Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Goths "more likely to self-harm".
The Other Side forums - suitable for mature readers! > The Other Side forums > The Issues Forum
Pages: 1, 2
Wookiee
This is the neeeewwws.

QUOTE
Up to 14% of teenagers self-harm, but half of the 25 who described themselves as Goths had done so, reported the British Medical Journal.

Most self-harmed before becoming a Goth, suggesting they chose the subculture because they felt their emotional distress would be understood.

Goths favour black clothing


Crikey! Whoda thunkit?
Felander
QUOTE (Wookiee @ Apr 14 2006, 02:10 PM)
This is the neeeewwws.

QUOTE
Up to 14% of teenagers self-harm, but half of the 25 who described themselves as Goths had done so, reported the British Medical Journal.

Most self-harmed before becoming a Goth, suggesting they chose the subculture because they felt their emotional distress would be understood.

Goths favour black clothing


Crikey! Whoda thunkit?
*


Whoa. I applaud the BBC's powers of perception.
pgrmdave
I think it's interesting that it's so much more common in Goth culture - I had assumed that it was widespread throughout cultures and was merely more accepted, thus more talked about, in Goth culture.
I_am_the_best
I think it may just be people wanting to fit into the 'goth' stereotype and think that they need to be miserable hence self-harm.
Novander
New Scientist took a slightly different approach to the report: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8996...e-children.html
Phyllis
QUOTE
Only 25 participants felt strongly associated with goth culture.


Well that makes the results not even worth publishing. If I did an essay on that study, I'd probably get severely marked down (if not failed entirely) for using such crappy statistics.

I really hate when people publish such things as if they are fact, and add only a minor warning about the size of the study. Though, at least they mentioned the size at all. Most don't. So they'd probably get a D+ and a note saying "See me after class."
pgrmdave
The person who did the actual research did make mention of that:

QUOTE
“Rather than posing a risk, it's also possible that by belonging to the goth subculture, young people are gaining valuable social and emotional support from their peers.” But he cautions: “However, the study was based on small numbers and replication is needed to confirm our results.”


I think it is worth mentioning simply because the statistics were so different - 14% overall vs. 50% who identified as goth. It's possible that it was simply error, and not unlikely, however, it does warrent notice.
Phyllis
Yes, I know it was mentioned by the person who did the research. But it was a very short sentence in comparison to the rest of the article, likely to be overlooked by most.

My annoyance was mainly directed at the media and their irritating tendency to publish stories about studies that have little to no evidence as if they are confirmed fact.

They could have worded it as "Goths may be more likely to self-harm" and I would not have such a problem with it. Instead, the headline reads "Goths 'more likely to self-harm'." This gives the impression that it is proven fact. But like I said, at least the mentioned the size of the study. A lot of times when statistics are published in a news article, they don't do that.

I'm very critical of statistics when they appear in the media. It really is a pet peeve of mine, because it contributes to people going around, saying "I heard blah blah blah" and a bunch of people become misinformed. The stuff in the news report is pretty obvious stuff for anyone without their head stuck in the sand, but misuse of statistics is just irritating to me for some reason.
pgrmdave
What bothers me most about it is that the entire article seems to say that goths are a really good supportive group that help people cope and stop cutting themselves, but the headline leads you to the opposite conclusion.
trunks_girl26
Well, the title is mainly used to draw people in to read it, right? And as most people know, bad news is the most eagerly heard, so logically, they're not going to use a title that would potentially lessen the amount of people reading the article (I mean, look at the attention it's getting right now, even).

Yes, it's underhanded, it's sneaky, and it's not truthful......but you read the article.

(Of course, this now makes me want to write an article on puppies and chipmunks playing together, and then titling it, Puppies Attacked by Rabid Chipmunks, just to see how many people would read it.)
Astarael
The misleading statistics (and title) are definitely annoying. If you read the article in depth and note the sentence about the study group size then it's better, but people who just read a few sentences and then spread the snippets that they read are just going to make more people uninformed about what the data really means.
Izzy
I'm pretty sure if you interveiwed 1,258 teens who described themselves as goths, the amount of them who self-harm would be around 14%

QUOTE
Glasgow researchers surveyed 1,258 teens at the ages of 11, 13, 15, and 17.


Since when is 11 considered teen? Not that I'm complaining biggrin.gif
Wookiee
QUOTE (Astarael @ Apr 16 2006, 04:18 PM)
The misleading statistics (and title) are definitely annoying. If you read the article in depth and note the sentence about the study group size then it's better, but people who just read a few sentences and then spread the snippets that they read are just going to make more people uninformed about what the data really means.
*


Yeah, but it's funny.

