdos and psychos and we need less of those!
And hey presto, we have some scapegoats who are not us and can sleep safer at night.

Have you ever tried watching these films? They are pretty unpalatable. They are supposed to be. That's why "those people" watch them. They are Horror films. They leave you in horror, terrified/disturbed/shaken, at best they have a cathartic effect. What they do not do is fill you with the energy and impulse to go out and commit anything as strenuous as a killing spree. That's what "The Matrix" does.
Their extreme nature also means that they would never find a wide audience to spread their craziness amongst, if we assume that that is what they do.
von_geisterhand: (Default)

I actually blame RomComs and their predecessors to a certain degree, too. There still seems to be this ancient idea present in some guys' heads that in order to "win a woman's heart", you have to "conquer it". The metaphor alone tells you all about what is wrong about this idea and why, besides harrassment of the above kind, it also gave rise to the oft-discussed "nice guy fallacy".
You do not "win" or "conquer" a woman's heart by being forward, by "getting into her good books" through favours, much less through supposed "chilvalry" or "wooing". A "heart" (or more to the point, a woman. This is always about possession and control, isn't it?) is not something which you can "win" or "conquer", much less by wiles or strength.

Of course you will tell me (and yourself) that you are only doing the woman a favour by praising her beauty but this is not what this is really about.
You don't want her to notice that she is beautiful, you want her to notice what a swell guy you are for saying these things to you, in effect not validating her but your own self-worth. Sorry that it makes you angry when your ego is not stroked in this way but don't take it out on somebody who only has something to do with all of this in your head.
von_geisterhand: (Default)
There is now a special pink Kinder Suprise, "just for girls".
What has the responsible office been smoking to come up with this fantastic idea?
von_geisterhand: (Default)
Discussion about the possibility of a female "Doctor Who"

Stuff like this makes me mentally grind my teeth. People, this is Sci-Fi/Fantasy! Anything is possible! Having a massively powerful character who AFAIK does not do much in the way of gender-dependent behaviour anyway and who habitually changes his flesh-envelope as is, should take inhabiting a body which those around interpret as female for a while in her stride no problem.
Think bigger!

(Or have I just read too many "Culture"-novels?)
von_geisterhand: (Default)
As I mentioned in the previous post, I recently watched a programme on some (white, well off, american) children between 8 and 17 whose inner gender does not match their bio-gender. Some of them had already begun taking hormones and were now thinking about surgery and some of them were still uncertain about whether they ever wanted to take that step.
What made me think, though, besides questions about performing surgery on pre-puberty bodies, was something one of the little boys said: When asked why he felt that he was a boy despite the fact he had been born as a female, he answered that he had always liked to play with boys' toys like remote-controlled cars and enjoyed sports like Karate, far more than taking part in typical girls' activities. Fair enough, you'd say, and not something one has not heard before.
On the other hand, this also accepts and reinforces the traditional ideas of what it is like to be a boy/girl and what is and is not proper for either gender. This always saddens me a little bit.
I mean, fair enough, you can't ask too much from a child around 10 (sorry, can't remember how old exactly) but I had hoped that we as a society had now reached a level of intelligence where (for example) a bio-girl happily living as and being seen as a "girl" can play with a remote-controlled car and excel at Karate without this in any way meaning.... well, anything more. They don't, or should not, take away your "girl-license" just because you don't conform to a standard that was set more than 50 years ago. "Girl/Boy/Man/Woman" are concepts of consensual definition and therefore more than fluid.

Be what you want to be and be it any way you decide.
von_geisterhand: Monika küsst Jörg. Sie liebt ihn. (kiss)
Ich glaube nicht, daß ich mich normalerweise zu soetwas äußern würde, aber es gibt ein paar Aspekte/Details, die mich gestern ausreichend aufgeregt haben, daß ich vor der Wahl stand, einen Herzinfarkt oder ein Magengeschwür zu kriegen, oder eben doch etwas zu schreiben. Man möge es mir verzeihen, aber es geht hier dann eben doch um "meinen Bereich" und außerdem bin ich noch voller aufgestauter Wut von einer längeren Lektüre über Neofolk.

