Stealing

I have been tempted to shoplift once. It began when the girl at the counter dropped the eye-shadow I was paying for on the floor and as a result the lid flew off and the makeup became dusty. So she told me to get myself another one, since I’ve already paid for it. What could I say, there was a shelf full of other pretty colours and lipstick in front of me and there was no security at the door and probably no alarm (this was Boot’s Dudley branch). I guess the attraction was the thrill of easily getting away with something that was considered “bad”. Plus, Rimmel aren’t going to cry over one lipstick worth £2 that was stolen from them, especially when the creator’s handbag is probably worth more than all of my possessions put together.

There is a reason why shoplifting is against the law. If it was legalised and everyone took whatever they wanted without paying, there would be no businesses or economy. However it seems to be acceptable by many, which isn’t surprising as according to BBC news, more than 3.5 million people have admitted shoplifting in the past five years in 2005http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4477596.stm.
It can be easily justified because no one is physically or mentally hurt when it’s committed. This is true, as you’re not stealing something that someone else has worked for or as someone pointed out in class, holding a gun to their face and causing trauma to that person. But as someone else pointed out, there is a spectrum in shoplifting. There is a difference between a teenager stealing one lip-gloss from Boots and someone who makes a living out of shoplifting to supply their drug habits. The latter can be classified as dangerous, especially for the consumer. If the consumer bought a stolen item and the police happened to find out, that person would be arrested, despite the fact that he/she didn’t know the item was stolen. And would the thief who sold it care? No, as long as they have the money to snort their pleasure. It can be argued that the police may never find out that the person had bought the stolen item, but it is the RISK that they may find out that makes this type of theft harmful.

So can petty shoplifting be justified? It depends on the store/shop. I personally would never shoplift from my local new agent because the owner knows my parents and I get on with him very well. Plus, he doesn’t charge £3 for a lollypop, so everything is never over priced. However, for larger (and more pretentious) chains, I can understand why some might shoplift. Top PR executive Belinda Mowbray wrote in ‘The Times Online’ on November 2007 “I was in a Topshop in Central London buying jeans. After I’d paid (I steal only from shops where I’ve also made a legitimate purchase), I spotted a little grey vest top I quite liked the look of. At £28 I could comfortably afford it, but thought it was very overpriced”. http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article2923540.ece
Of course £28 is reasonable of it is a plain vest by Jasper Conran. But for a highstreet quality I can see where Mowbray is coming from. A £28 for a vest that’s identical to one that costs £5 from Dotty Ps is a rip off. But what struck me about this quote was how Mowbray only stole from shops where she had already purchased from. I think some people justify their theft because they already pay money towards the company/shop. Pay for an overpriced pair of jeans and take a vest without paying and then it'll be even.
However, it can be argued that if these people don't like wasting their money, why can't they purchase from a store/shop thats kinder to their account. I guess the reason for shopping at a more expensive store is that the quality of the clothes, especially jeans are much nicer. Plus, people are more attracted to the label or the superiority of the store (whether its trendy to shop there or not) than how much the clothes cost, especially when we are living in a society that is obbessed with consumerism and quality.