It would be funnier if the headline was "Goffs", and more relevant if it read "Emos". Damn those dirty emos.
gothictheysay
Yeah, devils_daughter, but you can't know for sure. Gross estimating doesn't do you much good in the real world.

QUOTE
(Of course, this now makes me want to write an article on puppies and chipmunks playing together, and then titling it, Puppies Attacked by Rabid Chipmunks, just to see how many people would read it.)


DOOOOOO IIIIIT
Izzy
QUOTE (gothictheysay @ Apr 17 2006, 07:21 PM)
Yeah, devils_daughter, but you can't know for sure. Gross estimating doesn't do you much good in the real world.
*


Is there like a way to contact the BBC, if so I'm going to ask them to survey exactly 1,258 Goths, and then once they get the percentage of how many of them self-harm, add it to the article. That's the only way we'll know for sure.

I showed the article to one of my teacher -my favorite teacher!- yesterday (only to find out later she had already read it tongue.gif ) and we got into a discussion about how cutting isn't the only way to self-harm yourself. You can also do it by throwing up your food, starving yourself, uhm..and some other stuff that I forgot.
Phyllis
No, it isn't "the only way we'll know for sure," devil's daughter.

For one: the BBC publishes news. They are not psychologists, or even statisticians. They are not professionally qualified to conduct such a study, any more than an lawyer is qualified to prescribe medicine.

I'm just...going to leave it at that before my mind completely breaks.
pgrmdave
Maybe someone here could do a simple, informal study - find a few different group of goths online and ask them to fill out a survey including whether or not they've ever self-harmed, and whether or not it was before, during, or after they considered themselves to be goths.
Astarael
That would be interesting, but you'd have to get a really broad spectrum of goth groups to get any sort of data that made sense. I'd still be more interested in a large statistician-conducted survey, though. The BBC would likely wind up doing it by all the goth in one sort of groups or something, and that would skew the resutls badly.
pgrmdave
Well, my thinking was to find a few different goth groups online, and ask them to fill out a simple survey - of course there would be problems (it would only be goths online, it would most likely be a small survey, and it would most likely be of only 4-10 different groups of goths) but it would provide a basic idea - if the numbers are at about 14% give or take a few then we would know that the original study was simply a fluke - if, however, we found that it was much higher, then the original study's findings would seem more reasonable.
Phyllis
No, you wouldn't know that the original findings were simply a fluke.

There are a lot more factors than the size of the study and how participants are selected (it takes a lot longer than it sounds). Such as the wording of the questions. A person can answer a question differently based on how it's worded.

Additionally, when performing the study online, what is to stop someone from responding multiple times and skewing the results?

Neither we nor the BBC have the tools or the expertise to conduct such a study and draw any sort of meaningful conclusions (meaning something that can be published rather than just handed in as a project for psychology class).
pgrmdave
I know there are many more factors, but I wasn't really planning on doing a serious scientific study - just a quick, simple study that will provide a very rough idea of it. And, while it's not perfect, you can log ip addresses to help ensure that each person only gets one response. I'm not suggesting that it would be publishable, but I think that it would be a place to start. I know there are many more factors, but I wasn't really planning on doing a serious scientific study - just a quick, simple study that will provide a very rough idea of it. And, while it's not perfect, you can log ip addresses to help ensure that each person only gets one response. I'm not suggesting that it would be publishable, but I think that it would be a place to start.
Izzy
You could try making it a poll on Matazone? That way people could only answer once.
pgrmdave
Ah - but we don't want a simple poll, because we need at least three questions to be answered - Do you, or have you at any time committed self-inflicted harm? Do you, or have you at any time considered yourself a goth? If both those questions are yes, did you harm yourself before, during, or after considering yourself goth?
Izzy
QUOTE (pgrmdave @ Apr 20 2006, 06:19 PM) *
Ah - but we don't want a simple poll, because we need at least three questions to be answered - Do you, or have you at any time committed self-inflicted harm? Do you, or have you at any time considered yourself a goth? If both those questions are yes, did you harm yourself before, during, or after considering yourself goth?

I thought we only want Goths to vote in this one?

