My Beliefs about Karma and Soul Mates
I believe a few things about karma. One, karma is cycle and patterns. Two, these cycles and patterns can be seen throughout a life and sometimes they can be broken. Three, these cycles can be carried over from previous lives. Everyone has a pattern-- whether it be that they date people who cheat, they can't seem to find love, or when someone is attracted to a certain culture or a certain time period.
In everyone's life, there are ebbs and flows. Sometimes money, friends, and love are in an abundance; other times you can't pay a bum to hang out with you-- mostly because you don't have the money but also because there wouldn't be one who wanted to be around you. This is just the natural cycle.
What happens in one lifetime can be made up for in another lifetime. For example, if one person had good luck and fortune in one life time, that pattern can either continue or it can b the opposite that they'd have bad luck and misfortune.
Sometimes we have karma with people. It might be unfinished business. It might be that we are changing roles through several lifetimes, like within our families and close friends. This leads into Soul Mates. To my understanding, there are several types of soul mates. There are people who come in briefly into your life and they help you in some way. There are your family and close friends that are meant to be in your life for the long haul. Then, there's the romantic love soul mate-- the one and only. However, I believe that throughout many lifetimes, our souls are going through journey of attaining goals and they're reaching different levels in their journey. Sometimes, we meet with our soul mates before this life and decide whether or not to meet them during this life. It might be that we need to attend to a goal for our soul journey and that goals is so intensive, we won't meet the soul mate.
In conclusion, karma is the cycle of a lifetime and over the course of several lifetimes. Soul mates include many people, including helpers, friends and family, and romantic love soul mates. We can decide to not meet our soul mate in this lifetime.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
You're Branded
You're branded. You've been branded from the time you could remember and on. First, you had Fisher Price. You had all these things that Fisher Price made. Then, you moved onto books and movies. All of those are brands. Then, you were at the peak time of consumerism. You wanted toys, you wanted movies, you wanted music, video games, game consoles; you wanted the same brand of backpacks as everyone else, the same clothing from the same brands. You didn't want to be the kid that didn't have those things. Those weren't the cool kids. They were most likely poor. And being poor was looked down upon. You didn't want to be seen as poor.
Today, kids have Disney. Disney brands just about every kid with adventure heroes, princesses, Tinkerbell, and Disney Radio. These princesses and heroes have a character already. There's no need for kids to display any sort of creativity because they know how Belle, Tinker Bell, and Jasmin would react in any given situation.
I really think that any shirt that has a company logo should be given out for free or they should pay you to wear it. You are advertising them. You know these shirts-- Old Navy, Ambercrombie, American Eagle, Ed Hardy, etc. There is no point in buying these shirts. You are advertising for them. Even if it's not obvious, we are aware of brand names. Some people can tell you about an Express shirt or a Calvin Klein shirt and know when they see them. You are still advertising them even if it's just by the tag on the shirt.What sense does it make that you are paying to do their advertising? It's like you're paying to be a walking billboard for them. It's not advertising that you shop there-- although in some circles that would be considered cool.You are just advertising the company.
We've also been branded by jingles, slogans and commercials. While no one wants to admit the power of the influence of commercials, no one wants to admit, either, that there isn't much choice. If you know the name of the brand, then you are likely to buy the name that you know. How many times have you seen a brand you haven't seen before? When you have, have you passed it up to get the name brand? The other day, someone said, "Don't get mad, get glad." He was branded. He's telling me something to kind of make me laugh but at the same time, it made me upset because he's branded. He's identifying that he's branded. He's trying to get me to admit that he's branded and I'm branded the same way. I know the commercial that he's talking about. There are times when the younger generation has no idea what I'm saying, although there's only a few years of difference between us, and there are times when I have no idea what they are talking about because I don't have the same commercial and slogan base that they do.
When I didn't have a TV, it's been interesting to see how people relate to each other. They watch the same shows, start talking about the story plots and where it could possibly go, they talk about the characters they like and who they despise. At least today, people can communicate to the shows and producers, which some shows and network advertise, such as HBO. There is some interaction. Before, there wasn't. You watched what you watched and that was it. You could discuss it and be part of the cool kids who watched the cool shows.
Even the people who don't think that they are branded are still branded unless they go out of the way to not be branded. If they get hand made clothes or choose to make their own. And the people who think they are rebellious by dressing out of the norm or dying their hair-- are still getting their clothing and hair dye from somewhere. You can't run away from being branded. It's not easy. You can't even run away from being a consumer. You're always a consumer and a slave to money.
Now, choose which brands you really want to advertise and what you want to say about yourself when you choose what you wear in the morning or afternoon and night. Also, consider buying dolls and toys from toy shops. No, not Toys R Us or K.B. Toys. I'm talking about the little toy stores where there are educational toys. These places also have princesses and ballerina and action figures that don't have a defined character-- meaning that kids can actually use their imagination to create characters, stories, conflict and resolution.
