Layla Perry

After being bloody disgusted at the comments of MP Tom Harris on his blog, I felt obliged to retaliate myself.

On his blog, Harris talks about witnessing a young girl give birth to a child. The girl's father stood proud of his girl, and Harris' response was this:

"Proud that his teenage daughter was not only sexually active but was now a mother? Proud that any chance of a decent education, followed by a decent job, was now remote at best? Proud that she was, in all likelihood, about to embark on a lifetime of depending on benefit handouts for her and her child?"

Doesn't the fool understand?

He carries on his worthless rant with "Teenage girls shouldn’t choose to have babies as an alternative to getting an education and a career. Why? Because it’s wrong"

Because a life living on the state is desirable, isn't it? I think not! Benefits are the scraping of the barrel, just enough to survive. Does any young girl want that for a future?

With a small minority of girls, teenage motherhood is a blessing. It's what they always wanted, and that's good for them. Some people are destined for parenthood. If they are adequetely supported and happy, why not? That's their choice and we are not ones to pass judgement.

But in the case of the majority, it was not a choice. If they had the oppurtunity to a good education and a solid future, they'd take it. But they don't have that anymore, sadly. For the price of a careless mistake, it's a heavy cost.

Should we even be blaming them?

No. Blame society. Blame ourselves, we can't even provide a decent sex education for these kids. We can't support them, we can't help them. Oh, we could if we wanted to, but we'll take our blame and pass it on to them.

Think about it. Thoughts?

Jade Goody's cancer has consumed the tabloids this week with a tear-jerking sob story, guaranteed to melt even the hardest of hearts. Cervical cancer is a terrible, devastating illness and our thoughts are with Jade at this time.

However...Debate rages over whether she should be allowed to publicise her ordeal. Surely she is removing her dignity to die in peace, with a TV show, magazine coverage and numerous televised appearances? There are two sides to every story, so they say.

Jade has expressed, quite openly, that she wants to make as much money as possible before she dies. Not for her own needs, but rather for her sons'. As a mother, it is clear that she feels she need to be maternal and provide for her children. As she will not be able to do this after her death, she is leaving them a large inheritance to pay for their higher education and lives when she is gone.

Jade is not only helping her sons, she is helping others too. Awareness of cervical cancer has risen, after a fall in the last decade. Numbers dropped from 83% to 79% over the past 10 years, but have recently experienced a surge. A good thing too, as cervical cancer is the second biggest killer of 30-something women, although it is the most preventable. Therefore, earlier and more regular screening can save lives. Would we be checking our health if we hadn't seen the consequences?

However, with such a tremendous struggle to get through, does Jade really have the strength to carry on her media publicity? Rushed to hospital for an emergency operation today in failing health, can she not rest? Is it sickening to see what should be a private affair in daily news? Should we despise the media for allowing her to 'sell' her illness, or do we blame ourselves for being hungry for news? We all know cancer affects many of us, but we do not all make a profit from it. Is Jade selfish for doing so? Are her loved ones affected?

My final thought is this: This choice remains with Jade, although it will affect her loved ones. If this is the path she has chosen, then I commend her for having the inner strength to carry on for the sake of her sons. The money is not being obtained for herself, and she is earning it the only way she knows how. Wouldn't we all, in her situation, if we had the oppurtunity? What I find most disturbing about this, is the way the public and news have seized upon this. Do we really want to see a dying woman's last moments? Where will we draw the line for privacy?

What do you think? 

It's official.

Wordpress is...

• Difficult to navigate
• Difficult to network with
• Difficult to set up
• Just not what it's cracked up to be.

We're back!

Layla Perry is heading over to Wordpress! Layla wants to reach a more politically-orientated audience and gain a larger readership.

Layla Perry will remain on Vox, and this blog will stay here. However, new posts will be found at laylaperry.wordpress.com

Thanks to all readers, I appreciate every comment you left here!

 Please keep following the blog on Wordpress.

Apparently.

Isn't everyone enjoying the snow on this cold February morning? The weather was once resigned to the back of the newsroom, alongside the dull travel news. Now both are leading a certain campaign to get onto the headlines. They seem to be the only news today. Has nothing else happened anywhere else in the world? Or are we all just transfixed by those fat, white flakes?

You know what's really annoying me? All those viewers sending their photos of the snow into BBC news. If I want to know what the snow looks like, I'll look outside my window! Sheesh! I can see 30cm of snow for myself, thanks very much.

Of course, all the hardy Scots are getting mightily p*ssed at us pansy Southerners. It's not that we're wusses and that we can't deal with the snow, it's just not right for us to go out into snow. Definitely not, do you know who we are? We certainly won't have Northerners telling us to belt up. It's all right for you, you're used to it! Not me in my surburban dream house.

Lovely to see our delicious Bo-Jo on the news today, looking slightly ruffled. After describing the snow as 'wonderfully lovely' (you are indeed, Boris). he congratulated 'hardy drivers' for surving the 'climatic' weather conditions. He's decided not to let out his beloved buses for the day, because they would be 'lethal weapons' if they skidded on the ice. Quite right you are, Boris. Handily, he dismissed the congestion charge for the day as well. Good ole' Bo says it's not right for a 'mass skive'.

