Ian Watkins arrest - a mirror to society?

'Update on the Ian Watkins (lead singer in the band Lostprophets) charges: 

"...alleged to have conspired with a woman to rape a one-year-old girl. He also stands accused of two incidents of conspiring to engage in sexual touching with two young children; possessing, making and distributing indecent images; and possessing “extreme” animal pornography." '

This is absolutely sickening news. I think originally when people heard about the charges they assumed that because he is in a band that maybe 14/15 year olds were involved (and possibly he didn't know their age). But the reality is far more horrific.

What is going on? There are so many cases of celebrities being exposed (or more correctly being accused) of paedophilia at the moment. Do famous people live lives of such excess that they need more and more extreme activities to find thrills? Are taboos the only things left to satisfy them?

Is the media to blame?

Does pornography have a role to play in the ever increasing spectrum of sexual activities and the promotion of extreme sex acts? In such a competitive industry to get noticed producers, performers and distributors need to find niches or more extreme ways of getting their name known. Plus prolonged exposure to anything removes or lessens the taboo. If people are repeatedly seeing certain acts over time it becomes less of a unique preference and more of a commonplace occurrence.

Is the media to blame for the open sexualisation of music, film and TV? These days sex is everywhere, at every time of any given day. Listen to five songs on the radio and sex will surely be eluded to. Near naked people are plastered over billboards and magazines. Music videos, TV programmes and films often have soft core porn in them and the timeslots in which they are shown and the ratings they receive reduce over time.
Or is it simply that we live in a day and age where policing and investigation are more advanced and crime is less easier to hide?

A mirror to society?

I think it is emblematic of society and how depraved it is becoming. Depraved is perhaps too strong a word for what I mean so let me explain myself. As more and more subjects and behaviors become acceptable, it is becoming more and more difficult to find anything taboo. Gone are the days where peoples sexual proclivities were private and you were considered perverse if you engaged in a little bit of light S & M.

Although liberation of sexuality is a good thing it seems almost like the doors were bust open wide and now anything and everything is discussed or able to be viewed online. We live in a day and age where nearly all people of a certain generation know what '2 Girls 1 Cup' means.

Of course this does not mean that the majority of people engage in perverse acts. But the fact we now openly reference the more extreme end of sexual behaviours in conversation shows how lackadaisical our attitudes are becoming to these taboo acts. 

I read an interesting article once speaking about how women now in their 40's and 50's when they were teenagers oral sex was something of a fringe activity. It was not an act everyone engaged in. It was a personal choice. Now women in their 20's and 30's see it as a norm and a regular part of sex. I think to my generation it would seem odd if people didn't partake in oral sex. It is now de rigueur. Of course for my generation there are now sex acts that are becoming more popular and less of a choice but are still not seen as a given. In reality the next generation will probably find these acts prevalent.

It is not wrong to live in a more liberal society and in fact speaking more openly about sex has many positive effects. But our attitude must be in accordance. Respect and consent are of the utmost importance. If your partner does not wish to engage in any act they should be respected and not pressured into it.

I feel this is the key issue. It is not the broadening scope of sexual acts that is a problem but our attitudes towards them. The adage 'different strokes for different folks' is apt. Everyone has their own turn ons and everyone is different. But it is the way that the sexual bartering system is escalating but our attitudes are not becoming more liberal. It feels like instead of sexual liberation being a positive thing it is a negative due to how people engage in these acts and relate with their partners.

I would not consider myself a prude but I do find the abject sexuality that is paraded around abrasive to society. As a single woman I very rarely meet a man who would like to get to know me. Instead they would rather have sex first and then maybe find out what you are like after. This shows the shift in sexual attitudes, and I am not sure it is a positive thing. The more blase we become the shorter the scale between what is acceptable and what is not becomes.

Celebrities live their lives on a different level. Everything is big, more accessible and more extreme. It seems sex is something that also falls into this category. And if you live your life on the higher end of the scale the boundaries get pushed higher and higher.

Have we gone too far down the road to make a real difference in liberating sexuality in a positive way? Or has the sexual sensationalism that is at the forefront of our society become so excessive that depravity rules?

Social Networking: The Death of Society?

In my previous post Girl. 24. Missing. Can you Help? I commented upon how social networking is making people more isolated than ever before. I have just come across a brilliant article by Joe Robinson called Is Social Networking Destroying Our Social Lives? which discusses this very issue.


Human beings by their very nature are social creatures. Robinson states 'Our core psychological need for "relatedness," say researchers, mandates that we have close relationships with others.' This is what I often refer to as the human touch. It is a primal need for humans to bond and come together. It seems in the digital age as we move towards more online interaction people are forgetting how to relate to each other in real life. The danger of losing the human touch is losing the 'relatedness' that we as humans share. Robinson quotes 'more social isolation feeds less empathy and fewer social skills. We get so used to dealing with people via e-mail or online that we forget how to function around live humans.' This quote perfectly sums up the way I feel about social networking, and how in fact it is killing our social skills. A lot of people now forget what it is to be a friend, or have a lot of trouble in social situations as they have forgotten how to interact with people face-to-face. 