I was think someone would bring that up. That's why you can do it like this. Poll question: Do you self harm. Possible answers: No. Yes, but I quit. Yes, But I started before I considered myself Goth. Yes, but I started after I considered myself Goth. Or something like that. And hopefully people will be mature with it, and only vote if the actually consider themselves Goth.
CrazyFooIAintGettinOnNoPlane
what if they consider themselves goth, but have no goth friends? Also some people take their gothness more serious than others.. some people wont consider themselves goths but could be by other people. I dont think its as simple as one poll based on the participants opinion of gothyness.

A poll on here might be interesting, but i dont think you could make any sort of conclusion from it. I think theres already one on cutting here somewhere though.
Izzy
Okay, so we could get into greater detail..like.."Yes, I self-harm, but I don't consider myself goth, other people do." Or "Yes, I self harm, consider myself goth, but don't have any goth friends." It can't be that hard.
Sir Psycho Sexy
QUOTE (devils_daughter @ Apr 21 2006, 01:00 PM) *
I thought we only want Goths to vote in this one?


Surely that renders the whole thing null and void. No self respecting goth actually calls themself a goth, isn't that right Mata? tongue.gif
So the only people who are going to take the poll are non-goths.
Izzy
^ Then what would the point of the poll be? If only non-goths vote, we might as well just keep the results the BBC gave us.

How about the people considered Goth by other people vote?
Phyllis
QUOTE (devils_daughter @ Apr 21 2006, 11:38 AM) *
^ Then what would the point of the poll be? If only non-goths vote, we might as well just keep the results the BBC gave us.

How about the people considered Goth by other people vote?

Right. You're going to find over 1,200 people that others consider goth. How exactly would you do this? I am wondering how you'll find 1,200 respondents at all, much less who 1,200 who define themselves (or are defined by others) as being goth. It takes research teams a ton of effort, money, and time to locate suitable respondents. Conducting a study of that size is not really something you can do on a whim. It would require far too much effort for the (likely inaccurate) results you'll get.

The stuff you're proposing is something I wouldn't even hand in as an undergraduate project.
gothictheysay
There really is no way that this can be done accurately unless it were up to a professional research team - so I think the discussions expanding on what to do aren't going to lead anywhere. =\ The study may be flawed, but I don't think we can fix it. Just a good thing to realize that it is flawed, I guess. smile.gif
Izzy
QUOTE (candice @ Apr 21 2006, 02:48 PM) *
QUOTE (devils_daughter @ Apr 21 2006, 11:38 AM) *

^ Then what would the point of the poll be? If only non-goths vote, we might as well just keep the results the BBC gave us.

How about the people considered Goth by other people vote?

Right. You're going to find over 1,200 people that others consider goth. How exactly would you do this? I am wondering how you'll find 1,200 respondents at all, much less who 1,200 who define themselves (or are defined by others) as being goth. It takes research teams a ton of effort, money, and time to locate suitable respondents. Conducting a study of that size is not really something you can do on a whim. It would require far too much effort for the (likely inaccurate) results you'll get.

I never said 1,200 people, I just think that over 25 would be a little more suitable.
Phyllis
QUOTE (devils_daughter @ Apr 21 2006, 11:59 AM) *
I never said 1,200 people, I just think that over 25 would be a little more suitable.



QUOTE (devils_daughter @ Apr 16 2006, 02:56 PM) *
I'm pretty sure if you interveiwed 1,258 teens who described themselves as goths, the amount of them who self-harm would be around 14%


That is what gave me the impression that you intended to survey that many people.
Izzy
QUOTE (candice @ Apr 21 2006, 03:30 PM) *
QUOTE (devils_daughter @ Apr 21 2006, 11:59 AM) *

I never said 1,200 people, I just think that over 25 would be a little more suitable.



QUOTE (devils_daughter @ Apr 16 2006, 02:56 PM) *
I'm pretty sure if you interveiwed 1,258 teens who described themselves as goths, the amount of them who self-harm would be around 14%


That is what gave me the impression that you intended to survey that many people.


*slaps face with hand* I totally forgot about that. I never actually intended to interview that many people, it was just an example of what the BBC couldv'e done better. I was thinking more of like...100 people. It'd still be kinda hard finding 100, but it's way more manageable than 1,200...
Daria
QUOTE (devils_daughter @ Apr 21 2006, 07:38 PM) *


How about the people considered Goth by other people vote?

Is that most people who wear black? Even I have been called a goth- well, a "goff"- because I was wearing all black. Does that mean that I should partake in the poll?
Izzy
^ *notices how confusing this could really be*..uhhh...up to you. If you fell you could be a help, sure. If not...continue with your daily posting needs.
Museum Girl
QUOTE (candice @ Apr 15 2006, 02:42 AM) *
QUOTE
Only 25 participants felt strongly associated with goth culture.