Erstmal das Thema, das andere direkter interessiert:
Das Schlossparktheater Steglitz, landesweit dafür bekannt, daß es unter der Leitung von Herrn Dieter "Didi" "Palimpalim" Hallervorden steht, zeigt seit letzter Woche das Stück "Ich bin nicht Rappaport", welches wohl hauptsächlich von zwei alten Männer auf einer Parkbank handelt, die sicherlich ihr Leben Revue passieren lassen und sich gegenseitig aufmunternde Sachen sagen. Ich wollte schon "The Bucket List" nicht sehen, also interessiert mich das hier auch wenig.
Die Sache ist allerdings daß einer der Männer amerikanischer Jude ist (gespielt von Didi, der gar kein Jude ist) und der andere Afroamerikaner (gespielt von Joachim Bliese, der weder Amerikaner noch Afro ist, und aus diesem Grund schwarz angemalt werden musste.)
You see how this might cause problems.
Und zack!, schon öffneten sich die Tore des elektronischen Zornes und wurden Worte wie "Minstrel Show" gezückt.
Ist das jetzt Rassismus oder was?
Nach meiner Einschätzung *wince* wenn, dann eher im übertragenen Sinne, aber das sehen andere Leute anders und vielleicht ist da noch was im Stück (welches ich nicht kenne, vielleicht ja die), was dazu Anlass gibt, aber letztendlich geht es mir auch überhaupt nicht oder nur periphär darum. Wenn sich jemand von dem Stück beleidigt fühlt, dann ist es sein/ihr gutes Recht, das auch so kundzutun.
IMHO ist die Erwähnung der Minstrel Show hier relativ unangebracht und zeugt von einer sehr eingeschränkten, konservativen Idee von Theater und der Regiearbeit. Roberto Blanco (bzw. wie er in Populärmedien präsentiert wird) steht für mich in der Tradition der Minstrel Show, was alle möglichen Metagedanken zulässt, aber die Austauschbarkeit von Ethnizitäten im Theater bzw. auch ihre Darstellung kann etwas sein, was Theater erst richtig interessant macht.
Othello muss nicht schwarz sein, aber er muss "anders" sein als die Soldaten um ihn herum. Man hat in der Vergangenheit Weiße zu diesem Zwecke schwarz angemalt, man hat auch schonmal einen Schwarzen weiß angemalt und ihn in eine ansonsten komplett schwarze Inszenierung gesteckt, aber was genau das "anders" ausmacht, bleibt der Kreativität der Produktion überlassen. "Romeo und Julia" gab es auch schon mit eingebauter Ethnikthematik, geht auch und das gut. Es gibt Kombinationen, die sich vielleicht nicht anbieten, aber manchmal kommen aus solchen unerwarteten Sachen auch die besten Ergebnisse. Es sollte aber niemand erwarten, daß jemand, der einen Juden auf der Bühne spielt auch unbedingt wirklich Jude ist, außer man ist sehr eingeschränkt in der eigenen Idee davon was Theater kann. Und ja, das heißt auch, daß man einen weißen Schauspieler schwarz anmalen kann, um ihn einen Afroamerikaner spielen zu lassen. Das ist in sich aber nicht rassistisch, außer natürlich die Rolle oder das Stück an sich ist es auch schon. Obwohl es die ganze Sache natürlich noch schlimmer machen kann. Man stelle sich Oliver Pocher schwarz angemalt in "Titus Andronicus" vor.... The horror, the horror.

Soviel dazu.

Wobei man allerdings sagen muss, daß die ganze Sache natürlich die Frage aufwirft "Warum konnte man keinen schwarzen Schauspieler für die Rolle finden?". Denn das ist es ja, was behauptet wurde: Man hätte einfach den besten Schauspieler für die Rolle gewollt und keinen geeigneten gefunden, den man nicht anpinseln musste. Das ist durchaus möglich, aber unwahrscheinlich. Wenn man jetzt bösartig sein wollte, könnte man sagen, daß sich das normale SPT-Publikum wahrscheinlich wirklich über Robert Blanco auf der Bühne gefreut hätte, was auch ganz gut ins restliche Programm des Hauses gepasst hätte. So zynisch wie ich dem Wilmersdorfer/Steglitzer/Dahlemer Rentner-/Spießer-/Bildungsbürgerpublikum gegenüberstehe, so glaube ich trotzdem nicht, daß sie den Vorstellungen fernbleiben würden, nur weil tatsächlich ein echter schwarzer Mann auf der Bühne vor ihnen steht. Es sind zwar die Wilmersdorfer Witwen (bzw. inzwischen wahrscheinlich ihre Töchter), aber soweit reicht es dann doch.
Warum also nicht? Ron Williams müsste doch inzwischen auch alt genug sein.
Es gibt wahrscheinlich keinen Grund außer die direkten Umstände.
Trotzdem interessant, wenn man sich mal anschaut, in was für Rollen "Nichtdeutsche" im Fernsehen immer noch landen müssen:

(Dieses "Traumhotel" oder wie es heißt sieht ja wirklich aus wie Unterhaltung der späteren 40er. "Sofort, Massa!" *kopfschüttel*)

Liest noch jemand? Ich hab nur noch 2 1/2 weitere Sachen.