Certainly not!

This was brought to my attention today. For those of you having trouble viewing that, click here. I promise you it's worth a look.

WARNING: DO NOT WATCH IF YOU ARE EASILY OFFENDED

Before you scream and recoil in horror - nudity on YouTube?!? Shooting a pregnant woman?!? Hookers and prostitutes?!? Have you even considered the content of the video? There's more important issues at stake here, portrayed in a new music video from the band who once before brought us kissing lesbian adolescents.

Get the message yet? This video is open to a lot of interpretation, but here's what I make of it.

• A woman walks down the street. We don't know much about her yet, but her step is callous and careless. She nearly trips over the homeless man. She is dressed provocatively. This will make sense when we know more about her later on.
• She walks into a building and changes. She has a uniform and is apparently a high-ranking military official! It shows us that everyone is hiding something. Despite her esteemed rank, she is still shown before as being everything undesirable in society. 
• We see a prisoner rebelling
• The rich are gathered to see a terrible event, however they are happy and almost drunken. This is to portray the uncaring and selfish attitudes of the upper class, partaking in something that is inhumane and cruel.
• The pregnant woman is killed by military fire. She has been executed by her country and the justice system that was supposed to be protecting its citizens. However, it has killed her and her unborn child; symbolically life and the future.
• The phone rings. It was the wrong prisoner. Innocence slaughtered, as well as a young life, by a corrupt government.

Capital punishment, corrupt governments, power-abusing officials, the ugliness of wealth and innocent killing. So, a load of bull or a powerful political message? You decide.

Layla Perry would like to make an apology to her readers after a mistake in a 29th January blog post 'Monogamy vs Polygamy'. Polygamy does not properly refer to third-party sexual partners in a relationship. I apologise and will try to ensure this doesn't happen again.

Today I was called to reflect on the moral ground of polygamy and open relationships. I researched the issue before setting my keyboard alight with frantic typing, and have some different views.

 

Stereotype

'Bunny people' is the affectionate term I heard on the Internet for people engaged in open relationships. This term was mainly derived from the stereotype that these people are always sexually-driven and regulary engage in sex with anyone, like rabbits.

I have often held this view myself, but that has now changed. Not enough for me to follow a polygamous route myself, but enough to be accepting of such people.

Idealism

Monogamy represents the idealised and supposedly 'normal' life that many believe is the path to follow. In the Christian marriage vows, it states or implies (I am unsure as I am not a Christian and don't know) that polygamy is forbidden. The idea of true love suggests that once you have found the perfect life partner, you cannot dream of anyone else. They are right for you, and you need or want nothing else.

Jealousy

I am in a happily monogamous relationship and would never consider a polygamous relationship. This is because of subsequent jealousy issues. If my partner spent a Saturday with me and I had full knowledge that he had danced Friday night away with a mystery woman, I would be incensed and heartbroken. I can imagine the argument against this from many polygamists would be that I could return the 'favour' and spend a night with another man. Fact is, I cannot bring myself to do that. Being with anyone other than DH would bring feelings of insecurity, guilt and pressure. I can't imagine myself with anyone other than him.

Sexual Inadequacy

I also believe that polygamous relationships would possibly lead to a feeling of inadequacy. I would easily say it would be difficult to cope and would have an adverse effect on my self-esteem if my husband decided I wasn't sexually fulfilling. I would begin to ask myself if I was still attractive in his eyes, and whether I was enough for him. Such doubts would lead me one to believe I simply wasn't satisfying him anymore. From here, it is likely I wouls be trying harder and harder to impress and win his undivided affection back.

Some claim that two partners may love each other, but that they have different libidos or fantasies. They therefore need to find new sexual partners to meet their needs. This is all very well if both partners are consenting, but I believe that seeing someone else secretly is known as cheating...

Secrecy

Please don't tell me this doesn't happen. Unquestionably, it does. Take an example:

Person A and Person B are in an open relationship. This is a choice they have rightfully made together, with each other's consent. Person A chooses to sleep with Person C. Person C is just a 'hook-up' and both are clear on that. However, C is married. Their spouse is currently absent. However, they still have sex with A. This conforms with the basis of A's relationship, but not C's. C is supposed to be in a monogamous relationship.

Then C is to blame? Yes, if A had no reason to doubt that C was either single or in an open relationship themselves. What if A knew that C was in a monogamous relationship? Surely they must bear part the blame as they knowingly led C on, and allowed sex to happen between them?

I read many cases of this on the Internet today, which does shock me. C should not be allowed to be lead into temptation such as this. Maybe it is alright for C, but what about their spouse? This kind of behaviour would seriously affect them and possibly cause a breakdown of marriage.

 

Monogamy vs Polygamy: The Verdict

My own personal conclusion is that open relationships are perfectly acceptable if:

• Both partners are consenting
• It doesn't harm anyone else, in the case of Persons A, B and C
• It is not part of a Christian's marriage
  

That last one may seem controversial, allow me to explain. Marriage with extra-marital sex could be deemed as acceptable if both partners consent and it does not contradict marriage vows or a religion of the persons involved. This would be extremely hypocritical in the circumstances.

