When Reaching for the Stars, the Sky is Your Limit

It is a well documented and accepted fact that celebrity culture and the media projection of the “perfect person” have a profoundly negative effect on most teenagers, and yet the true extent of their impact is often overlooked. In this article, I will discuss both the beneficial and detrimental effects of the media’s influence on teenage culture, as well as suggesting ways in which its currently mostly negative influence can be altered to become much more positive.

Just Keep Jumping

In a classical movie scene, a young child gazes in wonder at the stars in the sky, not really aware of just how high they are. They try many methods – asking to stand on their parents’ shoulders, standing on the local rooftops, and even sometimes building various contraptions of their own design to stand on. In some variations, the parent will tell the child that they have personally touched them and challenge the child to achieve the same feat, thereby deceiving them into thinking that it can easily be done if they just try a little harder. While most would see watching the child’s obviously futile efforts as simply good entertainment, I tend to view it as a metaphor for teenage culture as it exists today.

The child is, obviously, the average teenager. He (or, as is more often the case, she) aspires towards the heights of celebrities and role models (represented by the stars), always trying to reach that level, but never managing.  The more novel schemes thought up by the child denote the sometimes unusual, often self-damaging and almost always futile lengths that the aforementioned teenagers go to in order to get slightly closer to that ideal; this is most obvious in the case of girls developing eating disorders or receiving plastic surgery in the process of trying to make themselves increasingly thinner or more attractive, but does also have parallels elsewhere. Finally, the parent present in some cases is, unsurprisingly, comparable to the parents of these teenagers, who are sometimes themselves influenced and misguided by the ideals in question and expect or encourage their children to meet them. The media can also be considered to be analogous to this parent, in that it bombards teenagers with images of what they “should” be like, and offers a plethora of ways to emulate these images – most of which are inevitably futile and many of which are potentially dangerous.

(It could be argued that the few people who do succeed in becoming celebrities are analogous to astronauts, as they have gone further than anyone else – often by extravagant means – towards achieving this ultimate goal. Furthermore, while they are often mistakenly assumed to have attained these heights, they are, in reality, not much further than anyone else.)

The Root of All Evil

The parent’s motive for trying to push their children towards this ideal is obvious – parental pride and often unrealistic expectations are to blame. The parent will see their child as a product of their own work, and so will naturally want to make it as good as possible; this is occasionally at the expense of considering the child’s feelings and, more importantly, their individual limitations.

The media’s motives are less obvious, but no less basic – accumulating ever larger sums of money, usually without regard to the collateral social damage. Fashion magazines promote an ever-changing selection of trends to ensure that nobody can ever be up-to-date, encouraging people to spend increasingly more on the current top brand names; this is propagated by the ever more extravagant and bizarre outfits worn by celebrities, who are practically deified in order to advertise the outfits in question.

Naturally, the stars themselves are also blessed by association, creating a culture wherein their every action is seen to be exemplary. While such a model works when the celebrities’ actions are commendable and worthy of “role model” status, this is increasingly less the case, with the most popular stars (namely footballers and entertainers) inadvertently promoting a thuggish and disrespectful attitude.

Enough of the Fertiliser

Unlike many of the issues that I have discussed, the solution to this one is simple, although it is by no means easy to implement. The celebrities need to be encouraged to behave in a manner more befitting of their status, either by means of financial incentives, a means of greater recognition, or a combination of both. Those whose celebrity status relies on their devil-may-care image must be given less coverage, in order to more accurately convey what is considered acceptable behaviour by the general populace.