Today, kids have Disney. Disney brands just about every kid with adventure heroes, princesses, Tinkerbell, and Disney Radio. These princesses and heroes have a character already. There's no need for kids to display any sort of creativity because they know how Belle, Tinker Bell, and Jasmin would react in any given situation.
I really think that any shirt that has a company logo should be given out for free or they should pay you to wear it. You are advertising them. You know these shirts-- Old Navy, Ambercrombie, American Eagle, Ed Hardy, etc. There is no point in buying these shirts. You are advertising for them. Even if it's not obvious, we are aware of brand names. Some people can tell you about an Express shirt or a Calvin Klein shirt and know when they see them. You are still advertising them even if it's just by the tag on the shirt.What sense does it make that you are paying to do their advertising? It's like you're paying to be a walking billboard for them. It's not advertising that you shop there-- although in some circles that would be considered cool.You are just advertising the company.
We've also been branded by jingles, slogans and commercials. While no one wants to admit the power of the influence of commercials, no one wants to admit, either, that there isn't much choice. If you know the name of the brand, then you are likely to buy the name that you know. How many times have you seen a brand you haven't seen before? When you have, have you passed it up to get the name brand? The other day, someone said, "Don't get mad, get glad." He was branded. He's telling me something to kind of make me laugh but at the same time, it made me upset because he's branded. He's identifying that he's branded. He's trying to get me to admit that he's branded and I'm branded the same way. I know the commercial that he's talking about. There are times when the younger generation has no idea what I'm saying, although there's only a few years of difference between us, and there are times when I have no idea what they are talking about because I don't have the same commercial and slogan base that they do.
When I didn't have a TV, it's been interesting to see how people relate to each other. They watch the same shows, start talking about the story plots and where it could possibly go, they talk about the characters they like and who they despise. At least today, people can communicate to the shows and producers, which some shows and network advertise, such as HBO. There is some interaction. Before, there wasn't. You watched what you watched and that was it. You could discuss it and be part of the cool kids who watched the cool shows.
Even the people who don't think that they are branded are still branded unless they go out of the way to not be branded. If they get hand made clothes or choose to make their own. And the people who think they are rebellious by dressing out of the norm or dying their hair-- are still getting their clothing and hair dye from somewhere. You can't run away from being branded. It's not easy. You can't even run away from being a consumer. You're always a consumer and a slave to money.
Now, choose which brands you really want to advertise and what you want to say about yourself when you choose what you wear in the morning or afternoon and night. Also, consider buying dolls and toys from toy shops. No, not Toys R Us or K.B. Toys. I'm talking about the little toy stores where there are educational toys. These places also have princesses and ballerina and action figures that don't have a defined character-- meaning that kids can actually use their imagination to create characters, stories, conflict and resolution.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Safety in Mental Health Facilities *Warning: Graphic Photos*
I've been following the story of safety in California state mental health facilities. In October of 2010, a patient who had permission to walk around the Napa State Hospital grounds cornered a social worker between two buildings and beat her to death. Employees there said that each one of them had been assaulted by patients.
Today, NPR did another story (linked here) about the California state mental health facilities, particularly one in Los Angeles. The employees picket at lunch time, gathering support from those who drive by. They had talked about it's not if they get assaulted, it's when they get assaulted. Even though California is in debt, they were able to give an extra $10 million dollars to the state facilities. I'm not entirely sure how many state hospitals there are and if this includes any state hospital or just the mental hospitals, but if there's more than 10, that's about or less than $1 million dollars each. They are the only state facilities that are hiring during the time of debt because there are great issues with safety. In the article, Diana Dooley, the secretary of California's Health and Human Services Agency, says that even $100 million dollars isn't enough "in terms of advocates of the patients and the workers and the need." No, no, I think that $100 million dollars is enough to hire more people, have police presence, and to ensure safety regulations and precautions of both workers and patients.
I wonder about the facilities that are not state run. In the 1990's, many state run facilities in CT were closed. Some former patients are still being reintroduced into society and trying to make it work with some state supported agencies. Others had difficulty and were sent either out of state or to other in-state facilities. There are a few for-profit, privately ran facilities remaining in CT. Although the state and federal government can give money for certain things such as becoming a teaching hospital or accepting patients with state insurance, there is little that can be given in the name of safety.
