Game of Thrones: Petyr Baelish's Bastardly Behaviour

I'll admit something. I like Petyr Baelish in the books - he's obviously evil, meticulous, and you don't usually find out that he's behind something until he comes out and says it.

(I would also like to clarify that the meaning of the word "paedophile" - meaning, sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Was Sansa prepubescent when he first started pursuing her? Yes. But that wasn't the reason; it was because she looks like a young Catelyn . His "affection" for her, while creepy, sick, and more than a little wrong, is not paedophilia.)

(For the record, being attracted to children who have hit puberty but are not yet legal yet is also not paedophilia.)

The show... loses a lot of the mystery about him because they felt the need to cut out a lot of minor characters. Remember folks, TV viewers are stupid and can't remember a too many names.

So, in order to save on postage reduce the burden, we bundled a bunch of them together into the prostitute Ros. I don't mind Ros. She's a bit witty, sultry, and has compassion.

So, of course, we find the embodiment of all (mild exaggeration) minor characters working for Baelish.

And now the real spoilers begin.


Baelish's Plan

You see, Baelish has a "crush" on Sansa - he also has a place for her in his grand plans. So, he has designed a way to get her out of King's Landing and into his clutches. He did this by getting a person she sort of trusted, Dontas the Fool (who she saved from Joffrey), and getting him to act as the one with the plan to "rescue" her. In this capacity, he gives her a lovely hair ornament to wear to Joffrey's wedding... which contains the poison that will be used to kill Joffrey. Sansa is then stolen away by Baelish, leaving Tyrion, her husband, to take the fall, and Dontas dead.

Now, in the TV series, while Dontas does make an appearance it's only to show that Sansa is slowly learning to manipulate Joffrey's actions. He disappears after that.
INSTEAD, we have Baelish walk up to Sansa and say he's going to rescue her. And he then spends copious amounts of time with her, at the same time letting the new Madam of his brothel, Ros, in on the plan. This is... not subtle. At all. It's also, from my point of view anyway, pointless for Ros to know.

Now, it becomes relevant to mention that Ros has come into contact with Varys, the spy master. He came and visited her at Baelish's brothel and recruited her as a spy, it would seem. Of course, we could wonder why Varys would do something like walk right into Baelish's brothel, one of the many places the latter gathers information, but we'll leave that for now.

Ros lets Varys know about Baelish's affection for the girl... and then Baelish has her brutally and horribly killed. It also leads to one of Baelish's best speeches in the entire program but still, it was bloody and horrific. I will address it momentarily.

Flash forward to the end of the third season. Baelish has set sail without Sansa, who is still married to Tyrion, all alone in King's Landing again.

... And with no way that I can see to have Sansa unwittingly deliver the poison and to escape unless Baelish magically shows up again (as it is, I think his hanging around her all the time was more than suspicious enough for anyone else who had spies) or we reintroduce Dontas. Which makes the invention of Ros somewhat pointless - and even more so her involvement with Baelish.

So... I have plot issues.


Ros's Death: Varys vs Baelish

Ros's death was painful - she was handed over to Joffrey, tied to the bed posts and used as a live target for his crossbow. It was... brutal. We only saw the aftermath, but the places she was shot was suggestive and misogynistic - it was Joffrey doing the shooting after all.

But what I want to discuss is why. When I first saw the scene, I was horrified. Not because I'm easily startled mind you, but by how completely personal the attack seemed - Ros had been sent to Joffrey once before and came back horrified, and Baelish knew it. He also knew what Joffrey wanted to do to her.

To me it had seemed out of character. However, I discussed it with a friend and they provided me with a new but much more evil idea.

It's obvious by this point that Baelish knew Varys had gotten to Ros. It may even be possible that he knew right from the start - Varys had chosen to go to his brothel after all, his territory. He let Ros into his inner circle - he let her know about his plans. Not because she had a use in them - but because he knew that Ros would feel afraid for Sansa and would tell Varys.

That would provide the opportunity to strike against Varys. Now, from what we know, Varys isn't needlessly cruel. If anything, he seems to try to be kind. So Baelish wanted his act of kindness to backfire - the fact that he tried to "save" Ros from prostitution. And the more pain she felt, the more guilt and horror Varys would feel because if she wasn't his spy, it never would have happened. It was a warning not to mess in his affairs.

Whether Ros was made a good madam because of her qualifications or because it would make things easier, I'm not sure. But Baelish did find out at some point, and her death was to cause Varys pain.

What is interesting about this, is that this casts another perspective on when he kisses Sansa in the snow - could he really not control himself? Or did he know Lysa would be watching, thus triggering the events that would lead to her murder?


Baelish the Bastard

I think that the TV's Baelish is still not as subtle or smart as the book Baelish - he works too much in the open and seems to let petty things get in the way of his long term goals. After all, even in the situation I described above, he involved Ros in his plans to make Varys suffer, resulting in a plan that has not gone as smoothly as the one book Baelish devised.

One thing I do think they have in common is this: despite what some people say, I don't think Baelish is misogynistic. While he runs a brothel, he has also admitted to precuring men for it. He has this business because it is profitable.

Baelish uses people. He doesn't care about their gender or age - to him they are all pawns until they prove themselves players.

He's the ultimate pragmatist.

Game of Thrones: Red Wedding and Other Robb Issues

Will contain spoilers sweetie!

Today I will be talking about three changes that the TV show made that I not appreciate - both relating to Robb Stark. As follows!

The Red Wedding

The Red Wedding is where the Freys invited the Starks and their bannermen to a feast and then mercilessly slaughtered them for breaking a promise that Robb Stark would marry one of Walder Frey's daughters. Also because Walder Frey is a petty asshole who was promised protection by Tywin Lannister (brilliant asshole) who wanted Robb Stark dead.

Very few women died in this attack, the only two coming to mind are Catelyn Stark nee' Tully and Dacey Mormont, a slit throat and an axe to the stomach respectively. Their deaths were not because they were women - Dacey died because she was a warrior for the Starks and was killed like a warrior. Catelyn was killed last because Walder resented the Tully's and she was the one who struck the bargain that was broken. These facts here are important for when I get to the TV show.

In the books, Robb was 15 and wounded in battle. A young noblewoman named Jeyne Westerling acted as nurse for him and in a moment of weakness they slept together. Since Westeros is basically a Medieval Earth Jeyne's lack of virginity would make finding her a marriage very difficult. So Robb married her, out of honour even though he had already made a bargain with the Freys in order to cross the river. He felt responsible for taking her virginity so he did the right thing by her. It is very important to note that his father, Ned Stark, was also an honourable man - which is what resulted in him telling Cersei Lannister that he intended to tell her husband about her affairs, which then led to Cersei having the husband killed, Ned locked up, and then her son had Ned executed. Death by Honour, as it were.

The Starks re-negotiated with the Freys and arranged that Edmure Tully, Catelyn's brother, would marry one of Walder's daughters. When Robb went to the wedding, he left Jeyne at the camps because he was smart enough to know that maybe bringing the person he broke the deal for would be a bad mood given Walder's reputation to be a temperamental bastard.

And then everyone at the wedding died.