1. Das Plakat ist ja man wirklich scheiße. Ich bin sowieso kein großer Fan des Hardcorephotoshoppings, welches das SPT den Leuten auf seinen Plakaten angedeihen lässt, aber ganz ehrlich, ich habe das Plakat jetzt schon eine ganze Weile gesehen und immer gedacht, daß der schwarz bemalte Mann ein geistig verwirrter Obdachloser a la "Fisher King" oder ein Beckett-artiger Freak sein sollte. Eigentlich, wenn man weiß, was es sein soll und sich die weit aufgerissenen Augen so anschaut, so fühlt man sich doch etwas an die Minstrel Show erinnert. Aber das Plakat wird jetzt wohl auch geändert.

2. Das ist jetzt keine spezifische Sache, die mit dem Berliner "Rappaport" zu tun hat, aber die Art, wie auf der Facebookseite des SPT protestiert wird, just fucking pisses me off. Es schmackt für mich von ungeheurem Herdentrieb, wenn es eine erboste Masse nur auf Reposts von "Absetzen" bringt (zumal "Umbesetzen" doch eher das Angebrachte wäre), oder, wenn es hochkommt, auf Links zu anderen Seiten/Videos, die sich teilweise dann auch eher auf amerikaspezifischen Rassismus beziehen. Wenn Du erbost bist, dann mach Dir wenigstens die Mühe, Deinen Zorn auszudrücken bzw. ausuformulieren. (So wie ich hier ;-)

2a. Mein Lieblingspost von den Erbosten war jemand, der/die mit den Worten "Das lässt tief blicken." auf ein Interview linkte, in dem D. Hallrvorden sagt, daß Adolf Hitler mal sein Vorbild war.... als er 6 Jahre alt war, sprich 1941. Und schon bald nicht mehr, aber das kann man ja ausblenden. Moralkeule-Godwin-Fail!

So. Ich habe mich ausgeschüttet und gieße mir einen Tee ein.
von_geisterhand: (Default)
Yes, I have now seen a "Twilight"-film. I feel so dirty.
In my defense, I would like it noted on the record that I did not pay for this "pleasure" but that an acquaintance felt strongly enough about me being perverted to shell out the money for the movies.

There are so many things wrong with this
One after the other (and yes, there will be spoilers if you don't know the books/films and if you care).
Much has been said and written about the disturbing subtext of the Saga and the strange ideas that it seems to have about romance and love. I know next to nothing about that because I did (purposefully) not immerse myself in the folklore. But here's how the sex part pans out in "Breaking Dawn Part 1":

They wait until they are married before they decide to consumate their relationship carnally. Fair enough. In the course of their nuptial night (portrayed very restrainedly, obviously) Edward breaks the bed and trashes the room because clearly he is an ultra-strong vampire. Fine, it's been done before, why not? However, as it turns out the next day he has also bruised Bella in several places. "Bruised her", as in "She has a few bruises", as in "This also happens during non-Vampire sex." as in "No big deal really. They will fade soon, Bella is okay with it and actually wants to make more sweet, sweet love to her new hubby." But Edward will have none of it and vows to never have sex with her again (A woman make a decision about how and when she wants to have sex? Are you mad?). So Bella has to try really, really hard and use all her female wiles to get her husband to touch her again in a Barry White way (Eve? Who is that?). In the end she succeeds and.... she gets pregnant! In a way that everybody tells her will break her bones, literally consume and finally kill her! (and she looks it). Jacob (shirt off within the first 30 seconds of the film) also states several times that once the child is born, he will first kill it and then Edward. Edward in turn agrees with this plan and states quite clearly that he could never ever love this (his!) child.