I worked at a privately run behavioral health facility for over 2 years. For two years, they worked me hard and often criticizing every little detail while not showing much appreciation for me or many other workers. At some point, they decided it would be better if they were a hospital that accepted patients with state insurance. For all of its history, it had been a place for upper class (wealthy) people to go to when they were mentally unstable. It had been a place where there was a sense of community and stays were long. Over the course of the years, the length of stay became shorter and shorter and the patients have become increasingly hostile and physically aggressive. Once the state insurance was accepted, patients who had been in prison and who were low income were admitted. The staff was concerned at the onset that there would be issues with people who had previously been to jail for violent crimes.
I saw many fights, heard of many attacks, and witnessed some of these attacks on patients and staff. The administrators were saying that they were not admitting violent patients while all staff knew they were. In one instance a patient (Patient A) was isolated from the community because he attacked another patient (Patient B). And staff and administrators blamed the Patient B for flirting with the Patient A. They did not point out that the Patient A waited for the chance when no staff would be around so that he could attack her. It could be that the administration's definition of violence was different from the rest of the staff.
Administration felt that they would be best to cover their own butts. They made every person who worked for the hospital, including the desk clerk, secretaries, and people who worked in the gift shop, to attend a safety meeting. They gave lots of cock and bull stories and emphasized that everyone had a role in safety. After taking this course, any incident that caused harm to a patient or staff was blamed on every staff who was around. This included the injuries sustained to a security guard who was injured while pulling two patients apart during a fight. He was blamed for the injury because he was doing his job. This safety meeting was developed after they had lawsuits on their hands (Isn't that a big surprise?-- sorry, had to get sarcastic there for a second).
The fact is that many of the nurses and mental health workers say repeatedly that there aren't enough staff, especially for evening shifts and on weekends. An evening weekend shift has the least amount of people. Patients pay attention to these things. If they were to make sure of a calculated time to attack others or to get out of control, they would do it at that time.
Administrators and doctors have the most control over policy. They also tend to have numerous biases and lack understanding of the duties of mental health workers and nursing staff. I challenge any of the doctors or administrators there to work as a mental health worker at mental health worker pay for a week. I would expect that after experiencing the difficulty with duties as well as lack of good pay, appreciation, and other staff around, there would definitely be changes. On a side note, many mental health workers work 16 hours and go home for 8 hours only to come back for another 16 hours. If you've ever been up for that long, it doesn't make for a good, alert worker. I would hope that doctors and administrators would have a better understanding of the difficulty of a the job of a mental health worker or worse if they could even imagine being in that job.
After I gave my notice to terminated my employment there, there were more out of control patients, security guards who usually work at night would be called in for earlier shifts, and more of my sweet coworkers were attacked. A known violent patient was admitted while the doctors and administrators were surprised and said they didn't know how that happened. In the following four days of this patient's admission, he assaulted at least two staff and knocked out another. He was supposed to be in chemical restraints, which meant that he was on a great amount of medication that made him too drowsy to do much than sleep. He went to a facility for violent patients where staff receive hazard pay and can retire at an early age because of the difficulty of their work. As time has gone on, I have encouraged all of my coworkers to demand hazard pay. At this point, I'd love to see them picket and watch administration scramble.
At this point, the LOS is very short, staff is burning out fast, and the administration is only looking at the bottom line and to protect themselves. They appear to me to have little interest in the well being of staff or patients. It's gotten the feel that staff just baby sits and can't do anything while patients act out or require higher levels of care than the facility can't provide.
As you can tell this is a subject that I'm very passionate about and will continue to write about.
Today, NPR did another story (linked here) about the California state mental health facilities, particularly one in Los Angeles. The employees picket at lunch time, gathering support from those who drive by. They had talked about it's not if they get assaulted, it's when they get assaulted. Even though California is in debt, they were able to give an extra $10 million dollars to the state facilities. I'm not entirely sure how many state hospitals there are and if this includes any state hospital or just the mental hospitals, but if there's more than 10, that's about or less than $1 million dollars each. They are the only state facilities that are hiring during the time of debt because there are great issues with safety. In the article, Diana Dooley, the secretary of California's Health and Human Services Agency, says that even $100 million dollars isn't enough "in terms of advocates of the patients and the workers and the need." No, no, I think that $100 million dollars is enough to hire more people, have police presence, and to ensure safety regulations and precautions of both workers and patients.
I wonder about the facilities that are not state run. In the 1990's, many state run facilities in CT were closed. Some former patients are still being reintroduced into society and trying to make it work with some state supported agencies. Others had difficulty and were sent either out of state or to other in-state facilities. There are a few for-profit, privately ran facilities remaining in CT. Although the state and federal government can give money for certain things such as becoming a teaching hospital or accepting patients with state insurance, there is little that can be given in the name of safety.
 |
| This is the arm of my coworker, Mike, after a rough code from a young patient. Codes are when patients' behavior are out of control. |
I worked at a privately run behavioral health facility for over 2 years. For two years, they worked me hard and often criticizing every little detail while not showing much appreciation for me or many other workers. At some point, they decided it would be better if they were a hospital that accepted patients with state insurance. For all of its history, it had been a place for upper class (wealthy) people to go to when they were mentally unstable. It had been a place where there was a sense of community and stays were long. Over the course of the years, the length of stay became shorter and shorter and the patients have become increasingly hostile and physically aggressive. Once the state insurance was accepted, patients who had been in prison and who were low income were admitted. The staff was concerned at the onset that there would be issues with people who had previously been to jail for violent crimes.