Now for the TV show. It is very similar to the book, except where it actually counts. (Robb is aged up to 18, I think)

Firstly, we replace Jeyne with Talissa - a field nurse from Volantis. I don't mind this, actually. Westeros is lacking in career women. She meets Robb and after snarking at him and pointing out how most of the people he's out killing have next to nothing to do with the Lannisters except being employed by their bannermen, they fall in love and get married. She then falls pregnant.

She's around 3 to 5 months pregnant (judging by appearance) (and they're going to name it Ned) when Robb and the Starks take her to meet lord Frey and beg for his forgiveness. Of course Walder forgives them and says that he can see why Robb likes her - he always can see "what's going on under a woman's dress". (anyone getting the "oh crap" vibe?)

Cue the Red Wedding itself, which plays out as bloodily as before. Except Talissa is there. Pregnant Talissa. Who was incidentally stabbed first. In the stomach/womb.

She then dies in Robb's arms and then he's killed and Catelyn is the last one standing.

The Problems

First off, I would like to say that Talissa's death, while brutal, was not misogynistic. In fact, it even made perfect sense from Walder's perspective. That child growing in her was Robb Stark's kid - heir to the North. If it lived then he'd have a problem since the North would have someone to rally behind. (as far as he knows all the other heirs are either dead or hostages)

Talissa wasn't the target of that attack - her baby was. She was stabbed in the uterus because she was carrying Robb's child, not because she was female. Just like Theon was gelded because it was his "favourite plaything" and not because he was a male.

What I actually hate about her pregnancy and presence at the event is that it undermines the very purpose of Robb's death and plays to some very unfortunate stereotypes.

With regards to the stereotypes, let's make one thing very clear. The Red Wedding was a horrible event. In the book it was gruesome and shocking - and told all through Catelyn's eyes. Her last son killed before her eyes, after she lost all her other children. There are next to no words for it.

But the TV show didn't focus on that until Talissa died. We had to have Robb crying over a dead pregnant body. Because that's really all she was - she was introduced to be the "woman in the refrigerator". In the TV's rendition of the Red Wedding we didn't see Dacey, a female soldier, get an axe to the stomach. We saw Talissa, a pregnant wife, get a knife multiple times to the uterus.

Talissa's purpose was to die. And to be the token professional foreign woman to try and in a shallow attempt appeal to the feminists. And to give Robb a love story, but I'll get to that.

That stereotype was accompanied by one other one - men are disposable. We had hundreds of men die in this chapter but we focused on the death of the one "innocent woman". It is really disappointing that the writers would chose to perpetuate the mutually sexist notion that a woman's death is more poignant than a man's; that a woman is so weak that killing on is a true sign of a horrible person and that men are so expendable that a whole room of them can die and it wouldn't have the same effect as one woman.

Yes, I can see why they murdered her (because of the baby) but the fact that the baby was even there was just the writers creating more drama. It's a bloody (no pun intended) brilliant series and they didn't need to utilize the stereotypical "Look! Dead (Pregnant) Girl! This must be a terrible event!" The Red Wedding didn't need token dead women. Catelyn's death made sense - she struck the bargain, she was the Stark/Tully Matriarch. And yes pregnant Talissa's death made sense - but her pregnancy didn't. To show how mean the Freys are? We can pretty much see that the book's Red Wedding showed us how far the Freys were willing to go without giving us token dead women - it showed that the deaths of men could be just has terrible and depraved. The TV's Red Wedding was just the writer's going for cheap soap opera drama that perpetuated sexist stereotypes.

Robb and Catelyn's Relationship

In the books Robb is a 15 year old boy struggling with the fact that the Northmen want him to be their king and lead them - he turns to his mother to help him because not only is he a child who has no father anymore but a child who respects his mother and her opinions. And Catelyn is smart.

In the TV series, Robb's attitude can be summed up as "OMG MUUUUUUM STOP EMBARASSING ME MAN".

We understand that he was a teenager, but the point is that he was supposed to have half a brain and know his limitations. In the books he does mess up when he doesn't take his mother's advice. TV Robb scarcely acknowledges this.

Book Robb was raised by the serious Ned Stark and Catelyn Tully - Family, Honour, Duty.

Honestly, TV Robb runs by YOLO.

Robb Loves Talissa

Robb married Jeyne out of honour. Robb married Talissa for love.

The Problems

While we can all sigh and smile at the quaint little love story, it ruins the message behinds Robb's death. Firstly, we'd think that an older Robb would be a bit smarter than his 15 year old book counterpart, but we'll leave that alone)

Robb is like his father; honourable to a fault. And that's the precise problem with this change. Robb's death was meant to illustrate that when you play the Game of Thrones you cannot afford to be honourable - you must be pragmatic, you must be ruthless, you must be cautious. You cannot be Ned Stark. And Robb, the loving son that he was, did not realize this.

But his death was there to make sure we the readers did.

As far as I'm concerned, this is the most grievous error - it isn't for drama or to make him more "teenager-ish". It undermines the message behind the character.

Game of Thrones: A Critique of Critiques

Will contain spoilers sweetie!

Let's get one thing out of the way. Game of Thrones / A Song of Ice and Fire is violent. It is violent towards everyone. Rape is accepted a very likely possibility for the women if they are captured, and torture and mutilation is that way for the men.

These posts will in no way deny the levels of violence in GoT / ASOIAF. What it will do, however, is talk about some of the criticisms that I disagree with and complain a little on my own.

Now, the reason I watch/read GoT/ASOIAF isn't because of any liking for violence. Violence alone has never drawn my attention to a show or book - hence my aversion to the "slasher genre" and Jurassic Park 2. I like GoT/ASOIAF because of the politics, the intrigue, and the character development. Especially the intrigue. So, this post will be somewhat biased towards intrigue to be honest but let's get to it. Starting with what is probably the most violent incident in the series.

At this moment i may do around three, but I may add to it.

But yeah, I will be talking about Game of Thrones. And there will be spoilers.

Male Stereotypes and Male Rape

This topic will be covered again in the future with fun things like statistics and maths and legal definitions and sources. But for now, I'm going to be talking about some non-quantifiable aspects that bother me. I will be using some "grown up" words so... yeah.

We all know that men can rape women. We know that men can rape men. What people don't seem to understand is that women can rape men - not just boys, grown up men. They can also rape women.

Women can rape. I know, it's a shocker given the way that some people would like to act like women have only ever been the victims of and never the perpetrators of injustice. But, honestly, I feel that if equality of any sort is to be achieved in this world, it has to be done by acknowledging that there isn't a race, gender, orientation, etc that is completely "saintly" or completely "demonic".

But moving on from there.

I want to talk about the perceptions of female-on-male rape, and how the male stereotypes effect it.

What are some well known male stereotypes? Well, the first ones that come to mind are that men are strong, men are violent, and that men are constantly horny and ready for sex. We can see how this lends itself to the idea that men are rapists - it also lends itself to the idea that men are too strong to get raped and that they always welcome sex so, not rape.

I hate the "men are strong" one. Not all men are strong. Some girls are stronger. And no matter how strong a guy is, he'll react the same way as a girl to a date-rape drug. So, really, it's completely irrelevant to the idea of rape.