So here a woman finally gets the chance to make a decision about her body/womb/life and she decides to die for no good reason whatsoever. Nobody even invokes the good old gothic cliché of "Well, at least we shall be united in death." Nope, just a horrible pointless death that Lars von Trier would have been proud of.

So that would be two shags, three dead and no fun having been had by anybody.
And these are role models for young people?
Honestly, what the fuck?
Abstinence works, yes, but there are alternatives and not all sex kills.
Some of it can be survived and it also supposed to be quite nice, I have been told.

Of course it doesn't actually end with three deaths but still the message is there. There is more WTF? in the birthing scene but I cannot be bothered to go into this now.

On the other hand it is also quite bizarre just how immobile and expressionless all these angsty characters are all through the film. They are pale, they are angsty, they talk and Bella suffers but beyond that, not much happens. If vampires and werewolves ever stood for animal instincts and/or epic battles, they certainly don't here.
The amount of stuff that wasn't happening did not become fully obvious to me until the very end: In the middle of the credits there is an extra scene starring Michael Sheen playing one of the vampire lords (or something like that). And maybe you could say that he was hamming the role up a wee bit (shockingly unheard of for people playing old and powerful vampires, I know) but my thoughts when witnessing this scene were:
"OMG!!! There is an actor! He is doing something! He is acting! And he looks like he might even be enjoying himself in the process! OMG!!!"
You get the picture? It would not be too bold a claim to state that if I get convinced to see "Breaking dawn, Part II" (this time I want somebody to pay me, though), it will be almost exclusively because I want to see what Michael Sheen does next.
He was literally the best thing in the whole film.

Still, I don't recommend you watch it.
It's also quite irksome to think that there are actually interesting facets to the film and the story but these aspects are the one that are not developed.
A vampire story about restraint? Fab!
A young woman's terror at what might be growing inside her? Not novel but interesting.
The image of the happy couple standing on a pile of corpses forming a grisly wedding cake? It made me laugh in delight. (Extra points for an all-white outfit. John Woo approves.)

But no.
von_geisterhand: (Default)
Sorry, the link had to go.

I thought about it again and in the end the site just pissed me off. it's not really serving any purpose except remind people of the fact that there are bad people men out there and possibly remind the readers of their own unpleasant experiences.

What good is that?
von_geisterhand: (Default)

"Von ihrer Ästhetik her ist ,Death in June' eine rechtsextreme Band", sagt der Sozialwissenschaftler Martin Langebach, der sich mit Rechtsextremismus und Jugendkulturen befasst. Die Gruppe ziehe auch Publikum aus dem Milieu der intellektuellen Neuen Rechten an. Das Problem: Ihre Texte ließen sich nicht wie bei anderen Rechtsrock-Gruppen klar zuordnen. So wurde ein Album der Band 2005 indiziert, weil ein Text darauf als Leugnen des Holocaust gelesen werden könne, so Langebach: "Sie sind uneindeutig." Für Anetta Kahane ist der Fall dennoch klar: "Es sieht aus wie Rechtsextremismus, es hört sich an wie Rechtsextremismus, es ist Rechtsextremismus", sagt die Vorsitzende der Amadeu-Antonio-Stiftung, die sich gegen rechte Gewalt engagiert.

Also in anderen Worten: "Wir sind der Meinung, daß es sich hier um eine Naziband handelt, stehen aber vor dem Problem, daß wird das nicht nachweisen können, weil es keine klaren Beweise/Hinweise dafür/darauf gibt. Da sie aber uneindeutig sind und es uns ärgert, daß wir sie nicht klar zuordnen können und weil wir gerne der Meinung wären, daß sie eine Naziband sind, beschließen wir jetzt, daß dem so ist.

Ich glaube, sowas nervt mich ganz besonders, weil ich eigentlich ganz gute Argumente zur Unterstützung der "Das sind doch Nazis!"-Fraktion habe. Wenn man sich dann noch nicht mal dieser guten Argumente bedient, sondern stattdessen schlechte oder eigentlich-noch-nicht-mal-Argumente benutzt, ist das eine Enttäuschung.
Ich mag gute Diskussionen zu sehr, um mich mit solchen faulen Abkürzungen abzugeben.
von_geisterhand: (Default)
....you can watch somebody from the Daily Torygraph jump to random conclusions.