I saw many fights, heard of many attacks, and witnessed some of these attacks on patients and staff. The administrators were saying that they were not admitting violent patients while all staff knew they were. In one instance a patient (Patient A) was isolated from the community because he attacked another patient (Patient B). And staff and administrators blamed the Patient B for flirting with the Patient A. They did not point out that the Patient A waited for the chance when no staff would be around so that he could attack her. It could be that the administration's definition of violence was different from the rest of the staff.
Administration felt that they would be best to cover their own butts. They made every person who worked for the hospital, including the desk clerk, secretaries, and people who worked in the gift shop, to attend a safety meeting. They gave lots of cock and bull stories and emphasized that everyone had a role in safety. After taking this course, any incident that caused harm to a patient or staff was blamed on every staff who was around. This included the injuries sustained to a security guard who was injured while pulling two patients apart during a fight. He was blamed for the injury because he was doing his job. This safety meeting was developed after they had lawsuits on their hands (Isn't that a big surprise?-- sorry, had to get sarcastic there for a second).
 |
| This is another angle of Mike's arm after a rough code. |
The fact is that many of the nurses and mental health workers say repeatedly that there aren't enough staff, especially for evening shifts and on weekends. An evening weekend shift has the least amount of people. Patients pay attention to these things. If they were to make sure of a calculated time to attack others or to get out of control, they would do it at that time.
Administrators and doctors have the most control over policy. They also tend to have numerous biases and lack understanding of the duties of mental health workers and nursing staff. I challenge any of the doctors or administrators there to work as a mental health worker at mental health worker pay for a week. I would expect that after experiencing the difficulty with duties as well as lack of good pay, appreciation, and other staff around, there would definitely be changes. On a side note, many mental health workers work 16 hours and go home for 8 hours only to come back for another 16 hours. If you've ever been up for that long, it doesn't make for a good, alert worker. I would hope that doctors and administrators would have a better understanding of the difficulty of a the job of a mental health worker or worse if they could even imagine being in that job.
After I gave my notice to terminated my employment there, there were more out of control patients, security guards who usually work at night would be called in for earlier shifts, and more of my sweet coworkers were attacked. A known violent patient was admitted while the doctors and administrators were surprised and said they didn't know how that happened. In the following four days of this patient's admission, he assaulted at least two staff and knocked out another. He was supposed to be in chemical restraints, which meant that he was on a great amount of medication that made him too drowsy to do much than sleep. He went to a facility for violent patients where staff receive hazard pay and can retire at an early age because of the difficulty of their work. As time has gone on, I have encouraged all of my coworkers to demand hazard pay. At this point, I'd love to see them picket and watch administration scramble.
At this point, the LOS is very short, staff is burning out fast, and the administration is only looking at the bottom line and to protect themselves. They appear to me to have little interest in the well being of staff or patients. It's gotten the feel that staff just baby sits and can't do anything while patients act out or require higher levels of care than the facility can't provide.
As you can tell this is a subject that I'm very passionate about and will continue to write about.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Thoughts on Videos of Draco Reptilians
About two years ago, a patient was admitted to the mental health facility. She was about 17. At times, she could keep herself together and other times, she would talk about the evil and reptilians she had read about on the Internet. To say the least, I was curious about these things she had read. I had been told many times that the two bumps (I assume they are from using expired eye make up) on my eyelid scare people because it reminds them of a lizard. I was fearful that she would think I was a reptilian person.
Here's what my eyelid looks like:
Lately, a friend on Facebook has been posting videos and articles about the Illuminati and Reptilian people. Since most of the video clips are from youtube, I tend to get lost in looking at them. I've seen a lot of Reptilian videos where the person assumes that if you are watching it, you know what to look for. I saw one that was explained what to look for (the link is here ). This and other videos include:
1. Blinking more than 3 or 4 times.
2. While blinking, "whatever they wear over their eye" is pulled upwards.
3. As they change on camera, they put their hands in their face or divert away from themselves.
4. A green tint around their eyes or mouth.
5. Scaly skin particularly around their eyes.
6. Eyes look cat-like or reptilian.
7. Teeth appear to come and go.
8. There's a large amount of Reptilian women who are in porn and their eyes and body change right on camera.
First, the blinking. There are many politicians and news anchors who blink a lot. It might be because they are lying, nervous, or it's a character flaw. It's a difficult thing to overcome and control.