Now for the idea that men are always horny and ready for sex. Let's assume for one moment that this is true. Then why don't guys sleep with everything? Why do they reject some girls? Why don't they all use prostitutes? Why don't straight guys take sex offered by gay men? Why don't gay men take sex offered by straight girls? It's all "sex", right?

The fact is, even if men are horny all the time, they exercise some control and choice over who they have sex with - that is, they, like women, have the right to CHOOSE who they have sex with.


And now for the biggest player in this stereotype: the penis. As most of us know, the penis gets erect when the male is aroused; however erections can also occur as a result of fear, panic, and drugs. Oh, and let's remember that it gets erect due to blood flow - so a guy could be as flaccid as anything but if the rapist were to "encourage" the blood flow, we'd have an erection present.

But I don't want to address those - I want to talk about when the guy is aroused. When he really did find his rapist attractive, before she attacked him.

How many times have we heard or read about male-on-female rapists who rationalize that his victim "wanted it"? It was only a couple of centuries ago that it was "accepted knowledge" that a woman could not have been raped if she got pregnant since pregnancy was believed to be the result of enjoyable sex and rape was not enjoyable. Basically, "if she orgasmed, she wasn't raped". Or, as Fifty Shades of Fucked Up said "you were wet, you wanted it".

It case you didn't know, an orgasm is the result of nerve endings being stimulated. So it has nothing to do with the willingness of the participants. Actually, this has been recognized as a reason why some rape victims don't report their rapists - their body betrayed them and they feel dirty and low.

But this is the same logic applied to male rape victims. "He had an erection, he must have been willing", "He went to her house, he must have been willing", "He ejaculated, he must have" - it keeps on going on.

How come it's okay for women to be attracted to a man but not want to sleep with him? Because that's all a guy's erection says - he's attracted. Maybe he's thinking about having sex with her. But that doesn't mean he wants to at that moment, if ever.

How come the media says it's okay for a woman to change her mind, but a man is apparently possessed by the "boner werewolf" is contracted to have sex by its presence?

The fact is, there is no bloody difference here. A man and a woman have the rights to be attracted to someone but not have sex with them if they choose. I'm sick to death of the idea that a man's brain is directly wired to his penis.

Because when a 'normal' person says "He had an erection - he must have been willing", it's the same as a woman's rapist saying "she wanted it".

And because, "forced sex" is rape.

Music: Graceless

Because it's pretty.

 The National - Graceless

Graceless
Is there a powder to erase this?
Is it dissolvable and tasteless?
You can't imagine how I hate this
Graceless

I'm trying, but I'm graceless
Don't have the sunny side to face this
I am invisible and weightless
You can't imagine how I hate this
Graceless

I'm trying, but I've gone
Through the glass again
Just come and find me
God loves everybody, don't remind me
I took the medicine when I went missing
Just let me hear your voice, just let me listen

Graceless
I figured out how to be faithless
But it will be a shame to waste this
You can't imagine how I hate this
Graceless

I'm trying, but I've gone
Through the glass again
Just come and find me
God loves everybody, don't remind me
I took the medicine and I went missing
Just let me hear your voice, just let me listen

All of my thoughts of you
Bullets through rock and through
Come apart at the seams
Now I know what dying means

I am not my rosy self
Left my roses on my shelf
Take the wild ones, they're my favourites
It's the side effects that save us

Grace
Put the flowers you find in a vase
If you're dead in the mind it will brighten the place
Don't let them die on the vine, it's a waste
Grace

There's a science to walking through windows
There's a science to walking through windows
There's a science to walking through windows
There's a science to walking through windows without you

All of my thoughts of you
Bullets through rock and through
Come apart at the seams
Now I know what dying means

I am not my rosy self
Left my roses on my shelf
Take the wild ones, they're my favourites
It's the side effects that save us

Grace
Put the flowers you find in a vase
If you're dead in the mind it will brighten the base
Don't let them die on the vine, it's a waste
Grace

Grace
Put the flowers you find in a vase
If you're dead in the mind it will brighten the base
Don't let them die on the vine, it's a waste
Grace

When Things Get Stressful

^_^

Almost Human

It's criminal, the way we love, the way we hate;

It's almost human...

WARNING: Once Upon A Time SPOILERS (if you're watching it)

I watch quite a few programs on TV - one of which is Once Upon A Time. It's quite an interesting program - a bunch of fairy tale characters are cursed into our world where they have no memory of their pasts and the savior (daughter of Snow White and Prince Charming) has to break the curse. In the second season the curse is broken and now they can't get back to their world or leave their town.

Anyway, the reason I bring this up is because of the villains of the show. They're brilliant. They take "evil" characters such as the Evil Queen, Rumpelstiltskin, Captain Hook, and they make them... believable. Human. How? Their motivations, for the most part are routed in Love.
C.S. Lewis talked of how love can go wrong without some element of selflessness (Charity) in The Four Loves - it's actually rather applicable here. A particular paraphasing comes to mind here:

"[Love] begins to be a demon the moment he begins to be a god."

Once a love starts to take over, it destroys.

How? Here is as follows.

Captain Hook a.k.a Killian Jones
I'd say one of the least sympathetic, Killian was a philandering, murdering pirate. His True Love, Milah, was killed by Rumpelstiltskin, and so he swore vengeance - taking a portal to Neverland to preserve his life while he figured out how.
In the current story line, he switches sides like a revolving door and has displayed absolutely no mercy - especially towards Belle, the woman who Rumpelstiltskin loves. As far as motivations go he kinda has the weakest.
His love is Eros (Romantic Love), and when it goes out of control he only wants to ruin Rumpelstiltskin's love because he was denied his.

Regina Mills a.k.a. The Evil Queen
Regina Mills is the woman who cast the curse - she was known as the Evil Queen. When we meet her we know that she's been trying to kill Snow White, her step daughter, for some reason and that she cast the curse so that she would be miserable. No more happy endings.
It's revealed that the reason she wants Snow dead is that when Snow was 8 years old she told Regina's mother, Cora, that Regina was in love with a stable boy named Daniel. Cora, a powerful witch, didn't want Regina running off with a stable boy when she could marry the King - so she killed him.
(Cora also arranged the meeting between Regina and the King - by having Snow's horse go wild and Regina riding to rescue her)
However, this wasn't the start of Regina's fall from grace. She tried to escape her marriage but mother dearest would always stop her. Until one day she called up a powerful being - Rumplestiltskin - to help her. He helped Regina trap her mother in a mirror (in Wonderland incidentally where she became the Queen of Hearts).
Rumples took her on as his apprentice and by pretending to try and help her bring back Daniel (it was an elaborate plan to destroy her last bit of goodness by pretending the procedure failed so she had nothing left) he finished the foundation for the woman who would become the Evil Queen. This woman would proceed to try to kill Snow White for frakking with her chances of love, and then go on to cast the curse that would deny everyone their "happy endings".