Lou Reed and Metallica's sick poster has no place on the London Underground

Let us disregard the questions about the musical necessity of Metallica and Lou Reed collaborating for the moment, and going into detail about Wedekind's "Lulu" here would probably lead to a whole other discussion that would sooner or later necessitate the mentioning of Lars von Trier. Which nobody wants, and which really is not relevant here, anyway.

My favourite sentence is "Children, unstable psychotics, abused women and simply people already suffering from a sweaty armpit and a 20-minute delay should not be exposed to a bloody torso.", as it combines the ever-popular "The children! Who will save our children?" with the just-as-popular feeding the fear of all the "psychos" that might lurk on YOUR! street, ready to snap at any second, about to pounce and commit heinous acts of barbarism and monstrosity. The only way to keep them at bay is to keep as quiet and civilised as possible. No sudden movements, no loud noises and for God's sake, no disagreeable culture please!

....while happily disregarding that the exciting and special thing about "psychotics" is that you don't know how they will interpret something or what will finally make them snap, if snapping is what they are about to do. Your worldview might not match theirs, strangely enough.
But let us leave the area of sarcasm and the garden-variety psychotic.
There is always this sickenly vague fear of what "they" might do, always just a vague possibility, but you never know...

What I think really aggravates me about this (assuming that I have not fallen foul of a major act of subtle satire here) is the sheer bluntness with which Lucy Jones interprets what is basically an artistically ambiguous image solely according to her own wishes/thoughts/prejudices in order to jump to conclusions. There is a definite difference between an image of a partial shop mannequin, to all intents and purposes a broken doll, which has long been a popular image, and interpreting it as being "dismembered, cut and bruised" and a likely trigger for violence against women*. Yes, I can follow that train of thought but IMHO this train is a fair few stops beyond where it should really have terminated.

*Yes, I know how the play "Lulu" ends. But I doubt that Lucy Jones does.
von_geisterhand: (Default)
And this looks like a waste of good time. Not to mention: a good franchise.
Trailer for "Hellraiser Revelations" That's "Hellraiser 9", btw. The reboot better be awesome.
Well, one can dream.
Doug Bradley passed on this. That alone should tell you something about the film.
von_geisterhand: Monika küsst Jörg. Sie liebt ihn. (kiss)
Hm, nicht, daß es jetzt wirklich so wichtig wäre, aber mal ehrlich:
Wenn das hier die Schnitte sind, die "Hellraiser" von dem Monstrum, das Kinder, Jugendliche und ihre sozialethische Orientierung unheilbar ver- und zerstören kann (und das seit über 20 Jahren) und einem zukünftigen Grabbelkistenbewohner bei Saturn, den jede türkische Mutti und jedes ausgebüxte Kleinkind in Händen halten darf, trennen, dann sollte man mal in sich gehen und zugeben, daß der Film heutzutage ohne Weiteres ungeschnitten als FSK 16 durchgehen sollte.
Über Franks Ende bin ich bereit zu diskutieren, aber der Rest ist doch wirklich unbedenklich.
Aber nein, Zucht und Ordnung brauchen das.

EDIT: Und das gilt im doppelten Maße für die Schnitte der FSK16-Fassung von "Hellbound: Hellraiser 2". Okay, vielleicht wäre hier ein glattes 18 für die volle Fassung okay, aber wie man auf die Idee kommt, Julias ganze Geburtssequenz herauszuschneiden, weiß ich eh nicht.
Das ganze System ist wirklich sehr darauf angelegt, vielen Bürokraten möglichste viel Arbeit zu beschaffen, ohne dabei auf Dinge wie Vernunft, Kunstgefühl oder den gesunden Menschenverstand zurückzugreifen.

Und schau, am Wochenende läuft "From Dusk till Dawn". Nach 23 Uhr und trotzdem geeignet für jedes Schulkind. Weil man sich ja nicht trauen darf, etwas zu zeigen, was vielleicht jemandem missfallen könnte oder von dem sich jemand ge- bzw. überfordert fühlt.
von_geisterhand: (Default)

Simply no.
There is no center.
The center does not hold.
There no longer is a reliable authority on what is "Normal" and what is sticking your neck out too much.
There is only fear of being perceived as "weird". Fuck the fear.