Second, none of this stuff is at all contributed to camera, computer or processing glitches. Many of the videos, (an example is here ), can be contributed to just glitches. I try to put myself in the theorists place. A few explanations that I can think of are that their energy field affects the camera or an overall, "that's what they want you to believe." At one point, I even thought if it happens to the same person over and over again then maybe it's more than coincidence. Then, I did see incidents happen again and again, with two different reporters. I thought about the likelihood that one of the reporters has the same equipment on scene with her all the time since she is often "on scene." The other one is often reporting from all over the world and the feed is not so great so there are glitches.
Third, a lot of points three through seven are tough. The video quality is usually bad-- from either the original recording, the recording of the original, or by the pixilation from their tampering with the video and image. I don't think anyone accounts for stage lighting or angle. I've seen some videos where people are moving around quite a bit and in some angles their eyes and teeth look one way when in another they look completely different two seconds later.
Fourth, the women in porn. Yes, this again. Eyes change a lot depending on mood. What they were showing in these videos were women giving blow jobs (that were delicately removed from the video to only focus on the face of the woman) and when she looked up at the guy, her eyes changed. Maybe she's just really into it and that's why her eyes are changing.
Some thing that I keep in the back of my mind is that a lot of these videos have either some soft music (and usually does not match my taste) or nothing at all. Now, maybe you haven't had these experiences but there are videos out there where it's quiet and you're looking at a scene, focusing really hard when image quickly comes on the screen, screams and scares the bejubus out of you. I find myself staring so hard at the screen and it's usually quiet that I start jumping ahead in the video to make sure that there's nothing that's going to pop up to scare me.
In the end, I think if I could see a well polished video with some admission of skepticism, I might really consider these theories. Right now, it's easily dismissed with simple psychology, as well as lighting, cameras and computer glitches.
Here's what my eyelid looks like:
Lately, a friend on Facebook has been posting videos and articles about the Illuminati and Reptilian people. Since most of the video clips are from youtube, I tend to get lost in looking at them. I've seen a lot of Reptilian videos where the person assumes that if you are watching it, you know what to look for. I saw one that was explained what to look for (the link is here ). This and other videos include:
1. Blinking more than 3 or 4 times.
2. While blinking, "whatever they wear over their eye" is pulled upwards.
3. As they change on camera, they put their hands in their face or divert away from themselves.
4. A green tint around their eyes or mouth.
5. Scaly skin particularly around their eyes.
6. Eyes look cat-like or reptilian.
7. Teeth appear to come and go.
8. There's a large amount of Reptilian women who are in porn and their eyes and body change right on camera.
First, the blinking. There are many politicians and news anchors who blink a lot. It might be because they are lying, nervous, or it's a character flaw. It's a difficult thing to overcome and control.
Second, none of this stuff is at all contributed to camera, computer or processing glitches. Many of the videos, (an example is here ), can be contributed to just glitches. I try to put myself in the theorists place. A few explanations that I can think of are that their energy field affects the camera or an overall, "that's what they want you to believe." At one point, I even thought if it happens to the same person over and over again then maybe it's more than coincidence. Then, I did see incidents happen again and again, with two different reporters. I thought about the likelihood that one of the reporters has the same equipment on scene with her all the time since she is often "on scene." The other one is often reporting from all over the world and the feed is not so great so there are glitches.
Third, a lot of points three through seven are tough. The video quality is usually bad-- from either the original recording, the recording of the original, or by the pixilation from their tampering with the video and image. I don't think anyone accounts for stage lighting or angle. I've seen some videos where people are moving around quite a bit and in some angles their eyes and teeth look one way when in another they look completely different two seconds later.
Fourth, the women in porn. Yes, this again. Eyes change a lot depending on mood. What they were showing in these videos were women giving blow jobs (that were delicately removed from the video to only focus on the face of the woman) and when she looked up at the guy, her eyes changed. Maybe she's just really into it and that's why her eyes are changing.
Some thing that I keep in the back of my mind is that a lot of these videos have either some soft music (and usually does not match my taste) or nothing at all. Now, maybe you haven't had these experiences but there are videos out there where it's quiet and you're looking at a scene, focusing really hard when image quickly comes on the screen, screams and scares the bejubus out of you. I find myself staring so hard at the screen and it's usually quiet that I start jumping ahead in the video to make sure that there's nothing that's going to pop up to scare me.