In Storybrook (the town they live in our world) she is the mayor and she has adopted a boy, Henry - who happens to be the son of Emma, the aforementioned savior. Henry suspects the curse and thus doesn't like his mother.
(I think he's a bit of an asshole - I mean, the woman has raised him for 10 years and with the exception of trying to have his psychiatrist convince him that his theory is madness hasn't been a bad mother)
Her actions in the series are primarily aimed at trying to keep Henry - however, she doesn't do it the right ways since while it's clear she loves him, her only real examples of parental love are her passive father and her b*tch of a mother. At the beginning of season two she was working to redeem herself in Henry's eyes, but thanks to Cora's intervention she's now back to the "dark side".

Regina started out on Eros with regards to her desire to destroy Snow White but has since moved onto Affection (family love). She loves Henry - so he must love her back. She exhibits the "need-love" aspect of Affection - it wants to be returned, it wants to be loved.

Cora a.k.a The Miller's Daughter (from Rumpelstiltskin)
Honestly the biggest b*itch in the series. While she only wants the "best" for Regina, she doesn't allow Regina any choice in the matter and has even used magic to restrain her. Basically, rather than true concern for her daughter, she would rather live out her failed ambitions through her. In the most recent episodes, she framed Regina for murder to turn Henry against her and then used this new divide to convince her daughter that she could only get Henry back through use of magic.
She helped Killian to get his revenge on Rumplestiltskin in order to chase her daughter into a new world and "assist her in her greatest time of need".
In C.S. Lewis's the Four Loves, we can see that Cora's "love" is when Affection goes wrong. Affection needs to be needed, such that it will manufacture reasons why it must still be needed. Cora does this throughout the series and thus exhibits the "give-love" aspect of Affection - the need to be needed.

Rumpelstiltskin a.k.a. Mr Gold, a.k.a. The Dark One
If we want to trace back everything that went wrong in this world, it comes back to Rumpelstiltskin. He taught Cora magic, he gave Regina the curse, he killed Killian's True Love. But why?
Well, Rumpelstiltskin was once a poor man with a son, Baelfire. His wife had left him long ago and the town hated him because of his cowardice in running away from a battle. And now his son (not yet fourteen) was being recruited into the same long running war.
He had heard that he could control a great entity called the Dark One if he had it's dagger - a dagger currently kept by the man sending the children to war. So, with Baelfire's help he stole the dagger and summoned the Dark One. After an argument Rumpelstiltskin accidentally killed the Dark One - and became him.
After this Rumples defeated the ogres in the war and brought the children back... but the power went to his head. Nothing was to hurt his son. They would never be looked down on again. However, Baelfire grew afraid of his father and wished for him to return to normal so he consulted the Blue Fairy. The Blue Fairy gave him a magic bean, the "last in the land" (revealed to be a big fat lie) that would take them to a world without magic. However when Baelfire went into the portal, the coward in Rumples resurfaced such that while he was freaking out the portal closed. Since the Blue Fairy said there was no other way, Rumples started to try and find the Curse so that he could return to his son.
It was this event that lead to his teaching Cora magic, his corrupting of Regina, all to get to this "world without Magic".

Again we see Affection, but I think Rumples is more motivated by guilt. It was his cowardice that caused his wife to leave him and that caused him to lose his son. But it was the total disregard for anything but his son that did the most damage. He lost his True Love Belle twice to this - as a kiss from her would break the curse of the Dark One and he would lose the power to find his son. In Storybrook he and Belle struggle with his dark side.

Rumpelstiltskin works a bit differently to the other characters since he is sharing his body with an evil entity that sort of boosts his dark side. However, the biggest fan backlash was about his actions towards Killian. I mean, it didn't serve his purposes of finding Baelfire so it can't be justified by that. And, honestly, of all his crimes I'd say that this was the most... well... human.

I mentioned that Rumpelstiltskin's wife had left him, yes? She did - for Killian. But she didn't outright walk out on him. She pretended that she had been kidnapped and then Killian challenged Rumples to fight for her. Rumples who had a limp. And a very young son who would be an orphan if Rumples died. And thus Rumples couldn't fight - he was afraid. Rumples carried that guilt with him for at least 10 years - that it was due to his cowardice that Baelfire didn't have a mother.
Once he became the Dark One he tracked down Killian to avenger Milah - only to find she was happy with him. In exchange for their lives she offered a magic bean (told you the Blue Fairy was a liar). When Rumples asked her why she left Baelfire she said it was difficult but she had to be free "never loved [Rumpelstiltskin]".
Now... the woman who he married and had kids with, the woman whose "kidnapping" he felt guilty for for several years, the woman who he obviously loved just told him she never loved him and hated him so much that not only did she wished he died in the Ogre wars but chose to leave her son just so she wouldn't be with him. In a rage her killed her and left - and so Killian stole the bean and used it to get to Neverland.

A lot of people hate him for that... but I really view it as his most "human" action - I mean, all this information was just dumped on him. What else would he feel besides rage?

Anyway... I guess I made this post because I don't see that many really good villains - these guys may not believe that they are doing the "right" thing, but they are working towards real goals. And it's nice to see a villain where the "love" that motivates them isn't about power or lust.

Chemical: the way we love, the way we love;

It's quite inhuman...

Personal: God Laughs

Have you ever had your life sort of turned topsy-turvy, where things that you didn't think were going to happen for a while suddenly happen and things that you thought would happen sooner get delayed and the like?

Well, as they say, "Man plans; God laughs" and the Lord has been having a good chuckle over here.

I don't think I talk a lot about myself on this blog but the things that are relevant to this post are that I'm a perfectionist, don't like change, have a preoccupation with the future, and am terrible at adhering to my limits (not "realizing my limits", mind you; I know what they are, I just don't respect them... which is stupid)

For the last five or so years, I've been in something of a self-imposed rut. A seemingly endless sea of monotony, that was, quite frankly, taking it's toll on me. Not the "monotony" itself, I guess, but the nature of it  - always pushing myself, always trying to live up to people's expectations of me regardless of whether they were realistic or not.

I guess, the defining incident that stands out was the first semester I took on four units and had been advised by one of the higher ups to take on a calculus unit that I didn't really have the prerequisites for. Furthermore, the unit was aimed at engineering students while I was a mere commerce student, a young one at that. But I wanted to pursue statistics so it was what I needed. It was a tough semester, but I made it through that unit and achieved a Distinction (at my uni, it's the second best grade type) and was initially quite proud. Until everyone else started weighing in. Mum was calculating whether I could maintain my average with this mere Distinction, the lecturer who had recommended the unit to me said he was expecting a High Distinction. The only person who actually gave me positive feedback was the lecturer who taught the unit.

In hindsight, I should have seen that they weren't being realistic expecting that high a grade of me. I mean, I liked maths and was good at it but was no mathematical genius - better than commerce but not a mathematician or engineer. However, it unfortunately set a standard in my mind that I really couldn't keep up on a long term basis.

(I am not blaming others for my... stupidity, since this attitude did die down in later semesters. But they did plant the idea which grew to define part of me... that unless my grades were perfect they, and by extension I, were worthless. It was an exaggerated view but it was still my view.)