The fashion industry, too, is long overdue for a major overhaul. Here, there is a list of changes that ought to be made in order to improve its effect on society as a whole:-

• In photographs used to advertise clothing, the focus must be on the clothing itself rather than the attractiveness of the model wearing it. Using “sexy” photoshoots can only ever be counterproductive, as it by definition mostly appeals to those not within the target audience, and serves only to perpetuate the feeling that everyone must be similarly attractive in order to be successful. Furthermore, using “less attractive” models, for lack of a better phrase, would simultaneously greatly reduce the stigma surrounding average looks and allow customers to better judge which clothing would better suit them, rather than which would suit those who are so attractive that almost any outfit would look good on them. I can see no disadvantage to this for any of the parties involved.(Incidentally, on the topic of the modelling industry, I consider the very concept of paying someone obscene amounts of cash essentially for being exceptionally good looking and unemployed to be ridiculous – after all, if the government gave an “Attractiveness Benefit” to such people, totalling nearly one thousand pounds per day, people would quite rightly cry foul. However, this is a separate topic entirely, and one which I feel warrants its own article.)
• “Size zero” models should be banned outright. While this may appear to contradict my comments above, the image that such models encourage is one that society would definitely be better off without. At the opposite extreme, however, modelling agencies would not be expected or obliged to hire obese models. While the entire point of this reform would be to prevent teenagers (and, to a lesser extent, adults) becoming overly self-conscious, the impression that one should not care about their image at all is also one which should be avoided.
• The rate of change within the fashion industry should be slowed, although I can see no practical way of doing this apart from encouraging celebrities to stick with the current trends for longer periods of time. The classic scene of a child seeing a new, fashionable article of clothing, only to find that it has been made redundant by the time they have arrived at the shop, is an exaggeration, but its absurdity conveys the point well. If people are expected to spend large amounts of cash on new fashion articles, they should at least be given time to enjoy them before the trend-setters declare them obsolete.

To clarify, I am not suggesting that the industry should be abolished entirely; not only is it too large for that, but it is one for which there will always be a justified demand. I am simply suggesting that efforts should be made to reduce the stigma it creates, allowing it to become a positive influence on teenage culture that encourages people to be happy with who and what they are while still being able to make considerable sums of money. (Heck, they may even be able to make more money – increasing the group of viable models would greatly reduce the amount that each would need to be paid in order to secure a job. J)

Put Down the Ladder

I’d like to once again implore those in a position of influence to use that position responsibly. Don’t tell our children to keep jumping – you know that the stars are too high, and that any attempt to reach them will almost certainly be futile. Instead, set realistic but desirable goals that result in satisfaction rather than perpetual disappointment, and in turn help to eliminate the problems that such an idealism-based culture causes.

You Can’t Discriminate Against Anyone, As Long As They’re Black

I’ll Take the White Car, Please

The title of this article is a play on Henry Ford’s famous statement that “you can have your car painted any colour you like, as long as it’s black”. This was obviously intended to be sarcastic, and yet the rather bizarre variation presented above has effectively become the policy adopted by authorities worldwide. The issue here is that of discrimination laws, which are almost invariably guilty of the very same types of discrimination that they are designed to prevent; the examples that are both most notable and most prevalent are race and gender based discrimination. Here, I will show why they are often ultimately counter-productive to the intended aims, while also expressing my viewpoints on a variety of related issues and current events.

Napoleon Harman and the British Feminist Party

On August 2^nd 2009, the UK Minister for Women and Equality, Harriet Harman, surpassed her reputation for controversy by suggesting that “men cannot be trusted in power”, and that legislation should therefore be passed preventing party leadership line-ups from containing a full complement of males; in simpler terms, at least one woman should always be present within the party’s higher echelons of power.

I am fully aware that not all of my readers are British, and so the aforementioned reputation will require some explanation. During June 2008, Harman proposed a controversial “Equality Bill”, which (among other things) would give employers the legal right to choose a female applicant over an equally qualified male one. Despite her statement that this would also give employers the right to discriminate in favour of males, past experience and common sense made it immediately obvious to most people that the bill was intended to combat the perceived bias against female job applicants, and thus the power to discriminate in favour of females would be the one most often exercised. While this plan is now “on the back burner”, so to speak, discussion of the bill continues to this day.

Many people, including ministers themselves, have interpreted her latest move as a “naked attempt to position herself for leadership”, but I feel that the problems with such a proposal extend far beyond personal ambition. This legislation would not prevent an all-female list of leadership challengers, and so is inherently biased in favour of women – when this is combined with the obviously sexist justification cited for this proposal, the result is a general public that begins to question Harman’s motives.