In the end, I think if I could see a well polished video with some admission of skepticism, I might really consider these theories. Right now, it's easily dismissed with simple psychology, as well as lighting, cameras and computer glitches.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Things I take into consideration when it comes to porn
Porn is one of the many issues that feminist tend to have heavy debates over. There are certain facts I agree with the anti-porn feminists about- 1. porn is tough work and 2. people are exploited when they do it. Most anti-porn feminists want porn banned. I definitely do not agree that society would be better if porn were banned.
One of my main concerns is that if porn gets banned, where does the censorship stop? Many people know the saying that they can't put into words what porn exactly is and how it becomes obscene or offensive but they know it when they see it. My imagination goes to the extreme-- when would a picture or painting of a naked body be allowed? I worry that people would become very sensitive to any nudity, whether or not it was art or porn or artistic porn, and that there would be no naked pictures. Two areas that I'm concerned about is where would people find informative pictures about their bodies and would videos about techniques or "how to spice up your sex life" type movies be allowed? I also wonder about romance novels and erotica literature. Do they get banned too? I don't have the answer for those questions. In the past, when porn has been banned from being mailed, great works (such as Playboy and Lady Chatterly's Lover) as well as information about women's bodies and birth control were constricted. I am very concerned about this happening again if porn were banned.
If there were no naked pictures, there would be some consequences to this. One, people would not be informed about their own body. There are some medical artists who would be able to do justice to an informative representation of a penis, vagina, or breast. It would not have the same effect as seeing real pictures of the body. While the medical pictures can be descriptive of what is average, it cannot entirely describe the variety of vaginas and penises that are out there. Two, there are people out there who aren't great at socializing. It may be because they are mentally or physically handicapped or just socially awkward. You may or may not know someone like this. Without porn and without nude photos, these people would be at a disadvantage. Just like everyone else, they have the right to happiness and for some, that can be masturbation in leui of a relationship with another person. Most of the time these articles written by anti-porn feminist are focused on the perceived inner workings of violent men. They make claims that men watch porn, begin treating women like objects, and raping and murdering them. And there are a few people out there like that. Those people also watch TV and drink water (yes, that was a flippant statement, made in jest). Those aren't the people I'm talking about. I'm talking about the sweet people. The ones who yearn for relationships. The ones who go into their fantasy world of having wife or husband or lover, someone who takes care of them, someone who they would love and adore. They're the ones who want sex and to make love. Yet, they don't. They don't have that and that goal may or may not ever be achieved in their lives. They have the right to view porn, if they choose. I dare say, it can even be healthy.
The other main concern is that if porn continues, there needs to be strict standards. Companies should be boycotted if they allow actors and actresses to wear out their bodies i.e. work for hours, doing multiple penetration, etc, to not wear protection, and not get independent health check ups on a regular, 3 months at least; 6 months at most, basis. There are some porn companies who already have these type of standards. What I would really like to see is people going into Russia to change their porn industry. I understand this is a big thing. I have found Russian porn is the most offensive. They really do make you believe that they are raping and murdering women. If it's not the real thing, it sure looks like it.
An important factor that I consider if how much more women are paid compared to men in the porn industry. Most research focuses on men watching porn and women as the actresses in porn. I tend to focus on the opposite-- women who watch porn and men as the actors in porn. In all the research and opinion articles, women who watch porn are ignored. There is little said about the men in porn movies. It seems that others dismiss them. By ignore them, it could be possible that these writers are objectifying them or minimizing their role. I imgine that the reason is "Oh, they're just a penis" or "They enjoy having sex with women anyway."
All-in-all, it's best to consider the other ways that porn impacts society. Allowing porn to continue opens up the pathways to have easy access information about the human body. Porn also benefits those who are socially inept. Still, there needs to be better standards of care for all actors and actresses who choose to work in this industry.
One of my main concerns is that if porn gets banned, where does the censorship stop? Many people know the saying that they can't put into words what porn exactly is and how it becomes obscene or offensive but they know it when they see it. My imagination goes to the extreme-- when would a picture or painting of a naked body be allowed? I worry that people would become very sensitive to any nudity, whether or not it was art or porn or artistic porn, and that there would be no naked pictures. Two areas that I'm concerned about is where would people find informative pictures about their bodies and would videos about techniques or "how to spice up your sex life" type movies be allowed? I also wonder about romance novels and erotica literature. Do they get banned too? I don't have the answer for those questions. In the past, when porn has been banned from being mailed, great works (such as Playboy and Lady Chatterly's Lover) as well as information about women's bodies and birth control were constricted. I am very concerned about this happening again if porn were banned.