I managed to keep being a high achiever for four years, at the expense of everything else. Including my health. I won't go into details but, I was definitely worse for wear. Being a high achiever wasn't really the problem... it was the fact that that was all I was. Any hobbies I had in high school had either been abandoned or left to the side to be resumed at some undefined point in time (with very few exceptions). When I talked about my hobbies, I was often working off very old information. Even my holidays were spent in preparation for the next semester. (I can think of only one exception, and it was in the recent two years - even then, it was a hobby binge)

(Honestly, I really should have picked up on the decline earlier - just looking at some of my unpublished posts has me facepalming at how obviously... "not right" things were)

Anyway, the toll that the my stupidity has resulted in a drastically decreased load and thus adding a bit more time to my degree - but, after much deliberation, that's a good thing. I mean, I'm not just a student, I'm a person. I have a personality, and I have things that I've liked to do. I am an amateur writer and that's been neglected for a long while. I'm not saying that I'm giving up on my grades or something like that - I still want my degree and I want it to be worth something. It's just not going to be the only thing that defines me, not anymore.

Going back to that expression at the beginning... the one on God laughing. Well, we don't laugh at something unless it's either very silly or very funny, so wouldn't it stand to reason that God laughs at those sorts of things too? And let's face it, my "plan" wasn't exactly intelligent... but I would have continued it if it hadn't negatively impacted my well-being.

So the whole "God laughs" bit isn't really about messing up Man's plans, but more about going "Hey, you're doing it wrong - let's give you a chance to think about that for a second, silly child". Of course it really does say something that it takes a metaphorical arrow to the knee to get me to sit and actually think about what I'm doing but hey, I should work on that.

If you're not particularly religious, the moral still applies I think, in that really more thought should be given to a person's priorities when things are going well rather than having these overly long contemplative moments when things don't turn out as planned. But in my case, I'm going to pay a little less attention to me-as-a-student and more attention to me-as-a-person.

Which, incidentally, actually includes getting back to this blog. :)

Music: I Want My Tears Back

A song for the inner child... though the longing for "sleepless nights" is also something someone suffering from writer's block can probably sympathize with as well...
But posting because wonderful song is wonderful.


 Nightwish - I Want My Tears Back



I want my tears back

The treetops, the chimneys, the snowbed stories, winter grey
Wildflowers, those meadows of heaven, wind in the wheat

A railroad across water, the scent of grandfatherly love
Blue bayous, Decembers, moon through a dragonfly's wings

Where is the wonder, where's the awe?
Where's dear Alice knocking on the door?
Where's the trapdoor that takes me there?
Where the real is shattered by a Mad March Hare?

Where is the wonder, where's the awe?
Where are the sleepless nights I used to live for?
Before the years take me
I wish to see
The lost in me

I want my tears back
I want my tears back now

A ballet on a grove, still growing young all alone
A rag doll, a best friend, the voice of Mary Costa

Where is the wonder, where's the awe?
Where's dear Alice knocking on the door?
Where's the trapdoor that takes me there?
Where the real is shattered by a Mad March Hare?

Where is the wonder, where's the awe?
Where are the sleepless nights I used to live for?
Before the years take me
I wish to see
The lost in me

I want my tears back
I want my tears back now

Music: Who Am I Living For?

Oh hush - I know it's Katy Perry but I happen to like this song. >_>

 Katy Perry - Who Am I Living For?



I can feel a phoenix inside of me
As I march alone to a different beat,
Slowly swallowing down my fear, yeah yeah...

I am ready for the road less traveled;
Suiting up for my crowning battle.
This test is my own cross to bear
But I will get there.

It's never easy to be chosen, never easy to be called;
Standing on the frontline when the bomb starts to fall.
I can see the heavens but I still hear the flames
Calling out my name...

I can see the writing on the wall:
I can't ignore this war.
At the end of it all
Who am I living for?

I can feel this light that's inside of me.
Growing fast into a bolt of lightning:
I know one spark will shock the world, yeah yeah...

So I pray for a favour like Esther:
I need your strength to handle the pressure.
I know there will be sacrifice,
But that's the price.

It's never easy to be chosen, never easy to be called;
Standing on the frontline when the bomb starts to fall.
I can see the heavens but I still hear the flames
Calling out my name...

I can see the writing on the wall:
I can't ignore this war.
At the end of it all
Who am I living for?

I can see the writing on the wall:
I can't ignore this war.
At the end of it all
Who am I living for?

At the end, at the end
Who am I living for?
At the end, at the end
Who am I living for?

Heavy is the head that wears the crown;
Don't let the greatness get you down.
Heavy is the head that wears the crown;
Don't let the greatness get you down.

I can see the writing on the wall:
I can't ignore this war.
At the end of it all
Who am I living for?

I can see the writing on the wall:
I can't ignore this war.
At the end of it all
Who am I living for?

At the end, at the end
Who am I living for?
At the end, at the end
Who am I living for?

ASPD, Definitions, and Inflicted Insight

I know I did a post on Anti-Social Personality Disorder but I just wanted to clear up a couple of things. I recently heard a "statistic" that "1 in 25 people are sociopaths". Now, let's remember that sociopathy is considered a subdivision of ASPD and 3% of men and 1% of women are diagnosed with the disorder. The world is roughly 50/50, so the total probability is actually 2% (1.5% + 0.5%). That makes it 1 in 50.

But moving on from that, there is a reason I brough this up - these same "statistic" was mentioned in the context where the author was saying that 1 in 25 people are completely without empathy. Not only that, they credit the World Health Organization (ICD) for this. But wait! Let's take another look at the diagnosis criteria...

(quoted from my prior post, which contains the links)

Under the DSM-IV

A) There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:

1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
2. deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
3. impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead;
4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;

B) The individual is at least age 18 years.

C) There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 16 years.

D) The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode. 

Under ICD-10 (where it is classified under the similar Dissocial Personality Disorder)

It is characterized by at least 3 of the following:

1. Callous unconcern for the feelings of others
2. Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.
3. Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them
4. Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.
5. Incapacity to experience guilt or to profit from experience, particularly punishment.
6. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society

Why am I bringing this up again? Because for each person who references the World Health Organization to say that sociopaths (sufferers of antisocial personality disorder) lack empathy, they seem to forget the simple phrases "at least 3" and "three or more". Only one symptom in the DSMV and two in the ICD-10 roughly correspond to lack of empathy. This means that it's possible for the not to have lack of empathy has a symptom. Now, of course I don't know the probability and relationships between each symptom but the point is that it is possible! But hey, congratulations world - you're just stereotyped another group of people based one aspect that subdivision of them have.


Furthermore, I would like to draw attention to some symptoms these being:

1. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;
2. Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior that has brought the person into conflict with society

 While if you take many of the symptoms aside they can appear to be somewhat normal behaviour, I wanted to draw special attention to this. Now, very few people will try to hurt a person for the sake of hurting a person - most will rationalize it with things like "they deserved it", "it wasn't that bad", or "it was for the better". How many times is this actually true and not just people trying to feel less guilty. Again, look at the wording - specifically in point one: "lack of remorse or ..."

A sufferer of ASPD can feel remorse, but just rationalize a misdeed - like "sane" people do. So... is this behaviour sane? Even blaming others - "If my boss hadn't fired me...", if this, if that. These are possible symptoms of what people like to call sociopathy.