Emotional Infidelity

I chose this media example of infidelity because it could be argued whether it was infidelity or not. In January 2006, Brad Pitt met Angelina Jolie on set of Mr and Mrs Smith and developed a close friendship with one another. This ultimately led to Pitt leaving wife Jennifer Aniston for Jolie, although couple assured the press that there was no sex involved while they were friends.
Emotional infidelity is an interesting one. We assume that since there’s no sex involved, it doesn’t classify as infidelity. But it tends to be more hurtful than a drunken one night stand your partner had with someone whose name they forgot. After a fling, they could still want to be with you and promise never to do it again. Now, I’m not justifying that type of infidelity as it’s just as hurtful as a meaningful affair. But what I’m saying is that emotional infidelity is often ignored, when in fact it’s much more painful because your partner can easily dump you for this “friend”. And watching your partner being with someone else and knowing that he/she prefers them to you is much more painful than the thought of him/her sleeping with a random stranger that he/she had no feelings for.
So what could be said in Pitt’s favour? It was rumoured that he wanted children, but Aniston wanted to concentrate on career. But Aniston stated in an interview with Vanity Fair, “I've never in my life said I don't want children. I did and I do and I will. I would never give up that experience for a career. I want to have it all."
When reading this quote, anyone would judge Brad as selfish to be so impatient to run off with Jolie who has kids and still wants them straight away. I can’t think of any other plausible reason for Pitt to cheat other than his biological clock, which at the age of 40 seems to die down as quick as a withering flower. It can also be argued that if Aniston wanted to save her marriage, she would have given Pitt a child and hire a nanny while she’s working on her career, since they can afford one. But having children without concern for their emotional upbringing would also be considered selfish. Surely the child would feel neglected if neither of their parents were around?
But if Aniston’s quote was untrue and Brad left because she didn’t want to have children, does it make the infidelity plausible? Leaving a relationship to have children can be considered selfish, but everyone enters a relationship for a reason, be it for start a family or just purely for companionship alone. If the needs of both partners aren’t met, there is no point in that relationship. But having said that, if communication was in the relationship, then maybe they would have realised how unsuitable they were for each other before the infidelity could happen. Of course hurt will be involved, but to a lesser degree as it doesn’t involve a third person. Obviously, when a third person comes into it, it will affect the cheated person’s self esteem, trust and confidence in future relationships.

Field Trip

Hey Guys

Just been browsing through the net to find some ideas for a field trip. I've found one show at the NEC which relates to one of our topics, Tatoos (if you consider them to be bad).
Its the "Ink and Iron Tattoo Convention and Custom Show", which is held between 12-13th April in the Pavilion. Its only £8 to get in, so its pretty cheap. Apparently, it features all the famous tatooist around the globe. And there will be music there, although the name of the band isn't mentioned on the site, http://www.necgroup.co.uk/visitor/whatson/5712/

DOG or MOTHER

In the first session of the module Being Bad, we had to write down the worst thing we had done on a piece of paper and put it in a hat. After being split into tiny groups, we randomly chose two to three papers and discussed if they were bad. But the most interesting part of the session was at the end. We chose two of the worst confessions and debated on which was worse. Firstly, was drugging the neighbour’s dog, which resulted in its death and then denying knowing anything about it. Secondly, was a blind mother falling down the stairs and instead of helping her up, the confessor said “mum, you’re an embarrassment”.
Personally, I felt that the former confession was worse for the following reasons. Firstly, the dog can’t object to having the drugs being injected into it. If one drugged another human without their consent, there would be uproar about the shocking immorality of it. At the end of the day, the dog was still a breathing, living creature. However, one could argue, “would we think twice if we killed a spider?”. I personally do, for I believe that a life is a life. It is put on earth for a reason. Just because an animal can’t communicate with us, does that mean we can treat then however we like without second thought? Factors such as intelligence, ability to communicate or size should not determine superiority over another who lacks these. It shouldn’t give the one who has these factors the right to do what they please to the other.
Secondly, the dog was someone else’s property, bought up and bred by that person. By murdering it, it shows no concern for the neighbour, who could have been attached to it. Yet one can argue that there’s no proof to show that the neighbour was attached. As someone argued in class, “Its just a dog. At the end of the day, you can buy yourself another dog, but you can’t buy yourself another mother”. This is true, but it wasn’t as if the second confessor had killed their mother. There may have been a reason why the confessor said what they said. Children are an example of their parents’ parenting skills. It would have been down to the mother’s upbringing of that person that caused them to say what they said. As Ronald L. Pitzer, Extension Family Sociologist demonstrates, “Children learn more than social skills and table manners from their parents”. http://www.extension.umn.edu/specializations/youthdevelopment/components/6141-19.html

Another in class argued that a mother is the one who had bought you up and took care of you when you were sick. However, as Mark Jones had pointed out, just because one is a mother, does that mean she is a good mother? There’s no evidence to prove that mother was a good mother. If she was, than yes what was said was bad. But comments like that can easily be brushed away. At the end of the day, it’s just words. There are worse things that could be said. But going back to the point, the neighbour obviously had the dog for a reason, be it for company, guidance or what other. One wouldn’t have one if they didn’t want it and they certainly wouldn’t keep it if they had no concern for it.