If there were no naked pictures, there would be some consequences to this. One, people would not be informed about their own body. There are some medical artists who would be able to do justice to an informative representation of a penis, vagina, or breast. It would not have the same effect as seeing real pictures of the body. While the medical pictures can be descriptive of what is average, it cannot entirely describe the variety of vaginas and penises that are out there. Two, there are people out there who aren't great at socializing. It may be because they are mentally or physically handicapped or just socially awkward. You may or may not know someone like this. Without porn and without nude photos, these people would be at a disadvantage. Just like everyone else, they have the right to happiness and for some, that can be masturbation in leui of a relationship with another person. Most of the time these articles written by anti-porn feminist are focused on the perceived inner workings of violent men. They make claims that men watch porn, begin treating women like objects, and raping and murdering them. And there are a few people out there like that. Those people also watch TV and drink water (yes, that was a flippant statement, made in jest). Those aren't the people I'm talking about. I'm talking about the sweet people. The ones who yearn for relationships. The ones who go into their fantasy world of having wife or husband or lover, someone who takes care of them, someone who they would love and adore. They're the ones who want sex and to make love. Yet, they don't. They don't have that and that goal may or may not ever be achieved in their lives. They have the right to view porn, if they choose. I dare say, it can even be healthy.
The other main concern is that if porn continues, there needs to be strict standards. Companies should be boycotted if they allow actors and actresses to wear out their bodies i.e. work for hours, doing multiple penetration, etc, to not wear protection, and not get independent health check ups on a regular, 3 months at least; 6 months at most, basis. There are some porn companies who already have these type of standards. What I would really like to see is people going into Russia to change their porn industry. I understand this is a big thing. I have found Russian porn is the most offensive. They really do make you believe that they are raping and murdering women. If it's not the real thing, it sure looks like it.
An important factor that I consider if how much more women are paid compared to men in the porn industry. Most research focuses on men watching porn and women as the actresses in porn. I tend to focus on the opposite-- women who watch porn and men as the actors in porn. In all the research and opinion articles, women who watch porn are ignored. There is little said about the men in porn movies. It seems that others dismiss them. By ignore them, it could be possible that these writers are objectifying them or minimizing their role. I imgine that the reason is "Oh, they're just a penis" or "They enjoy having sex with women anyway."
All-in-all, it's best to consider the other ways that porn impacts society. Allowing porn to continue opens up the pathways to have easy access information about the human body. Porn also benefits those who are socially inept. Still, there needs to be better standards of care for all actors and actresses who choose to work in this industry.
Friday, March 11, 2011
It's Unethical
Being a therapist and counselor puts me in a field with some amazing people and with some people who know how to get through school and take tests. I have known people who will do anything for their patients/clients and have known people who have no idea what they're doing. I seem to have a never ending "a therapist did that!?" list.
One of those moments came a few days ago. I saw video of Dr. Drew talking about Charlie Sheen. Dr. Drew said that he had not spoken to Charlie Sheen. Dr. Drew made it a point to mention his 20 years of experience, he has seen this many times so he is able to talk about the symptoms and his diagnosis of Mr. Sheen.
Although I've been in this field for a short time, I find it offensive that Dr. Drew is being his usual entitled and intrusive way. Dr. Drew not only felt it necessary to give an opinion about someone who he has not talked to but felt that he needed to justify it with his expertise.
As a part of my education, I had to take an ethics class. This usually meant having more questions than answers. There were some absolute guidelines. Most of those were surrounding the client/patient. However, we discussed at length about boundaries. There are lots of boundaries in this world. And one of them is to not to make assessments or diagnoses on people who has not met with a particular therapist. Another is that even if you have an opinion about someone, keep it to yourself.
One thing that stood out to me is being aware of myopia. When a therapist becomes myopic, they only see what they know. I had a supervisor who only worked with people diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Eventually, she only saw art work in terms of psychosis. She once had a patient who drew a fountain the day before he tried to commit suicide. So, every colorful fountain seem to be a symbol, in her mind, of suicidal thoughts. While I respect any therapists' years of experiences, it may mean that they might only see what they want to see and are used to seeing.
In my experience, people are different when they are a celebrity, in the public eye all the time, and expect cameras to be around than when they have privacy and are in their own home. Everyone has a public persona have a private persona-- i.e. differences between being at home, at a doctor's office, and being at work. To judge only what one person does in public is not getting the full picture of the person.
I saw another doctor on Access Hollywood on a clip from the show "The Soup" (seen here ). The Soup's host said that the doctor was not dressed like a doctor and sarcastically said "Access Hollywood did the responsible thing and had a doctor diagnose Charlie in a completely unprofessional setting off a poorly made video, edited together with scary music." I think even Joel McHale can sense the unethical nature of these doctors who are willing to go on TV to diagnose a celebrity or someone who they have not met.
There's two issues I want to talk about briefly here:
One is that often the TV media outlets have a list of professions in various fields. For example, one of my professors had been on a TV show talking about robbery. When Winona Ryder was caught shoplifting, someone from the media contacted my professor, who had to explain she could not give her opinion about shoplifting since her expertise was in robbery (and the difference between the two). Anytime a TV show needs a professional, they go to this list. I have seen some crazy things on shows that use these lists.