Living in London people often discuss how hard it is to meet new friends. I find the best way is to undertake some sort of activity you enjoy. Not only are you gaining new skills and having fun but also socialising without possibly even noticing it. Robinson's article discusses how because we have a need for bonds with other humans that we partake in recreational or social activities. I myself take dance classes three times a week. There are many reasons I love the class; the music, dance itself, fitness. But it is also the sense of community in the class. All of the regulars speak and often meet up outside of class. We all instantly have a connection because we all love dance and the music of Michael Jackson (what the class is all about!). By having a common interest it makes it easy to be sociable. I also feel for me it is nice to go somewhere and still be able to have that human connection. London can be a lonely place as people all bustle about in their own lives, never stopping to look around and take in what is happen. If you travel on the London underground take a look at how many people are sat with headphones on and reading books or newspaper (myself included). There is not even an option of being social with strangers on the tube as everyone is actively cutting themselves off from what is happening around them. So this means people certainly won't stop and converse with a stranger! But by partaking in a hobby or activity you get a sense of community that is lacking everywhere else.


I think the need for this human connection is apparent when we look at the behaviours of my dance class mates and I. Many of my class mates have made it clear in their workplace that on Monday's and Wednesday's they need to leave early as they have a 'commitment'. Some people have even taken a days holiday leave so they can attend a class! I myself now only look for work where I can have flexible hours and can leave early on Monday's and Wednesday. This show just how important this hobby is, and I feel it is due to much more than just the activity itself.


I also think that the alteration in working practices (such a longer hours, more pressure et cetera)  has an affect on our social lives. But only if you let them. A lot of my friends, and myself on occasion, fall into the trap that as you are spending most of your week working that you can not make time to see anyone on a weekday and maybe not even the weekend's as you are trying to rest from work or plan for the working week ahead. Robinson states 'There's always time, if you make the time and lose the stranglehold of time urgency -- the false emergency that would have you believe you're too busy to live.' This phrase 'time urgency' really struck a cord with me, as this is something that I come face to face with often with some of my friends. Now I should point out that most of my friends have a great work / life balance that they actively maintain. Once they clock off work they stop working (and thinking about work) and then feed with soul with cultural or social events. I think this is such an important balance to have, or else you can not maintain a healthy mental framework. Robinson says in his article 'People who are content with their social lives are happier and healthier.' And as I say a hundred times a week when you are on your deathbed you do no think about all the great spreadsheets you did. You think about great experiences you had. And I bet none of them are work related. 


As the saying goes 'you can sleep when you are dead' so make the most of now and make time for the people in your lives! You will gain so much more by socialising in the long run even if you get a little less sleep. 


And modern friendship just seems a bit lazy. People aren't so bothered about texting back a friend or phoning them for a catch up as the most probably have an idea of what is happening in the persons life due to their Facebook updates.

A postcard I read recently sums it up

"Our effortless friendship fits perfectly with my laziness"

I often feel that I am the odd one out as I seem to be the only person I know who is bothered by the lack of human contact I have with a lot of friends. But I think the above quote might have hit the nail on the head. Maybe my friends think our friendship is effortless as they know what I am up to as they have read my status. So what is the need to phone or meet up to discuss what is happening? 

The beauty of social networking is that it enables you to feel as if you are engaging with your peers without having to do anything. The key word in the previous sentence is 'feel'. Although there is the impression that you are connected with your friends because you know what is going on in their lives as you have read about it online in fact you are simply a 21st Century online voyeur. Taking a peek into other people's lives whilst remaining hidden and viewing unnoticed. If you were to participate in online behaviour in real life it would go something like this. You would find the friend you want to check up on. Find out where they are (possibly by where they have checked in on on Facebook or by their status) You would then follow them around all day without making yourself known, just observing what they are up to. You'd eventually follow the person home and watch through the window on their house to see what is going on in their lives. Never once do you make yourself known. If you did this you are essentially a stalker and would be arrested. 


I think this example goes to show that although real life can somewhat be replicated on social networking sites, but the reverse is that behaviour on social networking sites can not be replicated in the real world. By partaking in online friendships is not the same as having a real friendship. We need to remember what it means to be human and the 'relatedness' that connects all of us. Society has already changed so that the way we now maintain friendships online is the norm. But call me old fashioned but I would much prefer some face-to-face space with my friends any day of the week. 

To surmise I would like to expand on a point Robinson makes. 'Clicking is so much easier, but it's the participation that satisfies your core self-determination needs. Friends, optimal moments, elation, exhilaration -- it's all there for us when we step out of the sedentary box and into the center of life fully lived.' Simply knowing a fact is not the same as participating in the event. Imagine if every big event in your life was merely recorded online. No one actually celebrates, commiserates, consoles or cajoles you face-to-face. What sort of existence is that? My fear is that we as humans are now existing online but not actually living in the real world. Life's rich tapestry is woven by the events in your life. Unless we participate in life then what are we doing by merely existing? There is a difference between living and being alive. And the way we can tell the difference is by how we engage with others. 

"If the lives of men can be measured in terms of years, ideologies in decades, and nations in centuries, then the unit measuring civilizations, born of the interaction among peoples, would be the millennium". - Abdelaziz Bouteflika