I would personally choose a monogamous relationship for the reasons I have detailed above.

Your views? Leave a comment or message the author 

When I was a young girl, I walked past a preacher in the street. I appreciate all religions, though being an atheist myself, I feel the need for everyone to be united regardless.

He was preaching about homosexuality and its 'sins'. I was 12, yet I knew this was wrong. I felt a strong urge to go up to him, to show and enlighten him. That speech he made brought so many emotions in myself. Sadness, anger, injustice. It all welled up inside of me, and it made a huge impact on me.

To this day, I stand up for Gay Rights. I will continue to do so. I believe this because:

Love is love. It comes in all forms. Brothers and sisters. Grandparents and grandchildren. Friends. Husbands and wives. This world is dying under the oppression of anger and hate and malice. A little love never hurt anyone. And if that love is shared between 2 men or two women, fine by me.

Gay people make good parents. I read a story on the Internet about Paul and Jacob, two gay men. Unable to have children of their own, they fought to be able to adopt. Why it was such a struggle is a mystery to me. Every child deserves a loving family, and the Social Services should be happy to give them the oppurtunity to a good home. I'll put it this way: two caring, loving gay parents is better than an abusive, violent straight couple. Point made.

It's consensual and doesn't hurt anybody. Did those two men kissing in the street cause you physical pain? No. Did that lesbian couple harm you? No. They were doing what we do every day: caring for our loved ones. They're no different from you.

Homosexuality is not 'learnt'. I am a straight woman, with a boyfriend. No matter how hard I try, I will never be a lesbian. The same goes for my gay friend. He can date as many women as he likes, but he will never be able to love anyone but a man. He was born gay. I was born straight. Simple as that.

The Bible is confused. Listen, the Bible was written by people. Not God. If you believe in such an entity, then surely he has bigger things to worry about, like how the Universe is being governed. Not same-sex coupling. 

Share the love.

It's a old thing, it's repeated every day and we always hear about it: make a difference.

I urge you all, yet again, to try to do so. You don't have to be a full-time charity worker, although that is commendable. You don't have to live in a cave without electricity to combat global warming. (But if you do, y'know it's a free country...) You don't even have to lift more than a finger.

Maybe you're not the President. Maybe you're unemployed, sick or weak. Maybe you're the average Joe, just minding your business. It doesn't matter who you are, where you are. What matters is that you care. That you can stand up and say:

 "I care. I care about this planet and its peoples'. I care about the wars, the famines, the poverty. I care about the injustice of our society. I care about the environment and the animals. I care."

Then, together we can make a change. Think of 10 things you could do to make a small difference. I promise, this won't take longer than 5 minutes. 5 minutes and a little thought for your actions could save the world.

To prove how easy this is, I'll show you what I've done.

Recycle paper. I throw out heaps of paper in a week, just into the trash can. If I made the effort to take it to my local recycling branch, I could make a difference.

Save water. If you turned off the tap whilst brushing your teeth, you could save an Olympic-sized swimming pool of water every year. You'll do this. For some reason, this always sticks in people's minds.

I'll buy local produce. Reduce your food miles! Buying local produce is easy and more satisfying. Visit farmers' markets, or even just a supermarket and check the labels of what you're buying.

Shop at Goodwill. Bust those myths! All those clothes, DVDs and books aren't just old and dusty. Once I got a TopShop dress in there for under a tenner. Bargain! Yeah, they may be second-hand but they are not only cheaper, but more ethical!

Give up your seat on public transport. Crowded bus? Ease your conscience, help that lady with the heavy shopping bags. Assist the young mother with the pushchair and baby. Be kind to the elderly man. Or just give it up for the sake of it. You'll feel miles better.

Say please and thank you. Sounds obvious, but a little bit of courtesy gets forgotten in modern life. Did someone compliment you? Help with your shopping? Thank them, they deserve it.

Take a stand. Too often we see the downtrodden being spat upon by society. Be a hero, save them. Don't watch bullies pick on a small kid. Don't watch someone being threatened with violence. Courage and empathy. As lone human-beings, our voices are quiet. As a united force, we are powerful.

Hug! Bad day? Feeling generous? Share the love, the world needs more of it. Advertise free hugs to your friends, family and work collegues. Heck, show a stranger how much you care! Y'know, you give a little love and it all comes back to you.

Don't judge. So you're scared of the homeless guy, think he's a worthless drunk? Bet you never knew he had a wife and kids too, once. Think that young mother was irresponsible? She's being strong, bringing up a kid on her own at that age. Disgusted by a gay couple kissing? Love is love. The world needs more of it. Think it makes you better than them, being a hater? No. Empathise with your fellow human beings. They are people too.

Smile! Everyone knows, it takes more muscles to frown than to smile. I promise you'll feel better for it.

Work for a better today.

As the wonderful Margaret Mead once said:

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has"