While it is true that women are often discriminated against in the workplace, in terms of both salary and opportunities, we must consider that the balance of gender equality is a delicate one; if too much is done to combat the dominance of one gender, the situation will simply be reversed, with the other gender in exactly the same position that the first is in currently. (Incidentally, many feminists seem to believe that “equality” entails female superiority; in other words, that the more biased the system is in favour of women, the more objectively fair it is. Such a view can only result from irrational and self-serving bigotry, and so I see no need to discuss it further.) If literal equality is to be achieved, any limitations on the dominance of one gender must also apply to the other gender, and this vital element is missing from many of the relevant regulations. Even when this element is present, it is usually the case that the law is enforced far more often when the “minority” group is at a disadvantage than when such discrimination works in that minority’s favour. Furthermore, when laws are passed giving extra rights to women, they are often absolved of the accompanying responsibilities.

Of course, it is not just the implementation of the gender-discrimination laws that is sexist; societal attitudes towards sexism, having evolved from a much less civilised time, are also typically biased. A classic example is that of T-shirts – many women can often be seen wearing T-shirts brandishing slogans that are blatantly offensive to males, and are allowed to do so with impunity. However, when a male is seen wearing one that is offensive to females, they are often subjected to a barrage of abuse from affronted people of both genders, ranging from childish taunting to outright physical abuse.

Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep

While opposition to anti-female discrimination is (mostly justifiably) widespread, it pales in comparison to the stigma surrounding discrimination against ethnic minorities, and in particular dark-skinned people. It is here where the disparity between societal views on anti-majority and anti-minority discrimination is clearest, and this is best highlighted by demonstrating a series of absurd and yet completely real examples:-

• The title of this paragraph is a variant of the popular nursery song “Baa Baa Black Sheep”, originating from the suggestion that the rhyme’s use of the word “black” was clearly racist and malicious. This is far from an isolated incident.
• In late 2007, a civil servant was forced to resign from his job after using the word “niggardly”, whose meaning is not even close to that of an offensive word it resembles.
• It is extremely common for even the most casual use of the word “black” to be met with jeering cries of “RACIST!” in school playgrounds.
• “Playing the race card” – in other words, citing ethnic minority origin as the reason for any action that negatively affects the person who belongs to such a minority, even when the real justification for the action is both separate and entirely justified – has become so common that a satirical stereotype has spawned from it.

As can be seen here, even the vaguest allusion to anything associated with anti-black racism is typically met with mockery and offense. On the other hand, the “reverse discrimination” receives so little media attention that it is allowed to carry on with virtual impunity. This excerpt from the Wikipedia article on “melanin theory” sums this up perfectly:-

“On both St. Valentine’s Day and Mother’s Day, the white male gives gifts of chocolate candy with nuts…. If his sweetheart ingests “chocolate with nuts,” the white male can fantasize that he is genetically equal to the Black male…. Is it not also curious that when white males are young and vigorous, they attempt to master the large brown balls, but as they become older and wiser, they psychologically resign themselves to their inability to master the large brown balls? Their focus then shifts masochistically to hitting the tiny white golf balls in disgust and resignation — in full final realization of white genetic recessiveness.”

While such statements have little to no credibility, I feel that the very fact that such views are not only allowed to be expressed, but are even respected as tolerable on the grounds of “freedom of speech”, is completely asinine, and entirely representative of the ridiculous schism that exists in general tolerance of discrimination.

The Majority Is Just As Equal

The solution to this problem ought to be immediately obvious – educate people on the true meaning of equality. It does not mean overcompensating for groups that have been disadvantaged in the past. It does not mean presenting any minority with a disproportionate advantage. And lastly it does not mean allowing these minority groups to attempt to malign and suppress the majority with impunity.

If we are to have a truly equal society, we should take a stand against all discrimination, and not just that that receives the most media attention. We should tone down the ridiculous stigma that surrounds the use of the word “black”, and inform minority activist groups that if they are to have the same opportunities as other people, they must also accept the same responsibilities.

