Kill two birds with one stone by grabbing your scissors, fold the t-shirt in half, shoulder to shoulder, slowly and carefully cut a quarter circle/ellipse from the fold at the center out towards the top of the shoulder, and:

BOOM!!

NOTE: If you have a print on the t-shirt you would prefer not cutting into, make sure you can see it as you’re cutting, so you don’t end up cutting too low or wide.

T-shirting material is great, no need to hem as it doesn’t fray.

Because the neckline is looser, the whole garment now sits slightly lower. I find this usually takes the t-shirt out of the “always riding up and giving me kidney freeze” zone to something much more comfortable.

Many of my t-shirts now look like this. Just make sure before you do it, that you’re 100% certain you’re not going to need to return the shirt for any reason. Obviously no shop is going to accept any returned garments if they have been altered.

Also wouldn’t recommend this course of action if you don’t like flashing your bra straps about. That’s pretty much a given with your newly widened neckline.

When J shared the following article with me last night, I felt compelled to write about it.

Trigger warning

A registered nurse who had sexual liaisons with three teenage boys has been sentenced to a year’s home detention.

Aroha Veronica Webber, 41, was sentenced in the Rotorua District Court today after earlier pleading guilty to six charges of unlawful sexual connection with the 15-year-olds.

Her counsel, Paul Mabey, QC, submitted if they had been a year older no carnal crime would have been committed. She had not sexually groomed the boys.

He outlined how they had gathered at Webber’s home when she was in a fragile state following her marriage breakdown. As a result of this she had “hit the booze” and the offending had occurred, Mr Mabey said.

She had allowed the boys into her home rather than see them wandering the streets.

Webber strenuously denied a claim in a victim impact statement that one of the boys had contracted a sexually transmitted disease from her.

“She is a registered nurse, she knows her own body’s health,” Mr Mabey submitted.

Judge James Weir also discounted the allegation. He noted her offending had been entirely out of character and had occurred when she was “disinhibited” by alcohol.

- Nurse sentenced for sex with teens

Now let’s step back for a moment. Imagine the accused is instead a 41-year-old male, and the victims are 15-year-girls.

“[If the victims] had been a year older no carnal crime would have been committed” certainly would not be seen as a valid excuse.  It didn’t happen in a years time, or with 16-year-olds, it happened now, with 15 year olds.  A 15-year-old is legally unable to consent to any sexual activity.

It doesn’t matter that the victims entered the accused’s home voluntarily. That doesn’t mean they automatically consent to anything that happens within the home, even if they weren’t minors.

As for the accused denying that it was possible that one of the victims contracted a STD from the encounter because “she is a registered nurse, she knows her own body’s health”, then she would also know that STDs/STIs can be asymptomatic. She could have been a carrier for the disease/infection without knowing. That’s why sexual health checks are important, along with PROTECTED sexual activity, which obviously didn’t happen in this case.

Would the judge had accepting that the accused “was ‘disinhibited’ by alcohol” (‘disinhibited’ isn’t a word by the way, it should be ‘uninhibited’), and that it was “entirely out of character”? I understand that a marriage breakdown is a stressful time, but that doesn’t give you a free pass. What if something more serious had happened, what if this was a murder trial? Would being “‘disinhibited’ by alcohol”, having a marriage breakdown, and it being “entirely out of character” be mitigating factors? Just because she hasn’t been accused before doesn’t mean this is the first time something like this has happened (admit it, you’d think the same thing if she was actually a male).

And what’s with the sentence of home detention? The offending happened AT HER HOME.

This whole thing is just all kinds of wrong… what kind of justice is this?

~~ Feel so dirty after looking for appropriate images for this post… Need to go cleanse myself… I’m so disappointed in humanity.~~

Now I think we’re all grown up enough to admit that yes, lots of sugar is bad for you. But when someone comes along making out like sugar is this huge bad guy, giving 113 reasons for this belief, doubling up on a number of those reasons with no citations, and no one points this out in the comments, I have to do something about it.

(I may be guilty of getting caught up in someone being wrong on the internet here, but I make no apologies.)

So here we go:

113 Way Sugar Can Ruin Your Health – Are You Sure About That?

**Comments written in red are mine. All links have been added by me.**

In addition to throwing off the body’s homeostasis, excess sugar may result in a number of other significant consequences. The following is a listing of some of sugar’s metabolic consequences from a variety of medical journals and other scientific publications. - Such as? Unless you give the reference details for said “medical journals and other scientific publications”, where is your proof that what you’re saying is true? Are we to just take your word for it?

1. Sugar can suppress the immune system.
2. Sugar can upset the body’s mineral balance.
3. Sugar can cause hyperactivity, anxiety, concentration difficulties, and crankiness in children.
4. Sugar can cause drowsiness and decreased activity in children.
5. Sugar can adversely affect children’s school grades.
6. Sugar can produce a significant rise in triglycerides.
7. Sugar contributes to a weakened defense against bacterial infection.
8. Sugar can cause kidney damage.
9. Sugar can reduce helpful high density cholesterol (HDLs).
10. Sugar can promote an elevation of harmful cholesterol (LDLs).
11. Sugar may lead to chromium deficiency.
12. Sugar can cause copper deficiency. - I really think these should be just one point, after all they are both deficiencies, and it is no different to listing four different cancers in #14.
13. Sugar interferes with absorption of calcium and magnesium. - Could this point be included with copper and chromium deficiency? Though it doesn’t actually say whether it decreases absorption or increases it. I’m guessing there is a decrease, but citation would have helped this issue.
14. Sugar may lead to cancer of the breast, ovaries, prostate, and rectum.
15. Sugar can cause colon cancer, with an increased risk in women. - Shouldn’t this be included with the above point? You can’t have one point for four different cancers, then list another cancer in the next point.
16. Sugar can be a risk factor in gall bladder cancer. - This has the same problem as above, “may lead to”, “can cause”, “can be a risk factor in” all mean the same thing. Sugar may increase the chance of (yes, that’s another way of saying it) six different cancers, one point, not three.
17. Sugar can increase fasting levels of blood glucose.
18. Sugar can weaken eyesight.
19. Sugar raises the level of a neurotransmitter called serotonin, which can narrow blood vessels.
20. Sugar can cause hypoglycemia. - Hypoglycemia is caused by low blood sugar levels. Is it possible she means hyperglycemia? Those tricky “hypo” and “hyper” definitions, always making us think one is the other.
21. Sugar can produce an acidic stomach.
22. Sugar can raise adrenaline levels in children. - I could be wrong, but isn’t this the same as #3?
23. Sugar can increase the risk of coronary heart disease.
24. Sugar can speed the aging process, causing wrinkles and grey hair.
25. Sugar can lead to alcoholism. - What? Really? This is one of those times where some citation would have been really good, I would really like to read which article this information came from.
26. Sugar can promote tooth decay.
27. Sugar can contribute to weight gain and obesity.
28. High intake of sugar increases the risk of Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.
29. Sugar can cause a raw, inflamed intestinal tract in persons with gastric or duodenal ulcers.
30. Sugar can cause arthritis.
31. Sugar can cause asthma.
32. Sugar can cause candidiasis (yeast infection).
33. Sugar can lead to the formation of gallstones.
34. Sugar can lead to the formation of kidney stones.
35. Sugar can cause ischemic heart disease. - Heart disease was already mentioned at #23. This should be included there.
36. Sugar can cause appendicitis.
37. Sugar can exacerbate the symptoms of multiple sclerosis.
38. Sugar can indirectly cause hemorrhoids. - If something is only an indirect cause, can you really include it?
39. Sugar can cause varicose veins.
40. Sugar can elevate glucose and insulin responses in oral contraception users.
41. Sugar can lead to periodontal disease. - Oooo that’s tricky. Use the technical term for #26, and voila! You have another point.
42. Sugar can contribute to osteoporosis. - Seeing as it interferes with the absorption of calcium (#13), it seems only fair that it could contribute to osteoporosis.
43. Sugar contributes to saliva acidity. - This is the same as #26, no?
44. Sugar can cause a decrease in insulin sensitivity.
45. Sugar leads to decreased glucose tolerance.
46. Sugar can decrease growth hormone.
47. Sugar can increase total cholesterol.
48. Sugar can increase systolic blood pressure.
49. Sugar can change the structure of protein causing interference with protein absorption.
50. Sugar causes food allergies. - So sugar definitely causes food allergies then? Citation?
51. Sugar can contribute to diabetes. - Decreased insulin sensitivity (#44), decreased glucose tolerance (#45), I’m pretty sure those things equal diabetes…
52. Sugar can cause toxemia during pregnancy.
53. Sugar can contribute to eczema in children.
54. Sugar can cause cardiovascular disease. - *face palm* See #23 and #35.
55. Sugar can impair the structure of DNA. - More information please.
56. Sugar can cause cataracts.
57. Sugar can cause emphysema.
58. Sugar can cause atherosclerosis. - Cardiovascular disease maybe? (#54)
59. Sugar can cause free radical formation in the bloodstream.
60. Sugar lowers the enzymes’ ability to function. - Which enzymes? All of them?
61. Sugar can cause loss of tissue elasticity and function.
62. Sugar can cause liver cells to divide, increasing the size of the liver.
63. Sugar can increase the amount of fat in the liver.
64. Sugar can increase kidney size and produce pathological changes in the kidney.
65. Sugar can overstress the pancreas, causing damage.
66. Sugar can increase the body’s fluid retention.
67. Sugar can cause constipation.
68. Sugar can cause myopia (nearsightedness).  - Eyesight already mentioned at #18
69. Sugar can compromise the lining of the capillaries.
70. Sugar can cause hypertension.
71. Sugar can cause headaches, including migraines.
72. Sugar can cause an increase in delat, alpha and theta brain waves, which can alter the mind’s ability to think clearly.
73. Sugar can cause depression.
74. Sugar can increase insulin responses in those consuming high- sugar diets compared to low sugar diets.
75. Sugar increases bacterial fermentation in the colon.
76. Sugar can cause hormonal imbalance.
77. Sugar can increase blood platelet adhesiveness which increases risk of blood clots.
78. Sugar increases the risk of Alzheimer Disease.

**I had trouble with the WordPress formatting here and html coding isn’t really my thing. I wanted to make a point about the number of repeats appearing in the remainder of the list, but couldn’t do so without the numbering restarting from one. So we now have Part One (above) and Part Two (below)**

1. Sugar can cause a increase in delta, alpha and theta brain waves. - Repeat Part One #72
2. Sugar can cause depression. - Repeat Part One #73
3. Sugar increases the risk of gastric cancer. - Again with the cancer. Repeat Part One #14, #15, #16.
4. Sugar and cause dyspepsia (indigestion). - Repeat Part One #21
5. Sugar can increase your risk of getting gout.
6. The ingestion of sugar can increase the levels of glucose in an oral glucose tolerance test over the ingestion of complex carbohydrates.
7. Sugar can increase the insulin responses in humans consuming high- sugar diets compared to low sugar diets. - Repeat Part One #74
8. Sugar increases bacterial fermentation in the colon. - Repeat Part One #75
9. Sugar increases the risk of colon cancer in women. - Repeat Part One #15. Cancer risks also mentioned at Part One #14, #16, and Part Two #3.
10. There is a greater risk for Chron’s disease with people who have a high intake of sugar. - Repeat Part One #28
11. Sugar can cause platelet adhesiveness.
12. Sugar can cause hormonal imbalance. - Repeat Part One #76
13. Sugar can lead to the formation of kidney stones. - Repeat Part One #34
14. Sugar can lead to the hypothalamus to become highly sensitive to a large variety of stimuli.
15. Sugar can lead to dizziness.
16. High sucrose diet significantly increases serum insulin.
17. High sucrose diets of subjects with peripheral vascular disease significantly increases platelet adhesion. - Repeat Part Two #11
18. High sugar diet can lead to biliary tract cancer. - Repeat of cancer, Part One #14, #15, #16, and Part Two #3, #9.
19. High sugar diets tend to be lower in antioxidant micro nutrients.
20. High sugar consumption of pregnant adolescents is associated with a twofold increased risk for delivering a small-for- gestational-age (SGA) infant.
21. High sugar consumption can lead to substantial decrease in gestation duration among adolescents with high sugar diets.
22. Sugar slows food’s travel time through the gastrointestinal tract. - I actually thought this would be a good thing.
23. Sugar increases the concentration of bile acids in stools and bacterial enzymes in the colon can modify bile to produce cancer-causing compounds and colon cancer. - Repeat of cancer Part One #14, #15, #16, and Part Two #3, #9, #18. Both Part One #15 and Part Two #9 are to do with colon cancer risk, for women in particular.
24. Sugar is associated with a substantial decrease in normal time of gestation among adolescents. - Repeat Part Two #21
25. Sugar can cause a depletion in chromium which is tied to the development and progression of nearsightedness. - Repeat Part One #11, #18, #68
26. Sugar can be a risk factor of gallbladder cancer. - Repeat of cancer Part One #14, #15, #16, and Part Two #3, #9, #18, #23.
27. Sugar is an addictive substance.
28. Sugar can be intoxicating, similar to alcohol.
29. Sugar can exacerbate PMS.
30. Sugar suppresses lymphocytes.
31. Decrease in sugar can increase emotional stability. - This point just annoys me because it’s worded all wrong. It should be “Sugar can decrease emotional stability”.
32. The body changes sugar into 2 to 5 times more fat in the bloodstream than it does starch.
33. Sugar can cause inappropriate behavior and decreased performance in children. - Repeat Part One #3, #4, #5, #22.
34. Sugar can worsen the symptoms of children with attention deficit disorder (ADD).
35. The sugar in chewing gum can cause dental cavities. - Repeat Part One #26, #43

Do yourself a favor and go through this long list (which should really only be about half the length) and write out how many of the symptoms you have. What sugar does to a body is pretty frightening (especially when you write down the same symptoms as if they’re different a bunch of times). Kind of hard to believe, to be honest with you (kinda like how you managed to miss all those double-ups). Almost everything we eat contains sugar. We wonder why we are so sick and have so many ailments. The saddest part about it though is how many of us are willing to change our diets and limit our sugar intake (I think you mean it’s sad “how many of us are NOT willing to change our diets”). It is a sacrifice, I know! I struggle with it and if we are honest, we all do! Who doesn’t love sugar? It tastes so good! It is palatable to the taste buds. One of our taste buds is sweet after all.

—————————————————————————

So that’s it. Kudos if you managed to make your way through the whole thing.

There’s nothing wrong with making this kind of list, if that’s your thing, then go nuts. But if you are going to do so, at least use references and citations.  Don’t repeat the same points to increase the perceived risk, it’s not doing yourself or your message any favours.

If you disagree with anything I’ve said, or think I missed something, let me know in the comments below.

—————————————————————————

Comments from Twitter:

@IrnBruja
@ThatGirlFae [Part One] #20- Eating too much sugar can cause a hypo state as the body jacks up the insulin. It’s not a pleasant feeling at all!

@IrnBruja
@ThatGirlFae [Part One] #32- Ischemia going by your link affects arteries throughout the body, as opposed to coronary heart disease.

@IrnBruja
@ThatGirlFae [Part One] #43 surely saliva acidity would also affect salival enzymes, leading to digestion problems?

My reply: @ThatGirlFae
@IrnBruja that’s a valid point this is why referencing and citations are important, along with a more detailed explanation

Last night I had the most bizarre dream (though let’s be honest, when is a dream not that bizarre?).

J and I were moving house, except this wasn’t any house that I’ve lived in before.

Our friend Panda was helping, and then inexplicably J went missing. I couldn’t find him anywhere. So Panda and I continued with the packing, when suddenly the house started moving. It would seem it had been put on a truck for transport while we were still inside, without us noticing.

Time passed in a flash, and we were inside the house at the new location. All the pieces of furniture were still in the same position, but the carpet had been removed, exposing the the wooden planking below. The planks were rough and unvarnished, just like you would expect them to be after being under carpet for so many years.

It was then that I realized I was only wearing a nighty, with no underwear, nor pajama pants. Panda’s friend, David, arrived. I have never heard of nor met David before, and he didn’t look like anyone from my conscious life. Blonde, a little tan, and relatively good looking, but otherwise fairly nondescript. I managed to find some underwear, and told David to turn away while I put it on in the most awkward fashion.

David then drove me to university to meet Panda so we could search for J, though I didn’t seem to be particularly concerned that J was missing. This place looked nothing like the actual university, but I knew that was what this place was, just like I knew David had driven me there, though there was no visual of this happening.

The university consisted of one multistory building, I could not tell you exactly how many floors there were. It was surrounded by a bright, luscious green, rolling landscape, with the odd elm tree and flax bush scattered throughout.

Panda and I entered the building, David was no longer a participant in events.

We climbed into the lift, joining two nondescript brunette women in their late teens/early twenties who were already aboard. One of us pressing the button to go up. The lift jolted slowly upwards, increasing to a moderate speed. There were no doors on the front of the lift. We could see the floors as we passed them by, but were unable to get off, not knowing if the lift would further increase in speed if we tried. There was an underlying feeling that the if we were to step out onto a floor as it went by, the lift would crush us against the ceiling, slicing us in half like a guillotine.

The lift continued to move upwards. We soon lost count of the number of floors that went by, though we knew that it was far more than the building appeared to have from the outside. The digital display inside the lift was no help, instead acting like a random number generator.

Panda and I did not talk or seemingly communicate in anyway throughout the journey, even though I knew he was feeling exactly what I was. I knew the other girls in the lift were also feeling the same. The air in the lift was full of an electric silence. None of else felt any fear during this never-ending lift ride. There was more of a general consensus that the whole thing was rather odd, but not worth being particularly worried about. That was the whole overriding mood of the whole dream. A sedated calm. There wasn’t even a hint of being impatient or irritated, such as you would normal expect.

My perspective changed to third person, and the scene faded to black.

———————————————————————————————-

I suppose the thing I found most strange about this dream was the lift ride, and the calmness I felt throughout the whole thing. Normally when I dream of lifts, it’s a roller coaster of terror*. So it was a nice change? It’s also strange that I can’t place the events that happened throughout the dream. Apart from seeing Panda over the weekend, and the fact that the nighty I was wearing in the dream was the one that I went to bed in, I can’t figure out exactly what my subconscious was trying to process. It will probably forever be one of life’s mysteries.

*I must point out that while I have dreams that could be classified as “scary”, I don’t think of them as nightmares. They never cause me to wake up in fear, even though I may feel more than a little scared throughout the dream.

w00t!!

I’m proud to say you’ve all managed to get my page views up to 10,060!!

It all makes me feel very humble

I feel the occasion deserves a special via requests post, photos or a specific topic. Got any suggestions? Let me know in the comments below.

Sure, I’m fairly eccentric when it comes to my clothing and hair styles, but that’s pretty much it.

I have dabbled in the odd bit of poetry and art, but not for a long time, and I certainly wouldn’t say that it was particularly fantastic (no matter what I tried to tell myself at the time).

Maybe my perceptions are being skewed by society and the media… that and the fact that I have type 2 Bipolar Disorder, which generally doesn’t seem to have the same potentially dangerous and extreme effects on an individual and their surroundings as type 1 does. I tend to have mixed episodes, and, luckily I suppose, not hypomania.

I had thought that once I had my correct diagnoses that it would make everything seem a little better, but now I feel even more isolated than anything else. I have Evil Twin Rachel sitting inside my head, surrounded by her gremlins, telling me that I’m doing it wrong.

Who needs trolls when you’ve got your very own one living in your head.

—————————————————————————————————–

You can find a complete contradiction of this post here.

WWII will be in the next post, because I decided including both in the same post would make it far too long.

Haters Gonna Hate

While my experience with trolls is relatively minimal, thankfully (see here and here), I have decided to take a page out of the books of Kitty and Fat Heffalump when it comes to future encounters (though it does seem the tumblr has been taken down, unfortunately).

To just ignore them and pretend they don’t effect me is a lie, to me and to them. It sits at the back of your mind and slowly eats you up. Yes, it’s stooping down to their level, but constantly taking the high road just helps them chip away at my mental support wall, weakening me. By fighting back, it actually enforces that wall, it makes me stronger. Having to defend myself, my beliefs, my appearance, my health (both mental and physical), is constructive for me.

While this approach may make some others uncomfortable, such as those who shy away from confrontation (not looking at anyone in particular *cough*), it’s something I have to do. Given the reach of this blog though, I don’t think it will be something that happens very often.

xkcd: Duty Calls

Trolls (concern trolls or otherwise) can’t be allowed to get away with this behaviour, and while I know it’s incredibly hard to change someone’s opinion, especially when they’re online and anonymous, I can’t very well complain about it if I don’t actually try to do something to change it. It is only through ignorance that the majority of trolls exist, and they will continue to be ignorant as long as they remain uneducated. It is up to us to educate them, because they certainly aren’t going to do it themselves, and it will be for the betterment of everyone involved.

Do you experience trolls? If so, do you ignore them, hope they’ll go away and bother someone else, or do you fight back?

That is all.

To what extent did the Second World War signal a change in the status of American women?

The advent of the Second World War signified a major change in the status and role of the American woman. In this essay I will be focusing on the changing status of married American women. The war was a huge catalyst for social change in many areas. There was a huge rise in the employment of married and unmarried women, in roles that were previously considered to be that of men. The change in family dynamics were also dramatically changed during this period, with women now fulfilling the role of two parents in order to maintain the family unit. Women felt the need to contribute to the war effort, while society still considered a woman’s place to be in the home. There were also changes in the way society viewed marriage and divorce.

Before America joined World War II, there was already a gradual trend of more women entering the workforce. Once America joined the Allied effort, this gradual increase took a sharp turn upwards immediately. What would have happened over a period of years occurred in a matter of months, with initially “four million women… deflected from their domestic orbit”. There was a total of 13,008,000 women employed in 1940, this increased to 16,630,000 in 1944, and by July 14, 1945 that number had risen to 19,610,000. Of the 16,630,000 women employed in 1944, 6,700,000 were married and expected to earn part or all of the family income, in addition to running and maintaining the family household. Many married women gained employment solely because their husband’s allotment cheque from military service was not enough to maintain the family home. Others did so through patriotism and wanting to contribute to the country’s war effort. “War widows”, that is, women with husbands in military service were three times more likely to seek employment than other married women. These women would otherwise have had to live on a monthly allotment cheque of $50, plus $20 per child. This was part of the large number of wartime struggles that women faced alone.

While being expected the continue running the family home and finding income to provide for that home, married women with children were also expected to continue with maintaining the “physical safety, moral training, and informal education” of their children, as mothers “traditionally had [this] major responsiblity”. These women faced considerable personal strain as “their children [lived] under extremely makeshift arrangements” while they participated in new and demanding working conditions. Many new roles were assumed by women. These women were not the same as they would have been if their husbands were still in their peacetime jobs and a woman was able to spend “every waking moment with [her young children] during [their] early years” as they had done in the years previous to the war.

Women were given mixed messages regarding employment. They were told “that victory could not be achieved without their entry into the labor force”, while also being told by the federal government, “Now, as in peacetime, a mother’s primary duty is to her home and children”. There were significant changes to the “family division of labor” and an “increasing independence of the wife”. Nearly half of all American women held a job a some point during the war, specifically gaining employment in areas that were traditionally male, with the labour force of important war industries consisting of forty to sixy per cent women. Three-quarters of the increase in women’s employment was made up of married women, whereas before the war, employed women were generally unmarried and young.

There was a growing public unease over such large numbers of working women. One columnist, Max Lerner, feared that women would turn into “a ‘new Amazon’ who would ‘outdrink, outswear, and outswagger the men’”. There was a feeling throughout society that children would not get the attention they required from their working mother. Child care was a major problem during this time, while did not help women cope with the dual roles they were taking within the family unit. With about 1.5 million working mothers with children under ten, the majority “were only able to make haphazard arrangements”. There were “few public resources and little recognition” for the struggles women faced along during wartime. Public child care facilities were overcrowded and underfunded, though the federal government did contribute “nearly $52 million [to] 3,102 centers providing day care to about 105,000 children”. Many children, known as “8-hour orphans” or “latch key children”, were left to look after themselves while their mothers worked. There was high female absenteeism, as well as job-turn over, being twice that of men over the same period, as women struggled to do what was best for their families.

The Second World War was a powerful instrument for social change. There was a vast labour shortage and employers needed to use groups of minorities which were excluded before the war. This included not only women, but also “teenagers, blacks, Southern white migrants, retirees, and the handicapped”. There was a sudden rise in the marriage rate and birth rate due to the increased prosperity caused by the war. Couples which had delayed both marriage and having children during the Great Depression were now doing so in huge numbers. After the war and servicemen had returned home, there was a sharp increase in the number of divorces. In the four years from 1940 to 1944, the divorce rate increased from sixteen per cent of marriages to twenty-seven per cent. By 1950, the number of divorced servicemen rose to “as many as a million”. Infidelity seemed to have become a symptom of “separation and female independence”, with the news media publically ‘naming and shaming’ women in several cases. But it was not just women who were unfaithful. A 1943 poll of young married women came back with results indicating “almost half believed that their husband had been unfaithful”. This added strain to the readjustment of married life, which was, as well as the wife’s new found “independence and self-sufficiency”, blamed for the steep increase in the divorce rate. There was also a decrease in the stigma which surrounded divorce, which may also have been a contributing factor to the increase.

The status of the married American women changed dramatically as a result of the Second World War. Women battled to provide for their families while at the same time trying to continue in their traditional role of maintaining and running the household. Society also struggled to adapt at the same rate that women were entering the workforce, sending women mixed messages, fearing their new found independence, while wanting women to be both patriotic and ensure that their children are raised in the correct manner. The war was a major catalyst for change, though society was not as ready for it as the women who embraced it.

Bibliography:

E. Foner, Give me liberty! An American history. 2nd Seagull ed. New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company. (2005)
S. Mintz & S. Kellogg, Domestic revolutions: A social history of American family life. New York: Free Press (1989)
A. Truxal & F. Merrill, The family in American culture. New York: Prentice-Hall. (1947)

Seems rather fitting that it tackles the topic of freedom of speech, considering all the protests that have been generated by SOPA, pending American Internet legislation, lately.

But this essay only focuses on one specific area of freedom of speech: Porn.

NOTE: Some parts of this essay may be considered NSFW.

————————————————————————–

There should be no restrictions to the freedom of speech in any form, except if that speech violates John Stuart Mill‘s Harm Principle. In this essay I will be investigating conservative views against the freedom of pornography, and liberal views for the freedom of pornography. I will also examine the restrictions placed on pornography by New Zealand and Australian laws and whether these follow Mill’s Harm Principle.

The Stanford Encyclopdedia of Philosophy defines pornography as:

any material (either pictures or words) that is sexually explicit.

The problem with this definition is what exactly is sexually explicit? The definition varies from culture to culture and changes over time. Some Eastern cultures today define a woman showing her ankle as being ‘sexually explicit’, this has not been the case in the Western world since the Victorian Age. When it comes to restrictions on pornography, the item which is being restricted must be defined as being obscene and “utterly without redeeming social value”. In the same case, Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), Justice Potter Stuart said, “I can’t define pornography, but I know it when I see it”. If a member of the highest court in the United States of America is unable to definitively define pornography, how is the layperson supposed to?

In New Zealand, censorship is placed on works deemed as obscene. The New Zealand Classification Office is in charge of these decisions and they have “freakishly blurry laws when it comes to what is considered obscene”. While it is understandable for practices such as sexual violence, coercion, torture or extreme violence, bestiality, and necrophilia to be placed in the obscene category, why do other acts not on the Classification Office’s list also frequently get censored? Why acts such as fisting [the insertion of a person's fist into a vagina or anus] and squirting [female ejaculation]? “Why are four fingers okay? What’s so obscene about a thumb?” Why is it okay for the Classification Office to ban these perfectly healthy sexual acts, which are not illegal? How does these legal acts violate Mill’s Harm Principle? Simply put, they do not. These acts are nothing more than a healthy expression of a person’s sexuality.

Australian laws go even further. In early 2010 they started to restrict mainstream pornography from showing women with A-cup breasts, on the grounds that these images and writing would promote paedophilia. As in New Zealand, female ejaculation is also banned, “with censors branding it as ‘abhorrent’”. Many women have A-cup sized breasts. Many women also obtain female ejaculation though sexual stimulation. Why is a certain type of the healthy female body now unacceptable? Why is the moral majority dictating to the moral minority that certain perfectly healthy appearances and sexual acts are morally wrong? Why do they get to force their moral objections on others, where these things have no consequence on them directly? Are they actually the ones causing the harm in trying to prevent these perceived threats? In Mill’s own words:

The only principle for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, it to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise or even right. There are good reasons to remonstrating with him, or reason with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desire to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the conduct of any one for which is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute.

Given that the moral majority are seeking to censor more and more sexual acts and body types which are perfectly normal and healthy, could they be contributing to unintended consequences? Consequences that only occur because people become unaware that these things are natural and normal, and start to think they is something wrong with them? Women in their 20s are now banned from publications in Australia if they only have A-cup breasts. Publications are having to airbrush labias to make them “neat and tidy” so that “frontal nudity… [has] only discreet genital detail.” Women have all sorts of different appearing labias, but since this law was passed, there has been an increase in labiaplasties in Australia. One of the common arguments against pornography is that it demeans women and objectifies them, but is this censorship really any better? If nothing else it is placing a higher ideal standard on the appearance of women. Surely that is harmful to the way that normal, healthy, beautiful women percieve themselves? Pornography left uncensored, excluding depictions of bestiality, necrophilia, etc, shows that people, men and women, come in many different shapes and sizes, and respond to pleasure in many different, healthy ways.

Censorship often violates Mill’s Harm Principle, especially when it comes to depictions of the human body. By restricting the images of types of natural, healthy grown men and women, censorship generates more harm than good, in the form of unrealistic expectations from the adult human body. Censorship is the hiding of the truth, this is why there should be no restrictions on the freedom of speech.

Bibilography:
J. Coen, The Labiaplasty You Never Knew You Wanted [NSFW], Jezebel (May 10, 2010), retrieved on October 16, 2011, from: http://jezebel.com/5535356/the-labiaplasty-you-never-knew-you-wanted-[nsfw]
C. Doctorow, Australian Censor Board Demands Large-Breasted Porn-Stars, BoingBoing, (January 28, 2010), retrieved on October 16, 2011, from: http://boingboing.net/2010/01/28/australian-censor-bo.html
J. Senat, An Overview of How Courts have Definied Obscenity, (1997), retrieved on October 16, 2011, from: http://www.cas.okstate.edu/jb/faculty/senat/jb3163/obscenity.html
A. Wee, Taking Out the Titillation, Gay Express (August 8, 2011), retrieved on October 16, 2011, from: http://www.gayexpress.co.nz/2011/08/taking-out-the-
C. West, Pornography and Censorship, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward Zalta (ed.), retrieved on October 16, 2011, from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pornography-censorship/
D. van Mill, Freedom of Speech, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), retrieved on October 16, 2011, from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

I’ve been dealing with getting my Bipolar Disorder under control, and a mild breakdown at the end of the semester. But I did manage to pass all my papers for the semester (YAY).

Now J and I have our wedding plans well under way (DOUBLE YAY).

I’m still on summer holidays from uni at the moment and hope to get some more regular updates happening on here again.

Loves to you all
xx Fae

Is morality just subjective?

Morality is just subjective. We all view the world in a subjective manner, and morals are not exempt from this. In this essay I will use arguments for marijuana use and against marijuana use by pro-drug and anti-drug groups to prove that a person’s morals purely depends on the way that they view the world around them. It is a person’s values and perception of the world that determines their morals and what they consider to be ‘moral facts’.

A person who is a member of an anti-marijuana group believes marijuana use is morally wrong. This belief predetermines the facts they search for and find credible. Accordingly, there is nothing morally wrong with marijuana usage if the person belongs to a pro-marijuana lobby. They also determine facts in the same way as a person who is anti-marijuana. These could be considered as ‘moral facts’, but is there such a thing?

How can something be good, yet simultaneously bad? James and Stuart Rachels do not believe there are such things as ‘moral facts’ and sum up the idea behind Ethical Subjectivism:

People have different opinions, but where morality is concerned, there are no “facts”, and no one is “right”. People just feel differently, and that’s all there is to it.

This explains how both the anti-marijuana lobby and the pro-marijuana can believe that they are morally correct at the same time. They both believe they have the facts on their side. How can marijuana be a gateway drug to harder drugs and potentially destructive behaviour and criminal behaviour, while at the same time not having this effect at all? Both of these ‘facts’ put forward by pro-marijuana and anti-marijuana groups are in direct contradiction with each other. They cannot both be factually correct at the same time.

“Moral truths are truths of reason; that is a moral judgment is true if it is back by better reasons than the alternatives.” ‘Moral facts’ are only factual when back by reasonable evidence. Choosing the acknowledge some evidence, or skewing it to match your own values, such as what the pro and anti lobbists have done, is not a reasonable approach. This is letting your own morals and values get in the way of what is reason. It is self-fulfilling to then use this ‘evidence’ to back up your argument as to why your morals and values are correct, and the other person’s are wrong. This is how morality is subjective.

Pro-marijuana and anti-marijuana lobbies are two examples of how ‘moral facts’ are not factual. The evidence used to support these ‘facts’ is subjective. It is located with reason which is blocked by predetermined morality and values in its ability to truthfully determine what is reasonable and factual.

Bibliography:

Parents. The Anti-Drug., (n.d) Drug information: Marijuana myths, retrieved 22 August
2011 from: http://www.theantidrug.com/drug-information/marijuana-facts/marijuana-myths.aspx

Rachels, J & S, (2010), The Elements of Moral Philosophy, 6th Ed., p. 33

Top Dutch, (n.d), The real truth: Behind the 10 most lied about myths, retrieved 22
August 2011 from: http://www.joint-rolling-guide.com/marijuana-myths-and-facts.html

Comments

You attempt to provide a consistent argument in defence of your claim that morality is
subjective. However, your argument isn’t convincing because you fail to analyse the
issues fully or to extend your argument..
You make general claims about the ‘moral facts’, but do not clearly define what you mean.
The marijuana debate is merely one example, in which biases are obvious. You need a
greater range of examples to justify your argument.

53% C

J and I decided to take advantage of the beautiful day, and headed to the beach.