But the ones that reach the media are dramatic and extremely negative - portraying the worst of a group of people who, quite frankly, are mostly normal. However, as a friend pointed out, there may be another reason why the least glamorous symptoms are the ones that are emphasized, and next to no attention towards the more commonplace ones.

Nobody wants to draw attention to their own potentially sociopathic behaviour. This is an especially good point when combined with the idea of "inflicted insight" - the idea of exposing the less savoury or comfortable facets of a person's own psyche and forcing them to confront them. I've mentioned the Milgram Experiment before, where participants pretty much blindly followed orders to electrocute another person - many of those same participants (84%) thanked the people running the experiment for showing them that side of them and helping them realize that they needed to question their own actions more, and 15% were neutral.

And yet inflicted insight is veiwed as a bad thing. Could this be why people ignore the more mundane symptoms? Because people don't want to know that they aren't so different from the sociopaths they so revile?

In order to solve a problem, it actually needs to be acknowledged first.

"Do I look like a man with a plan to you?"

Well, since I'm a girl I'd certainly hope not. I do however, have a plan of sorts.

Okay... I'm finishing semester this week so posting should resume as normal. It might even take on something that vaguely resembes a schedule again.
Topics I plan on covering include:

• At least three more Disturbing the Disturbed posts:
• Disassociative Identity Disorder
• Schitzophrenia
• Psychosis
• Female characters in fiction
• Twilight versus Paranormalcy (something I just find amusing)
• My take on truth, facts, and our perception of reality.
• Nothing political - yep, this is more of a reminder that I will not rant about political/social movements I dislike.
• Though if I can link it in to lack of empathy then I will probably end up discussing it anyway.
• The Seven Deadly Sins
• And how certain mental/psychological situations contribute or detract from them
• Sexuality and Perceptions - a personal take on it with some statistics thrown in.
• Possibly music once a week. Deciding whether or not I should shamelessly steal that idea from a friend... except mine will reflect my mood rather than anything deep and meaningful.

So... yeah. I have promised to try and cover these topics so that is what I shall do! The highest probabilties of success go to the DtD series, Twilight, and the Truth post.

Anyway, until next week,

Cheers.

Music: Nobody's Home

Sometimes “home” doesn’t really exist...



 Avril Lavigne - Nobody’s Home







Well, I couldn't tell you
Why she felt that way;
She felt it every day.

And I couldn't help her,
I just watched her make
The same mistakes again.

What's wrong, what's wrong now?
Too many, too many problems...
Don't know where she belongs,
Where she belongs...

She wants to go home
But nobody's home.
That's where she lies:
Broken inside.

With no place to go,
No place to go,
To dry her eyes:
Broken inside.

Open your eyes
And look outside:
Find the reasons why...

You've been rejected
And now you can't find
What you've left behind.

Be strong, be strong now.
Too many, too many problems...
Don't know where she belongs,
Where she belongs...

She wants to go home
But nobody's home.
That's where she lies:
Broken inside.

With no place to go,
No place to go,
To dry her eyes:
Broken inside.

Her feelings she hides;
Her dreams she can't find;
She's losing her mind;
She's falling behind!

She can't find her place;
She's losing her faith
She's falling from grace
She's all over the place, yeah!

She wants to go home
But nobody's home.
That's where she lies
Broken inside.

With no place to go,
No place to go,
To dry her eyes:
Broken inside.

She's lost inside, lost inside!
Oh, oh.
She's lost inside, lost inside!
Oh, oh, oh.

Music: Lift

Evaluation final:

• illusionist;
• dreamer;
• menace to society.

 Poets of the Fall - Lift












Times when I just can't
Bring myself to say it loud
'Fraid that what I'll say comes out somehow awry

That is when it seems
We move in circles day to day
Twist the drama of the play to get us by

And it feels like fear
Like I'll disappear
Gets so hard to steer
Yet I go on
Do we need debate
When it seems too late
Like I bleed but wait
Like nothing's wrong

You lift my spirit, take me higher, make me fly,
Touch the moon up in the sky, when you are mine
You lift me higher, take my spirit, make it fly,
Where all new wonders will appear

Like the other day
I thought you won't be coming back
I came to realize my lackluster dreams

And among the schemes
And all the tricks we try to play
Only dreams will hold their sway and defy

And it feels like fear
Like I'll disappear
Gets so hard to steer
Yet I go on
Do we need debate
When it seems too late
Like I bleed but wait
Like nothing's wrong

You lift my spirit, take me higher, make me fly,
Touch the moon up in the sky, when you are mine
You lift me higher, take my spirit, make it fly,
Where all new wonders will appear

A Rant About Personal Rubbish (feel free to ignore)

Okay... time to shout at cyberspace because if I don't I think I may actually hit someone. Multiple times. In the face. With a hammer.

Now, I won't use names... because I'm a grown-up so I should be above name dropping.

Now, my younger sister is a nice girl. Yeah, she has a temper, is flirty, and can be extremely stubborn. But she's a good person. She helps her friends, she stands up for them, she's kind, and a lot of other nice things. However, there is one friend who has been a consistent jackass to her and is the ONLY person I know who's insults have actually made her cry. We'll call him... J. Anyway, J has a long list of indiscretions which in my opinion warranted dropping him like a bad joke ages ago. These include: blatantly using my sister to get answers for homework, regularly insulting her in front of her other friends (not "ha ha friendly ribbing" insults - actual malicious ones), attempting to instigate a friends-with-benefits relationship with her while in a monogamous relationship, and a few other things. However, I wish to rant about two major issues.

Anyway, last year she got a crush on one of her friends and felt safe in telling one of her other friends this. The friend she told is the person I would like to hit. You see, she asked this friend if he could subtly find out if the first friend had similar feelings towards her. At the time he then reported back a little later saying that the friend did not reciprocate... while laughing.

It was recently found that he didn't "subtly" find out - he told the friend that she had a crush on him and asked. Now, I suppose that's forgivable, but the laughing while hurting my sister's feelings? Not so much.

Especially... bad when his girlfriend admitted that he told her about this and they both had a good laugh about it. She was apparently proud of this.

Next issue. the girlfriend, J, and my sister share a mutual friend, T, who loves trains. So my sister came up with the idea to order him in a custom-made train from England with his name on it for his birthday. However, this would be expensive so she gathered a few of T's friends to pay for it - only $33 each. It was a Facebook arrangement so there were some people she didn't know personally - but that was okay, because J and his GF did! Right? Despite the fact that they only had to contact 2 of the 8 people involved in the event they didn't do it - they were busy. Now... my sister attends college with them  - she knew their classes and their jobs and exactly how much free time they had. Now, I'm not saying that they should have dropped everything to get this - but they had 3 weeks to arrange 15 minutes to collect money from 2 people. Not exactly difficult. My sister ended up getting it done herself so that she could order in the train.

They insisted on a number of things - such as getting my sister's bank details. No. Just... no. There is such a thing called privacy and having a person's bank details is a serious thing. Not to mention them knowing that there was no way in Hell that my mum would let that happen.

Several delays on the train company's behalf occurred and the price changed - because of the Pound/Dollar exchange rate. The increase was somewhere between $50 and $80 but my sister covered the difference - she wasn't gonna go and track down a few dollars from each person. Note: this was not a detail she disclosed to T, but she did tell it to J and GF, saying that it was okay.