The second item I want to bring up, which I have written about before, is when a person asked an art therapist to judge someone's artwork without watching the artwork being made. A woman approached me and asked me to do this regarding colors. I don't think that one color means the same thing to everyone so I didn't say anything about color. I did talk briefly about the patient's focus and what she said about the artwork that was made. In The Secret World of Drawings, author Gregg Furth does just this. He goes through various children's pictures as well as some pictures by famous artists. He writes a "how to look at pictures and analyze them" type of book. While there are some insights he makes about artwork, there are others that are very much up to interpretation. Basically, I wouldn't feel comfortable using his insights in practice. I would want to talk to the person, observe them making the artwork and if I couldn't do that, I'd at least want the person to tell me about the artwork.
Bottom line here is that these TV doctors have to keep up with boundaries and understand that diagnosing someone without talking to them is unethical. It seems that there are many doctors and therapists who have boundary issues and who feel entitled to diagnose or make assumptions based on whatever they find important or intriguing. I hope that these are just a few bad examples and that most people can see that this is all wrong.
One of those moments came a few days ago. I saw video of Dr. Drew talking about Charlie Sheen. Dr. Drew said that he had not spoken to Charlie Sheen. Dr. Drew made it a point to mention his 20 years of experience, he has seen this many times so he is able to talk about the symptoms and his diagnosis of Mr. Sheen.
Although I've been in this field for a short time, I find it offensive that Dr. Drew is being his usual entitled and intrusive way. Dr. Drew not only felt it necessary to give an opinion about someone who he has not talked to but felt that he needed to justify it with his expertise.
As a part of my education, I had to take an ethics class. This usually meant having more questions than answers. There were some absolute guidelines. Most of those were surrounding the client/patient. However, we discussed at length about boundaries. There are lots of boundaries in this world. And one of them is to not to make assessments or diagnoses on people who has not met with a particular therapist. Another is that even if you have an opinion about someone, keep it to yourself.
One thing that stood out to me is being aware of myopia. When a therapist becomes myopic, they only see what they know. I had a supervisor who only worked with people diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Eventually, she only saw art work in terms of psychosis. She once had a patient who drew a fountain the day before he tried to commit suicide. So, every colorful fountain seem to be a symbol, in her mind, of suicidal thoughts. While I respect any therapists' years of experiences, it may mean that they might only see what they want to see and are used to seeing.
In my experience, people are different when they are a celebrity, in the public eye all the time, and expect cameras to be around than when they have privacy and are in their own home. Everyone has a public persona have a private persona-- i.e. differences between being at home, at a doctor's office, and being at work. To judge only what one person does in public is not getting the full picture of the person.
I saw another doctor on Access Hollywood on a clip from the show "The Soup" (seen here ). The Soup's host said that the doctor was not dressed like a doctor and sarcastically said "Access Hollywood did the responsible thing and had a doctor diagnose Charlie in a completely unprofessional setting off a poorly made video, edited together with scary music." I think even Joel McHale can sense the unethical nature of these doctors who are willing to go on TV to diagnose a celebrity or someone who they have not met.
There's two issues I want to talk about briefly here:
One is that often the TV media outlets have a list of professions in various fields. For example, one of my professors had been on a TV show talking about robbery. When Winona Ryder was caught shoplifting, someone from the media contacted my professor, who had to explain she could not give her opinion about shoplifting since her expertise was in robbery (and the difference between the two). Anytime a TV show needs a professional, they go to this list. I have seen some crazy things on shows that use these lists.
The second item I want to bring up, which I have written about before, is when a person asked an art therapist to judge someone's artwork without watching the artwork being made. A woman approached me and asked me to do this regarding colors. I don't think that one color means the same thing to everyone so I didn't say anything about color. I did talk briefly about the patient's focus and what she said about the artwork that was made. In The Secret World of Drawings, author Gregg Furth does just this. He goes through various children's pictures as well as some pictures by famous artists. He writes a "how to look at pictures and analyze them" type of book. While there are some insights he makes about artwork, there are others that are very much up to interpretation. Basically, I wouldn't feel comfortable using his insights in practice. I would want to talk to the person, observe them making the artwork and if I couldn't do that, I'd at least want the person to tell me about the artwork.
Bottom line here is that these TV doctors have to keep up with boundaries and understand that diagnosing someone without talking to them is unethical. It seems that there are many doctors and therapists who have boundary issues and who feel entitled to diagnose or make assumptions based on whatever they find important or intriguing. I hope that these are just a few bad examples and that most people can see that this is all wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)