Each to Their Own

On a separate note, it is important to mention that not all of the actions commonly cited as examples of unfair discrimination actually are so. I define discrimination as a consistent bias towards a particular group without rational basis. I will again use a list of examples to demonstrate this point:-

• A London teacher who was fired for wearing a burka (a headdress which by design completely covers the face) while teaching tried to sue on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of religion. Her case was rejected, and for good reason – it was deemed that wearing the burka impeded her ability to do her job.
• Foreign job applicants for sales work are often declined in favour of natives – again, I believe that this is sometimes justified, as the ability to communicate very well in the country’s main language is almost vital for such a career.
• Trying to enforce a percentage representation of women in jobs based around hard labour, such as building work, is unreasonable, as men are typically biologically better suited to such tasks. Conversely, women are often much better suited for a career as a nurse or childcare assistant, as their general demeanour is much less intimidating and more caring.

In all of these cases, there is a very good logical reason for rejecting the minority in favour of the majority – they are much better at the job. In a competitive market, it does not make business sense to hire employees who cannot perform the job effectively for the sole purpose of being “politically correct”. I will once again implore my readers to use common sense when dealing with such examples, instead of jumping on the “support the minority” bandwagon.

Blood Is Not On Their Hands

In November 2008, the controversial “Proposition 8”, which sought to make marriage between homosexuals illegal, was passed in the US state of California, despite widespread protests. To this day, this law is constantly opposed, with a wide and diverse range of groups seeking to overturn the ban. As the debate rages, I will attempt to analyse the reasons given both for allowing gay marriage, and opposing it.

Thou Shalt Not

The title of this article is a small variation of a Bible quote which the more religious (or knowledgeable) among you will recognise; Leviticus 20:13 states that “if a man sleeps with a man as with a woman, they have both committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood is on their own hands.”

This is entirely apt, as the vast majority of opposition to gay marriage is based on religious grounds, rather than moral or rational. As is the case with many other issues, extremist and fundamentalist religious groups have immediately cited their doctrines as the source of what should be considered morally correct. More unusual, however, is the fierce opposition from the more moderate religious sects – groups such as the Mormon Church, which normally holds tolerant (albeit unconventional) beliefs, have been largely responsible for pushing this legislation forward.

My personal view on religion, and indeed on other controversial issues, is that people are entitled to believe what they wish, as long as that belief does not directly and adversely affect others who do not choose to adopt it.  Here, the belief in question most definitely does adversely affect others – indeed, as much as 3% of the US population. (Incidentally, the percentage of the US population that is homosexual is not 10%, contrary to popular belief.) While I am personally an atheist, and so am likely to be seen as biased, I see no reason whatsoever why minority groups should have their freedoms restricted by arbitrary and archaic rulings presented in a guidebook which they do not follow. The fact that the majority of the US population is religious does not support this point; if a law was proposed legalising discrimination against ethnic minorities in the process of employee selection, the majority of the population being Caucasian would never be seen as a valid point. That religious groups should be allowed to have such a large influence on politics in general is also dubious, but that is an entirely separate issue, and one that I feel warrants its own discussion.

A superficially different but similar argument raised is the ever-prevalent appeal to tradition – marriage should only be between a man and a woman, because this has always been the case. It astounds me that this argument is even considered, because it can be used to oppose literally any change. If this recommendation was followed in the law-making process, political progress would come to a complete halt.

Throwing the Adopted Baby out with the Bathwater

Fortunately, some of the arguments used to support this ruling are more pragmatic than those that I have discussed so far; less fortunately, they are just as fallacious. The point most often raised is that children need a good home, which necessarily includes both a mother and father figure. Since gay and lesbian couples by definition lack one of these, they should not be allowed to marry.

This is a perfectly valid point, of course – the problem is that it is entirely irrelevant. The logical conclusion of this reasoning is that homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children (for obvious reasons, conception within the couple is not a factor, and the problem of cross-gender adultery is, again, an entirely separate issue), not that they should not be allowed to marry. The only way that this argument can make even an iota of sense is if marriage as it stands legally gives the couple the right to adopt. I am not sure if this is actually the case, but it seems plausible; if so, then why not just redefine child adoption laws so that only heterosexual couples may adopt? The entire point of Proposition 8 was redefining marriage, so this could not have been any more difficult. Had this change been chosen instead of the current one, the liberty of gay couples would have been restricted far less, while all of the practical benefits of the current ruling would have been retained.