Yes, I dress in black and yes, I do have a haircut which is designed to draw the odd glance (although not as much as it would have five years ago, as I realised recently). My outfit/appearance, besides being the sort of thing I would like on somebody else and besides being what I feel very fucking comfortable in, is designed to a certain extent to say "No, I am not all that interested in completely blending in and no, I am not out for your approval, either."
It would be hypocritical of me to bemoan the fact that my appearance draws looks and it would be unrealistic to believe that all of them are approving. And yes, some people might even find the outfit ridiculous but chances are good that I don't think all that much of their style choices, either. Do I tell them or point and stare? No. I might well make fun of them to a friend and quietly and, hey, they are free to do the same.
But without a reliable authority on Normality you can never model yourself on it, only take parts of yourself away until you feel inconspicuous enough. Which works only as long as you don't meet somebody else with a different center of normality.
von_geisterhand: (Default)

Not wanting to appear too acquiescent with a person who strikes me as incredibly disagreeable, I find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with something Mrs. Dorries probably did not mean to say.
Let's start with the rather obvious: The intention to only target young women with your scheme speaks of a worldview that is somewhere between antiquated and downright stupid. Certainly, the prospect of having your womb occupied for the better part of the year as well as the discomfort that is bound to ensue in the subsequent birthing proceedings are a powerful incentive for a woman (of any age) to regulate access to her genitals responsibly. On the other hand, there is this recurring feeling/thought I have that suggests that an owner and habitual deployer of semen should handle said organ and fluid in an equally responsible manner. That incidentally goes for men of all creeds.

Dame Joan said that our society is saturated in sex: a typical prime-time hour on TV contains 2.6 references to intercourse, 1.2 references to prostitution and rape, and 4.7 sexual innuendoes.

I love imagining a little very eager Mary-Whitehouse-clone sitting there with a stopwatch and a calculator to come up with these numbers.

Incidentally, while I fully agree that the commercialised sexualisation of women, young girls, paerhaps even people is a worrying and disagreeable trend, I continue to wonder why it's always the "sexual" part that is seen as the problem, and never the "commercialised". And if you feel that there may be too much sex in "society's consciousness", I am not sure if school sex ed. material really is the first thing to cut in order to reduce this amount.

Young people will feel eager to fuck whether they hear about it in school or see it on telly or not. Having genitals and a shitload of hormones will soon make sure of that. It is quite possible and even somewhat likely that having some detailed lessons about the whole topic in school will even make them more interested and/or eager but that difference is bound to be marginal and at least they will be considerably better informed when taking the plunge than members of their age-bracket who grew up in less informative circumstances.

One factor constantly ignored by society is that peer pressure is a key contributor to early sexualised activity among the children of our country. Society is focused on sex. Our sex education teaches children how to have sex, not how to say no to sex.

It just occured to me that I have been cheated most severely. You see, getting my license for driving a car took a long time and involved many, many lessons. Yet, at no point during it was I taught that for some journeys I might be better off walking or riding a bike. God knows why I hardly drive anywhere these days.
Sex Ed should tell you about having sex. Making you secure enough in yourself and your choices and guiding you in making up your mind is something that one would hope is an integral part of the whole school business and hopefully also part of what parents try to instill. Handling peer pressure is a bastard and the average teen will make a fair few "wrong" decisions because of it, but that is a general issue, far from only related to sexual matters.

In our sex education programmes, we need to promote the notion of abstinence and all the advantages that it brings, such as self-respect and not making relationship mistakes.

Abstinence works, you know. It can really keep you safe from getting pregnant and all the STDs you cannot catch from a toilet seat. It will not save you from relationship mistakes, unless of course it is relationships you are abstaining from. As for your self respect, see above. I remain convinced you can fuck somebody very respectfully, just as under certain circumstances not having sex with somebody means disrespecting both yourself and the other person(s).

It [abstinence] has to be taught alongside everything else so that young girls can say, I have been told to say no.

For this is the way to develop self-respect: Blindly following what somebody else said. This may well be to most inane sentence of the whole piece.
von_geisterhand: (It is to indifference that I say)
Lieber/Liebe... wer auch immer für die Übersetzung des "Predators"-Plakats verantwortlich war.

Wenn ich Dich/Euch jemals treffe, gibt's auf den Hinterkopf.
"This planet is a game reserve and they are the game" ist mit "Dieser Planet ist ein Spielfeld und sie sind das Spiel" nicht korrekt übersetzt. Wer war das? Ein Hauptschüler auf Praktikum?



von_geisterhand: (Default)

June 2017

45678 910
111213 14151617
181920 21222324


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 24th, 2017 02:11 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios