"When We Die, The Money We Can’t Keep"

"But we probably spend it all cause the pain ain't cheap"

The title of this post and the line above are just two lines of lyrics from Jay-Z and Kanye West's song 'No Church In The Wild'.

Those two lines stood out quite poignantly to me, so the topic of discussion in this post is; is there a certain way to spend your money? Should we enjoy life to fullest and splurge on new and exciting things everyday? Or should we hold back and save all those pounds and pennies until retirement or for any hospital needs in our old age?

In the notion of living from 'day-to-day', we could work our fingers to the bone every day of every month, but at the end of every month we could go out and spend our months salary package to buy a new dress/phone/car etc. This then provides us with instant gratification which is fairly short lived, which then begs the question of; why do it if you're only going to enjoy it in the short-term? For me personally, I enjoy shopping, I enjoy the feeling at the end of the month when that paycheck comes in and I can happily hand my Debit card over to the store clerk and pay for my new clothes/shoes/jewellery. I can only describe the feeling as being one of elatement. But believe me, this is short lived, within a week I have already moved onto the next consumer product that has caught my attention.

However, on a different end of the spectrum, my parents are incredibly good at saving money every month (something I unfortunately have not yet learnt how to do). They say that they are saving money so that they can invest in the future, because you never know what is around the corner, and if the worse should ever happen its comforting to know that they have money set aside for such an event. After asking around at my place of worked, I discovered that many share these values. A lot of them felt that saving money for the future was their way of enjoying life. Of course there were others who said they live life like me and spend when they have the money to do so. 

Investing in your future seems like a stable plan, but what happens when you reach your old age and you are so set in your ways that you don't actually want to spend all that money that you have saved? Was there any point in all those years of missing out on nice holidays, lovely cars and big houses? Everyone is different so everyone will hold different values on this topic, but if the very worse should happen and you were diagnosed as terminally ill tomorrow, do you feel that you have done everything in life that you could of done so far? Also what if tomorrow you suddenly became a billionaire? Would you still set money aside or would you enjoy having all of that money at your dispense? There is no right or wrong answer, what you choose to do with your money is your prerogative, but when we die, any materialistic objects that we have get left behind. Does this change the way you think about money at all? 

I would like to think that one day I can look back on my life and say that I'm happy with everything that has happened to me so far! How many of you feel that that is something you can say about your lives? As always, please let me know what your thoughts are on this post.

Spot The Difference, Consensual Adult And Adult...

In England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales we have to be 16 or older to have homosexual (gay) or heterosexual (straight) sex. A boy who has sex with a girl under 16 is breaking the law. Even if she agrees. If she is 13-15, the boy could go to prison for two years. If she is under 13 he could be sentenced to life imprisonment. A girl aged 16 or over who has sex with a boy under 16 can be prosecuted for indecent assault. (BBC Advice)

Originally in the 19th century, the consent age for sex was 12 in England. Through different acts, this was eventually raised to 16 in 1885. In 1917 a bill raising the age of consent in Great Britain and Ireland from 16 to 17 was defeated by only one vote. The male homosexual age of consent in the United Kingdom was set at 21 in the Sexual Offences Act of 1967, lowered to 18 in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and then finally lowered equally to 16 in England and Scotland in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act of 2000.

So why does the legal age for sex in the UK still remain at 16? Admittedly everyone matures at different rates, but why is 16 considered mature enough to start having sex? In a single rape case (where the crime has only been committed once), these are the punishments; 

Starting Points: 10 years custody if the victim is under 13

Sentencing Ranges: 8-13 years custody

Starting Points: 8 years custody if the victim is 13 or over but under 16

Sentencing Ranges: 6-11 years custody

Starting Points: 5 years custody if the victim is 16 or over

Sentencing Ranges: 4-8 years custody

Rape is rape no matter what your age is, but the punishments loosen up the older the victim is. Is this because its not as emotionally, mentally or physically damaging for an over 16 to be raped than it is for someone under 16? I don't think so. Should the legal age of consent be raised, and if so, to what age? How can you put a "correct" age on something that varies so widely among different people. I conducted a small social study among my friends to find out (anonymously) the age they were the first time they had sex. The majority answer was between the ages of 15-17. However a few friends did admit that they didn't feel ready and some even said that they only reason they had sex was because of peer pressure. Some friends even admitted that they felt used and even unloved after their first time.

People will always have sex regardless of their age if that's what they want to. I don't think any government power can stop that. But what the government does have the power to stop is rapists getting away with their crimes. People have had numerous different experiences of sex and, depending on whether they were good or bad experiences, that will then effect their view on the legal age being raised. One female friend of mine feels that based on previous experiences she would like the age to be raised, simply to give others the protection she wished she could of had. Yet, a male friend of mine thinks that the legal age is alright where it is. He says: 

"that's the sort of age when people should start to experience that sort of thing provided they're sensible and if they're not then they're going to regret it"

In many ways he's right. If you are with a person that you love and care about, who's to say when you're at the right stage to have sex?

As always, please comment and tell me your thoughts on this latest blog.

No Church In The Wild

There are some scary facts here; around 300 people out of 1,000 will experience mental health problems every year in Britain. That over 42,000 in the UK are affected by lung cancer, over 8,000 by pancreatic cancer and over 9,000 people in the UK are suffering from brain tumours. If you factor in all the different causes of spinal cord injuries, figures show that over one million people are now paralysed for life this year alone. So why is euthanasia still illegal in the UK?

The British House of Lords Committee defines euthanasia as "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering" but isn't that the point? In the Netherlands, however, euthanasia is seen as "a termination of life by a doctor at the request of a patient". But it's interesting that if we had a pet that was in pain the first thing we would do is take it to the vets and if the vet turned round to you and said: 'your dog/cat/pet is not going to have a very good quality of life if it continues to live' most of us that care for our pets and hate to see them in pain would have them put down. I've already experienced this with one of our very first family dog's, he had severe epilepsy and just wasn't able to live his life like a happy dog, so we made the heartbreaking decision to have him put down. 

Of course everyone is entitled to their own choice for how they want to die, but people should at least be offered the option of euthanasia. I pray to God that I never get to the stage where I don't have control of my body anymore, but if I do, I want either a family member, husband, child or whoever to make the decision for me. I don't think that many people want to die in pain and suffering. However, when a patient is diagnosed with cancer that the doctor does not think they will recover from, their morphine intake is slowly increased until the day comes that their body cannot survive with that much morphine in it's system, and in cases like that, the patient will eventually die. But even if some see that as a more desirable choice than "assisted suicide" the people are still suffering and not fully able to enjoy the remaining days of their life.

Of course the practical arguments against euthanasia would be that it undermines the commitment of doctors and nurses to saving lives, it also will eventually discourage the search for new cures and treatments for the terminally ill. Many people argue that there is no way of regulating the use of euthanasia, I'm not saying that it should just be given to every terminally ill person, what I'm saying is that it should at least be offered as a last resort option if that is what a patient wants.

The religious arguments towards euthanasia are much harder to get a grip on unless you are a believer, they say that life is precious because God created us, therefore human life should be protected and preserved whatever happens, because we should not interfere with God's plans. But what's a God to a non-believer? 

There is no wrong or right answer to this post, but in my own personal opinion, I think that euthanasia should be offered as a more dignified alternative to dying. But please, tell me what you think in the comment section below.

Action Man... The Greatest Hero of Them All?

The other day as I was sitting happily in my room browsing Facebook, my younger brother and his friend ran in with toy guns shouting: "WE'RE GONNA SHOOT YOU" as they left feeling pleased with their efforts, I sat there and wondered how our culture got to this stage?

Young boys, it seems, love to pretend to be soldiers/cowboys/whatever else they can think of that would carry a gun. Even as they grow up, boys begin to play violent video games such as 'Call of Duty' with the games being set in World War II and even the Cold War. But what are we teaching our kids by allowing this image to be considered acceptable?

Most people should remember 'Action Man', the 'tough', 'fierce' doll for boys. This doll was an icon in the 1970's, admittedly not many people play with them now, but they represented a lifestyle that little boys wanted to be a part of. But this brings me right  back to trying to find out why boys want to pretend to be these types of people, when in real life, these people can potentially be violent and aggressive. I read this quote online and tell me if you agree with it or not:

"The only misuse of guns 

comes in environments where there 

are drugs, alcohol, bad parents, 

and undisciplined children."

-Ted Nugent

Does that statement ring true? The following statistic only depicts the statistics of gun crime in England and Wales, it doesn't mention any use of alcohol or drugs...

• In England and Wales violence against the person (37%) and robbery offences (26%) accounted for almost two-thirds of all firearm offences recorded by the police in 2010/11.

These perpetrators could be anyone, we have no idea of their background, family life, or even if they took drugs on a regular basis. But I don't want to wander too much into gun crime, what I want to know is if we know of facts like the one above, why do we still give our children toy guns as presents? Why do we just sit back and watch them run round imaging that they can shoot and kill things? Can we even break this cultural norm? Perhaps instead of breaking the norm, we just need to teach our children where imagination stops and reality begins. 

Children learn to behave by watching people around them and by observing characters in movies, video games and television. Does this mean we have to constantly control the environment that our kids grow up in? Somebody once said to me that they would not allow their child to watch Disney films until their child was at least 5. Since when did Disney become something that a parent didn't feel comfortable allowing their child to watch? Is that an extreme case of controlling a child's environment? 

Already three generations have grown up with the slapstick comedy cartoon 'Tom and Jerry' the violent cat and mouse. Can 'Tom and Jerry' be accused of creating violent behaviour in some children? Well if we follow what the scientific studies tell us, then yes, the cartoon could account for some children being aggressive. 

Please comment and tell me your thoughts on this latest blog.

Socially Acceptable... Since When?

It seems now that just about everyone is familiar with the summer hit by Robin Thicke, T.I and Pharrell Williams. And it's true. 'Blurred Lines' was this summer's anthem. You could hear it just about anywhere; clubs, restaurants, shops, radios, music channels. So why was it such a huge hit? The catchy lyrics and the energetic beat went hand in hand making this song loved by most. But when you actually dig a little deeper, this song has a dark underlying meaning. To put it bluntly, the song seems to revolve around the idea of rape. All you have to do is look at the lyrics more closely and realise that half the things they are singing about are linked very closely to serious rape cases.

"I know you want it,

You're a good girl"

"Do it like it hurt,

Like it hurt"

"I'll give you something bit enough

to tear you ass in two"

Many rape victims have heard these lines. So why is it acceptable for artists like Robin Thicke to incorporate this into his music? And when I say acceptable I don't mean that everyone likes the lyrics, I mean that in society today we have almost come to accept this vulgar nature of certain men to be a cultural norm. I myself have younger siblings who enjoy singing along to 'Blurred Lines', they don't understand the meaning behind it, and nor should they, but we allow these songs to be played everywhere and so often that of course children will pick up on them. 

It seems now that parodies of 'Blurred Lines' have started to rise on YouTube. One of the most successful parodies, known as 'Defined Lines' has received over two and a half million views on YouTube. When you watch the video its fairly obvious as to why it will of been a huge success with many feminists.

Robin Thicke was certainly not the first male artist to have songs like this, but he won't be the last either. Example number two; 50 cent, an american rapper most famous for his song 'Candy Shop', the chorus line of this song being:

"I'll let you lick the lollipop
Go 'head girl, don't you stop
Keep going till you hit the spot"

We may not be able to control what the radios deem acceptable to play in the middle of the afternoon, but we can control what our children witness on the television. Music videos today have become a style of soft porn. Tinie Tempah's recent release 'Trampoline' is just one of the hundreds of music videos that sexually exploit a woman's body image. They show these slim girls with larger breasts than the average woman, parading around in next to nothing.

Music videos have been banned in the past for having inappropriate content, so why aren't half naked women seen as "inappropriate content"? Eminem had his music video for 'Just Lose It' banned from the american satellite channel 'Black Entertainment TV' because it showed his parody of the unfortunate situation that Michael Jackson found himself in regarding child molestation. Was that a justified reason for banning the video? 

I myself wonder what shifted over time for this to happen, doesn't anyone miss the days when you could see this on your television;

Footloose Music Video

Please comment and tell me what you thought of this post and any comments that you may have on the matter.