Finally, it is often argued that vicars with a strong religious opposition to gay marriage will take offense to being forced to marry such couples. The answer to this is simple and obvious. Don’t do it. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. You don’t have to marry them if it contradicts your beliefs, just as you don’t have to observe Islamic religious festivals if you are a Christian. Judging from the magnitude of opposition to Proposition 8, there is not likely to be a shortage of people who can legally marry and do not hold such beliefs.

Laissez Faire

The phrase “laissez faire” is a French phrase which literally translates to “allow to do”. It is the name given to strongly liberal political and economic policies; while my political viewpoints are more often than not conservative, I believe that such a policy is called for in this instance.

Who does the ability of gays to marry negatively affect? This is a question that I have asked for weeks, and I have not yet received one good answer. The only people likely to be even remotely affected, other than the gay couples themselves, are people who seek to use religious or moral guidelines to oppress those they dislike, and in my opinion, such bigoted viewpoints are not worthy of attention.

We should let homosexuals have their “loyal wedded bliss”. It doesn’t affect others at all, so there is no good reason whatsoever not to.  There is no evidence to suggest that a homosexual relationship in its own right is any less stable than its heterosexual equivalent. There is no evidence to suggest that gays are more prone to adultery and/or violence. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuality is unnatural, or that it has any profound and inherent negative consequences. Finally, there is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that the legalisation of gay marriage would be the beginning of a slippery slope leading to the legalisation of more questionable practices such as paedophilia, polygamy, incest and bestiality.

In an ideal world, every person would be able to do as they choose without coming to any harm, and a balancing act between conservative and liberal policies would be unnecessary. We do not live in an ideal world, but that is no reason not to try and move towards such an ideal, and I believe that allowing gays to marry will be just as big a step towards this ideal, if not bigger, than allowing ethnic minorities to marry. It is time that we abandoned the religious and archaic prejudices on which a significant portion of our moral guidance has been based, and move towards a more tolerant and accepting society.

Footballers, Money and the Celebrity Dream

Christiano Ronaldo’s recent move to Real Madrid has resulted in just another of the increasingly common stories reports of absurdly high pay. Here, I will attempt to show why footballers are paid so well for their apparently small amount of effort, while trying to identify the real issues surrounding the entertainment industry and celebrity culture as a whole.

Footballers are just another form of celebrity

 

Celebrity status has long been an aspiration for many children and adults alike. For some, the attention alone is a big enough draw, but more often the case is that people aspire to earn the huge sums of money that celebrities make. This is not entirely unjustified – they are spurred on by many popular figures reportedly earning six-figure or even seven-figure annual salaries. Of course, the vast majority of these wannabes remain just that, but that is a separate issue entirely.

There’s an old saying that is especially applicable here – “jealousy breeds contempt”. In few cases is this truer than where celebrities are concerned, as traits to criticise are certainly not in short supply. While some are fully self-aware and adjust their lifestyles to give the appearance of a respectable man or woman, many take their stature for granted, and despite being fully aware of their influence on the general public (especially young children), behave in a manner that is certainly unbecoming of potential role models, often being aggressive, irresponsible and even conceited when in the public eye. Another applicable adage is that “money is the root of all evil” – looking into this behaviour in any depth, it quickly becomes apparent that money is the immediate cause of the problem, although usually not solely to blame.

Naturally, footballers, who are considered among the most overpaid celebrities and among the worst behaved, make the perfect poster children for this point of view. In fact, people get so caught up in attacking football players, and them alone, that they forget that they are neither the only celebrities who adopt this lifestyle, nor are these traits ubiquitous among them. Just a few of the famous who contradict this stereotype are Madonna (who famously tried to bypass adoption laws in order to fast-track the adoption of a child from Malawi), Jade Goody (whose obnoxious nature requires no further explanation to those not living under a rock for the past three years or so – and no, she does not get any extra respect because she is dead!), and most notably David Beckham, who unlike his peers has made a very active effort to appear charitable, respectable, caring and, most admirably, modest. Footballers are merely the most well known examples of the worst aspects of celebrity culture – aside from their reputations, they are no different from any other celebrity in essence, and this should be taken into account when discussing any relevant issues.