Now, the train finally arrives so it has to be given to T. T's birthday was in April, which was also when he was informed about the gift by the whole group. It is now basically June. So maybe, just maybe, we want to get the present to him as soon as possible? Sister tries to get J and a few others around to be there for the "giving of the gift". However after one botched chance, sister informs them that as soon as sees T he will be given the gift. I have a Facebook page full of "Okay - that'd be great :)" in front of me to prove that pretty much everyone agreed. Miss GF didn't see until after it occurred (today), so she then promptly sent my sister an abusive message (where she revealed that she and J laughed it up earlier). I would be understanding of this, if not for the following.

The GF has declared herself T's "best friend" - not that I say "declared". Well, I would hardly call someone T's best friend if they not only admitted that "If J wasn't chipping in [she] wouldn't have even bothered". She often complained about how inconvenient the entire event was for her despite the fact that she was only asked to do one thing which ended up being done by my sister anyway.

As I see it, she just wanted to take credit. Also having met her more than a few times, by "take credit" I mean take ALL the credit. I will mention that my sister was not the only person present at the "gift giving".

Anyway in this conversation somehow culminated in the GF calling my sister a coward. Now, I've read the conversation about... 5 times already and I only see one train of thought that could have lead to it (that being afraid to confess about having a crush - then again, it was a crush on one of her best friends so a degree of awkwardness can be expected) but it bore no relevance whatsoever on the whole train thing. This GF has also often accused my sister of being cruel to J - the guy who she helps with his homework regularly, listens to him bitching about GF, hangs out with (for some god-unknown reason), and you know, is a friend to.

Their friendship is over, and I'm fine with that - J treats a lot of his friends like shit and it's about time one of them walked away. What annoys me the most though is that while my sister is friends with a lot of people, none of them have been able to do more than give sympathetic hugs at best or tell her that she's being extreme at worst. These people who are only Facebook friends with J and the GF - as in, "I friended you and invited you because you are friends with so-and-so". These people who have seen J treat my sister like shit and who she has actually cried to them about.

Anyway, this rant is done... it's just...

Is this how people treat friends?

Mood Music: Angels

More music, reflecting my current mood. Damn you melancholy distrust thing, I have enough on my plate without dealing with silly emotions.


 Within Temptation - Angels



Sparkling angel, I believedYou were my savior in my time of need.Blinded by faith, I couldn’t hearAll the whispers, the warnings so clear.  I see the angels, I’ll lead them to your door.There’s no escape now, no mercy, no more.No remorse ’cause I still rememberThe smile when you tore me apart! You took my heart:Deceived me right from the start.You showed me dreams;I wished they’d turn into realYou broke a promise and made me realize:It was all just a lie! Sparkling angel, I couldn’t seeYour dark intentions, your feelings for me.Fallen angel, tell me why,What is the reason, the thorn in your eye? I see the angels, I’ll lead them to your door.There’s no escape now, no mercy, no more.No remorse, ’cause I still rememberThe smile when you tore me apart! You took my heart:Deceived me right from the start.You showed me dreams;I wished they’d turn into real.You broke the promise and made me realize:It was all just a lie! Could have been forever,Now we have reached the end! This world may have failed you;It doesn’t give you a reason why—You could have chosen a different path in life... The smile when you tore me apart! You took my heart:Deceived me right from the start.You showed me dreams;I wished they turn into real.You broke the promise and made me realizeIt was all just a lie! Could have been forever,Now we have reached the end...

Tourniquet

I tried to kill my pain
But only brought more
So much more
I lay dying
And I'm pouring crimson regret and betrayal
I'm dying, praying, bleeding and screaming
Am I too lost to be saved
Am I too lost?

Recently I’ve been thinking of suicide – not thinking of suicide as in “suicidal thoughts” but just thinking about the concept of suicide and its implications. Specifically religious implications. Probably because I've been listening to Tourniquet a lot lately - hence the title.

Okay, while not all religions were against suicide – for instance in ancient Japan it was believed to be more honourable kill oneself than to surrender and some mythologies were similar – those descended from Judaism were vehement on the matter: it was forbidden.

In the original versions of the Seven Deadly Sins that Despair was originally a mortal sin because it symbolized a loss of faith and hope – no longer trusting in God. Suicide is taking God’s most precious gift and getting rid of it. Those who take their own life cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

This is where my musing actually starts – what about drugs? So many medications out there, especially anti-depressants, include suicidal thoughts as a side-effect.

Also, take into account mental illness - it's estimated that 87%-98% of suicides had a mental disorder. The obvious ones are Depression and Bipolar Disorder, but there are others. Of suicides, mood disorders are present in 30%, substance abuse in 18%, schizophrenia in 14%, and personality disorders in 13% of suicides. These are all chemical imbalances - either caused by the illness, causes the illness, or by the medication for the illness. (In Swing a Little More I mention that while Lithium is the most effective medication in regards to suppressing suicidal impulses/thoughts, the medication to stop the kidney damage from lithium increases such thoughts.)

Even without looking to specific mental disorders, it's been found that those who attempt suicide have low seratonin levels (mood modulator and neurotransmitter), and those who complete it have the lowest levels.

Is a chemical imbalance someone willingly throwing their life away? Or would it be considered differently? Are there exceptions, a rule, a second chance?

My next question is this: what about those who willingly endanger their lives?
Just to clarify – I am not saying that my following examples should be considered the same as suicide-by-free-will. My thoughts are... odd on this matter so I’m trying to properly categorize them. How is saying “Hey, I don’t care if I die” different to saying “I don’t want to live”?
If those who are chemically imbalanced towards hurting themselves in a fatal way get penalized (forgive the word), what happens to those who are mentally healthy but through themselves off cliffs attached to a chord, or diving into the rift, or other “thrill seeking” activities. I mean, I know we all take risks with our lives just by leaving the house but we don’t run in front of the cars! These guys sign contracts that explicitly state that if they die then it’s not the company’s problem!

Ok, I know that may be irrational but I don’t see why if someone who is supposedly in full possession of their faculties could care so little about their lives that they may as well throw them away...
I know that they probably don’t think that it’s possible that they may die – at least it’s not in the forefront of their mind. Like for surfers – they don’t have to sign a contract to go in the ocean.

Not on the “thrill seeker” side of things there are soldiers – men who willingly risk their lives for what they perceive is a worthy cause. They know full well that they could die. I know they aren’t happy with the idea and they aren’t seeking to die but they know it’s a risk.

I guess it’s that a suicide intends to die, while the soldier accepts that it’s a possibility but doesn’t want to, and the thrill seeker doesn’t really consider it. It is intention.

I’m not saying that stupidity or honour is on par with actually taking one’s life – what I am saying is that since suicide could be the result of mental illnesses and drug side-effects can they really be considered to be taking their life of their own volition? I mean real free-will? I know some can resist these impulses – but what if the imbalance is that bad or the illness that far progressed?

I’ve never read an exclusion clause. I’d like to think that there’s something to help but I don’t believe in reincarnation or past-lives despite the romanticism behind them – mainly because I don’t like the idea that my personality as it is has nothing to do with my soul and I could have just as easily been a male born in 1955. However, I know that Judaism has explicit mention of past-lives, and that Christianity isn't mutually exclusive with the idea. Hell, a younger me thought that it was a good explanation as to why Heaven wouldn't be overcrowded.

Actually, I’d be likely to believe such a theory if said second chance took the form of them being reborn without said illness or imbalance thus giving them a chance to relive their life over... however that would be unfair to those who don't get a second chance unless everything except said imbalance/illness was the same but that would go against the concept of free-will which is something I believe in thus I couldn't believe that theory anyway...
Not to mention that it would seem to imply that I either I monumentally frakked up my past life attempts and am on my nth chance with God, or that I haven't frakked up but am still supposed to live all this out again and risk on of my future lives frakking up the afterlife for all of "me". On top of that I have no small amount of distaste for the idea that if I could have married multiple people already at that once I die whatever vows I made/make ultimately mean nothing. But that's getting into my personal weirdness.

And then we look to those who were dying and then committed suicide. For instance, a person dying of a particularly painful disease. They have days, weeks, maybe months to live but all in complete agony. Is it so bad that maybe they don't want to wither away like that? By that same token, would a person refusing further medical help be considered suicide if said treatment could extend their life? Personally, I don't know - I'd imagine my thoughts may change if a relative/friend chose such a route.
I so love chasing myself in a circle... not.
This post doesn’t involve me coming to some sort of brilliant conclusion, a minor epiphany, or even some weird little decision. It’s just me wondering what is going on here.

My wounds cry for the grave:
My soul cries for deliverance.
Will I be denied?
Christ!
Tourniquet!
My suicide...

A Little Whimsy

Partially because I don't feel like posting and have not finished any of my drafts, and partially because I'm in an odd mood I present instead... music!

This song just makes me smile when I listen to it, so there.

Lisa Mitchell - Coin Laundry



There I was
Sitting on the top of the world
In a coin laundry.
Well I could have been royalty
Sitting in the palace like a queen.

Do you have a dollar?
Do you have a dollar for me?
Have you got a house on a hill
And a bed for three?

Oh do you have a story
Do you have a story for me?
Do you know the one where
We'll all live happily?

Do you, do you?
Do you, do you?

So now I'm here
Sitting on the edge
Throwing these stones to the long lost friends.
I could have been a common thief
Sitting in the dirt quite happily.

Do you have a dollar?
Do you have a dollar for me?
Maybe just an hour or two
And a pot of tea?

Have you got a memory
Have you got a memory for me?
Tell me about the days when
You were seventeen.

Do you, do you?
Do you, do you?

Do you have a dollar?
Do you have a dollar for me?
Have you got a little old house
And a lemon tree?

Do you have a reason?
Do you have a reason for me?
Can I be the girl that you met in a coin laundry?

Can I be the girl that you met,
Can I be the girl that you met,
Can I be the girl that you met in the coin laundry?

Oh can I be the girl that you met,
Can I be the girl that you met,
Can I be the girl that you met in the coin laundry?

Wrong Role Models

Recently I've been thinking about how the media can effect people. Particularly their view on relationships and such.
I don't just mean TV, I mean music and movies too.

This idea came to me while I was sitting through an episode of "Friends" - a famous American sitcom which my Mum loves and which I watched for the sake of one character. Those familiar with the show know that for most of the series we sit on the edge of our seats, waiting for Ross and Rachel to get together. I realized that Ross was a horrible male "role model" - that is a horrible model of a male for women. He cheats, he's spoilt, he's arrogant, he's not a good catch. At all. But we're supposed to think he is.

Then I realized that this happened in most sitcoms, especially the ones of note.

Happy Days had the Fonz, whose influence upon society was so great that when he bought a library card in the show US library card sales skyrocketed. With the exception of a short story line, he has multiple girls on his arms and is never seen with the same one twice. And despite him going through women like tissues all the girls still wanted him and the guys wanted to be him. In the Happy Days universe, everyone treats him as something special.

The aforementioned Friends had Ross Gellar and Joey Tribiani. While I know quite a few people who despise Ross, we still had to hear the "audience" ooh and aaah over his every action. Cheat on Rachel? But look how sad he is! Say Rachel's name when getting married to Emily? Awwww, he's in love with Rachel. Some guy leaves Rachel a phone message? Oh of course hide the message Ross, that's the mature thing to do. But he's in love with her! Never mind that he can date other women!
And then we have Joey, who will sleep with anything. Sure he's sweet and kind to his friends - just hope you're not one of his one-night stands.
The only male left is Chandler - who is pretty much the butt-monkey of the group despite being the only one whose One True Pairing isn't disfunctional as hell.

Finally, the worst of all offenders, and I know this isn't a popular opinion, is How I Met Your Mother - my sister's favourite program and one that I have seen every goddamned episode of.
I'm not going to mention Barney though - Ted's the one I take issue with. The lead character, the one out for "true love". One one-night-stand at a time. I understand that we have a girl-of-the-week show here so I shouldn't be expecting long term relationships. I know that he was serious about Stella (that was a sad storyline - I do feel sorry for him there). But look at the how many girls - look at the breakup with Robin. He, like Ross, got all up in arms after Robin started dating one guy despite all the girls he had dated since. Also, we do realize that he's telling his kids these stories? And not in a cautionary way or anything.
Not to mention how the "moral of the story" of each show almost always results in "Ted's right". And even if it doesn't result in that we have things like "Nothing good happens after 2am". Really? Blame it on the time? I've stayed up later than that and still managed not to act like a douchebag. Barney at least owns up to the fact that he's a manwhore - more importantly, so does everyone else in the program. Ted is just "looking for The One" - and that's how everyone treats it.

Finally, take some pop music from the 70s or 80s and listen to the love songs in particular. You will be hardpressed to find one where the theme isn't "I'll die without you", or "Let's get physical (and that will fix everything / show how much I love you)". Mum says that the music my generation listens to is bad - at least it's not trying to disguise it's meaning. The songs of her generation seem to spout the myth that sleeping with a person is the magical fix-it to every relationship problem which, when combined with the sitcoms and even on it's own, is a bloody awful message.

Ultimately, my problem here is that these males are being portrayed as "good". Really look at them. They're men who believe that they are entitled to a sexual past but the women they want aren't - or a future after them. Everything bad that happens is never their fault. Basically, they're full of double standards - and they're portrayed sympathetically. It's much like the biggest complaint about Twilight - Bella doesn't even recognize that the relationship is abusive.

The message is that this is what a good man is. Maybe for some women this is their dream guy, but a show needs to portray them for their flaws too and not try to turn those flaws into some sort of "awww how cute" thing.

The media needs to realize the subtle messages it's sending. It's not the Barneys who's dangerous to the generations watching him - it's the Teds because their flaws aren't addressed in-universe (at least not for more than one episode). If those around the problem don't recognize it, then the viewers (especially the younger ones) don't recognize it as one.

Change in Schedule

Due to my university timetable, I am changing updates from Mondays and/or Wednesdays to Thursdays and/or Fridays until the previously mentioned timeslot becomes convenient again.

So... yeah.