Supply and Demand

 

Of course, the normal response to the point posed above is that celebrities in general are overpaid, not just footballers. And yes, I agree that their wages are very high by conventional standards – but there is a good reason for this. I expect to take some flak for this assertion, but please actually read first.

The law of supply and demand dictates that in an open economy, the price of a product or service will be dictated by the availability of the product, the demand for the product, and after these are taken into consideration, what price is satisfactory for both the seller and the buyer. But is this really relevant to how much footballers are paid, you might ask? The answer is “a hell of a lot more so than you might expect”.

Football is, obviously, a form of entertainment, and entertainment itself is essentially a service – it’s often not considered as such because it has no lasting practical benefit, but it is. Since the sport is by far and away the most popular in our country, there is a lot of demand for the service of watching the games. There are two types of demand for this service – those who wish to sit at home and watch the games on TV (or go out to a local establishment to do so), and those (mostly die-hard fans) who actually attend the live games, often paying very high sums of money for seating that provides an optimal view. Both of these provide huge revenue – the visiting fans through ticket sales, and the watching fans through the fees paid by the broadcasting stations. As with any business, a certain percentage of this revenue must find its way back to the people actually providing the service; otherwise the organisers would quite rightly be accused of profiteering. In this case, those providing the service are the footballers. I’ll use quite a contrived example of a single game to demonstrate this:

• Disregarding varying prices for seating at a stadium, we will assume seats cost £100 each for a Premiership game. If there are 50,000 seats and the game sells out, this is £5 million revenue in total. If this is split evenly (in actuality it isn’t, as the home team will receive most of it, but the ratio of home games to away games played is usually about 1:1, so it averages out), each club will receive £2.5 million from ticket sales.
• We must now consider the fees the clubs are paid by the TV networks for the privilege of broadcasting the games. If one broadcaster pays for exclusive rights to the game, I will estimate the fees paid to be in the order of £4 million – again, split evenly between the clubs.
• This equals a total of £4.5 million for each club. If we assume that the players as a whole are given a 20% portion of this in their salary for the game, this is £900,000 for all of the players. If this is once again split evenly between 14 of the players (factoring in substitutions), each player will receive just under £64,300 for that game alone.

Many of you will inevitably be quick to point out flaws in my understanding of the process – I am not knowledgeable about exactly how the pay is administered, and nor do I claim to be. In fact, I believe that it is given on an annual basis rather than per game. However, these annual figures are at least a good approximation of what would be paid if it were judged per game. Furthermore, to my knowledge, most of the figures quoted are in reality gross underestimates, so the actual salary is likely to be far higher.

But do all of those prices need to be that high?

 

I suspect that the first figure many see as atrocious is the cost of £100 per ticket – at least, this is what has been pointed out every time I have raised this argument before. The law of supply and demand strikes again. Tickets are generally in limited supply; unfortunately, the same is not as true for die-hard football fanatics. Because the ratio of people wanting places to the number of places available is so high, people are willing to pay huge amount of cash to be one of the lucky few to get a ticket, thus driving the market price of each ticket sky-high.

The same concept, in fact, applies to any major entertainment venue – there are almost always far more people wanting tickets than can possibly be given them, so people will compete in bidding wars for them. Often, some will take advantage of this, buying multiple tickets with the sole intention of selling them on for a profit, thereby driving the price up even further. Once again, football isn’t even close to unique in this respect (in fact, the aforementioned mass buying practice is most often done with tickets to major music events).

It’s all your fault

 

Well, maybe not the reader personally.  But in events like this, high prices for the service, and subsequently big money for the people involved, stems solely from the high demand for the service. This is not the product of any mass inflation of prices, nor of a conspiracy partaken by the clubs to make more money themselves – it is a natural part of the economy surrounding mass entertainment. The only way we can viably reduce the wages of footballers and similar celebrities is to greatly reduce their popularity. For obvious reasons, this is entirely impractical, so the only other option is to simply accept that there will always be those few who are paid grossly disproportionate amounts of money for the effort they put in, simply on the basis of their talent (and yes, footballers are talented, despite what some would have you believe – it takes a lot of skill to play at that level under such intense pressure from the crowd).

And while it is true that the money that goes into entertainment could be put towards better causes, would it really be worth the intangible loss to our culture? This is a purely subjective matter, and not one that either side can claim to be indisputably “right” about. Some think that feeding the starving children of Africa is a priority over entertainment, which they consider to be a national luxury, while others see sport and music as fixtures within our culture, and think that while the aforementioned charities are important, there are certainly far better ways of funding them than adopting a classic Robin Hood approach. Personally, I think the latter group has a point – given the apparent importance of sport within our culture, there are certainly far less worthy causes from which money can be taken to feed those children. For instance, why not make Jacqui Smith pay for her own bath plugs?

Shall I rant about thee on a Summer’s Day?

 

I promised a rant, so here it is.

Some of you will rightly pose the question of how I can possibly justify complaining about Ronaldo’s current wages while simultaneously accepting my above argument as true. The answer to that is that I have no objection to the actual figures themselves, but the way in which he, and by extension other footballer, are paid. The current contract system is, I believe, either a lump sum paid at some point within or close to the contract’s duration, or regular payments at set intervals in this time. It does not account for injuries, or anything else that prevents him from performing the service he is being paid to give. It is entirely possible that he sustains an injury tomorrow that keeps him out of action for the duration of his contract, and he will still receive the same amount of cash that he would have had he been in a fit state to play. Do you consider this reasonable? I don’t.

And finally, a note on the behaviour of celebrities. I really don’t think this needs to be said, but the way some celebrities behave is, quite frankly, atrocious. They are fully aware that they act as the primary role models for the next generation, so why don’t they make an example of themselves and act how they would like their own children to in 20 years’ time? Footballers and members of the public acknowledge that thug culture is current a major issue, so why does a large contingent of the celebrity community insist on actively promoting it? And most importantly, why are these people not punished in any way for these actions – not even by a small (or large) reduction in their pay?

Is the message that you have to be aggressive, irresponsible and selfish in order to be successful one that we really want to send to the next generation? And if not, shouldn’t we be promoting the few examples of decency that still exist within this stereotyped group?

David Beckham and his ilk may be a good start, but just a start nonetheless, and it’s time other celebrities started to follow suit and moderate their actions a little more carefully. Maybe then, they will be considered worthy of both their salaries and of the admiration of the general populace.

Teenage sex – a growing problem or an unavoidable necessity?

Sex is a controversial topic, for people of all ages. This is especially true, however, for young people – this is partly due to the arbitrary limit on the age of consent, and partly due to many opposing viewpoints on the actual meaning of sex.
It is a well known fact that teenagers have, and have for a long time, engaged in sexual activity – there is a plethora of reasons for this. Some simply want to express their desires and relieve the tension caused by their hormones, and others simply do it as an act of defiance towards their parents and the law, the latter of which they perceive as nonsensical and oppressive. Some feel pressured to do so by societal expectations; still others consider the loss of virginity to be a goal, after the achievement of which they will be more accomplished both as people and as lovers. The actual meaning of the act is also widely disputed, although this tends to be dependent on the age or religion of the speaker; on one end of the spectrum we have teenagers who see it as simply a means towards pleasure and something that can be done casually with impunity, and on the other end are religious zealots who see sex as a sacred act, only to occur within “loyal wedded bliss” or something similar – people within the latter category often take extreme measures to enforce this belief. While some of the motives behind teenagers having sex and engaging in similar activity are questionable, the fact that it happens, and happens often, is not. It is becoming increasingly obvious that such behaviour can lead to problems in later life, and the current measures in place to limit these problems are far from adequate. So, what can be done?
Education is the popular “tried and true” method – authorities resign themselves to the fact that teenagers will partake in sexual behaviour regardless of the law, and instead opt to educate children about the risks of having sex and how these risks can be minimised. While this has gone some way to curbing the problem, many teenagers ignore these risks, whether because they see them as exaggerated, or whether they are having sex in conditions that make rational thought difficult. It is clear, therefore, that other measures must be taken if youths are to be stopped from partaking in potentially dangerous behaviour.
An obvious solution is to clarify and more rigidly enforce the laws regarding sex below the age of consent – at present, convictions only tend to occur when someone over this age has sex with someone who is not. The fact that sex between two minors is also considered statutory rape is often overlooked, as is much more difficult to apportion blame – a vital step in the process of administering justice. As a result, these cases are simply ignored, leading to complacency on the part of those guilty of taking part in such activity. While alteration of these laws to assign blame to a specific party sounds good on paper, implementation is much more difficult, as loopholes will inevitably arise that will allow one party to assign blame to the other in cases where the law becomes involved, despite the “innocent” party having initiated the act in the eyes of common sense. Therefore, this is also inadequate as a means of controlling this issue.

Another option is to institute a “laissez faire” policy, where teenagers are simply allowed to engage in sexual activity freely – in other words, removing the age of consent laws entirely. Here, however, there is no contesting that this is a bad idea – the few that are deterred by the laws in place currently would no longer be, and so the issue of teen pregnancy would be exacerbated. Paedophiles would effectively be given carte blanche to do as they please, regardless of how immoral it may be to most others. Many children simply are not ready to have sex and deal with the accompanying responsibilities, whether or not they like to admit it, and nothing would exist to correct them.
It is obvious, therefore, that a line must be drawn somewhere. This raises the issue of whether this line should be an arbitrary age barrier as is currently the case, or whether it should be decided on a range of other factors, such as mental maturity, and physical state of well-being. The problem here is that these things are much more difficult to quantify than chronological age, and so huge legal “grey areas” would arise. Physical age is almost indisputably the best way to avoid these grey areas, leading us to the paradox we currently have.
I believe that the best way to deal with this issue begins with acceptance that teenagers will have sex – this is an unavoidable fact. Instead of trying to attack the problem at the source, we should seek to impose more limitations on the risks without further limiting teenagers’ ability to have safe sex, which for all intents and purposes is harmless to most people. In order to do this, I propose that the laws regarding age of consent should be relaxed as follows:-
• People who are above a certain age but below the current age of consent (I believe that 14 is a good place to draw this line, as most (relatively) responsible teenagers who take part in underage sex do so between these ages – those who do so at younger ages tend to be ignorant of any kind of mandate) would be allowed to partake in consensual sexual activity freely, but contraception would be legally obligatory. This would encourage more teenagers to actually use contraception, as many would realise that the current laws are in place to protect rather than oppress them.

• The above would only apply where an age gap exists between two parties of two years or less – few teenage relationships exist with a larger age gap, so this would serve the sole purpose of halting the spread of paedophilia as a result of the above. Where a larger gap exists, the current laws would continue to be implemented.

Furthermore, I believe that more funds should be allocated to sex education – despite that that currently exists, a majority of the fundamentals of sex are spread between peers, and never taught by official education programs. It is therefore entirely possibly that many teens will never learn these vital facts. Additionally, the education itself would be done by neutral parties, rather than people or agencies with an apparent agenda which leads the pupils to pay less attention.
Finally, societal stigma regarding abortion needs to be eliminated in the long term – many pregnancies arise not just due to the act of sex itself, but primarily due to the feelings of guilt that youths have been pressured to associate with abortion, which often take precedence over the practical barriers to taking care of the offspring. Were abortion to become more socially acceptable, this problem would be all but eliminated. I accept, however, that this is nigh impossible within a reasonable time span.
While I do not think that these measures will solve the current situation entirely, they will go some way towards easing it by eliminating the most problematic issues and cases, as well as towards bridging the schism of opinion that exists between older and younger generations.