Well that makes the results not even worth publishing. If I did an essay on that study, I'd probably get severely marked down (if not failed entirely) for using such crappy statistics.

I really hate when people publish such things as if they are fact, and add only a minor warning about the size of the study. Though, at least they mentioned the size at all. Most don't. So they'd probably get a D+ and a note saying "See me after class."


It's like that study that claimed bisexuality didn't exist having tested 33 "bisexuals" by having them watch porn. *sigh*

While no self respecting goth may call themselves goth, the people in the study did call themselves goth so that solves that problem. I really dislike the way the BBC article misses out almost all the positive statements about goth cuture that were in new scientist. It's just going to make parents ban their kids from being goth and congratulate themselves for solving the problem while making it worse by denying the kid self expression "emotional support" (quoting new scientist) and by forcing them to repress stuff for fear of punishment and trying to repress negative feelings only makes them stronger.
elphaba2
QUOTE (Museum Girl @ Apr 24 2006, 03:25 PM) *
It's like that study that claimed bisexuality didn't exist having tested 33 "bisexuals" by having them watch porn. *sigh*

I remember that study, though to be fair it only said that male bisexuality didn't exist (one of the guys was equally aroused by male and female porn). In general though, rubbish study. I know hordes of straight people who are aroused by *any* kind of porn and genital response to the "right kind" of pornography is hardly an accurate measure of sexuality.

Also, yes, um, Goths. [Question that expands discussion]. [Interesting aside].
deepest cut gets a fiver
You see the problem is when yer walking down the street and you see a goth, you dont just see one person, you see to saddened flollowing parents. Angered and frustrated that their child, once a pleasant guy has turned into a sluttish looking girl.....smile.gif tongue.gif laugh.gif cool.gif
Daria
Interesting first post. Welcome to Matazone... I guess.
Mata
Ah, so what you're saying Deepest, is that the problem with goths is that they upset their parents? For some, that's probably the point. smile.gif wink.gif biggrin.gif smile.gif 8) (I'm investigating smiley semaphore.)

I have noticed over the last few years an increase of goth-and-parent couples walking around towns. The parent doesn't give a damn, and the goth is usually quite happy to have along someone who is going to pay for the adorable stripey arm warmers. It works out well both ways.

Although that does raise one issue: it used to be pretty rebellious for a guy to put on eyeliner or a woman to whiten her face (rejecting the 'tanned is good' idea), but now it's become just another look that people can pull on in the morning. There's not really that sense of moving outside of society any more. Is this likely to make more extreme methods of rebellion, such as self harm, more likely?

I'm not suggesting that self-harm is done for attention (a lot is kept hidden), instead that rebellion is often a method of feeling like you're gaining some control of your life, so if the milder forms of rebellion have all been downgraded does that mean people are going to go further?

Another way of saying this might be, has the rebellious nature of looking goth been downgraded so much that it doesn't satisfy the need of individuals (usually teenagers) to try and take control of their identity?

(Whether looking goth is actually anything like asserting individuality anymore, or if it ever was, is probably a topic for a new thread.)
voices_in_my_head
Hmm. That's a pretty interesting thought, there.

Before I get going here, though - As far as self-harm goes, I don't think it has increased due to sub-culture trends coming to mainstream (Punk, goth, and emo have all been extremely popular, although addmitedly in different forms than they had been in before) so much as it has just been accepted, so you hear more about it. It's kinda like there have always been gay people - but no one was really aware of how common it was until recent times when it was simply more accepted.

Now, about the self-identification thing. I'm speaking purely from what I've observed from other kids around my age (we're talking around 14-17, here) and my own thoughts, not some scientific study, just so you know. I find that teens will often do whatever isn't in to make themselves stand out. Like you said, goths began wearing white makeup to reject the "tan" look. So currently, the whole "in" thing is having your own blog, being up-to-date with pop culture, vintage clothing, photography and other artsy pastimes, and of course - rock music is more popular than normal lately.

So, with these things being "in", kids wanting to stand out do what's "out". For example, Refusing to get a myspace, wearing hollister with heavy eyeliner, listening to opera - all things I've seen kids do simply to stand out. I don't think the more general knowledge of self-harm is going to drive kids to higher extremes at all, they'll simply begin rejecting the idea instead. It's kind of like after the 90's (which, of course, was full of drugs, sex, and rock) the 2000's emerged with a growth in the "straight edge" movement amoung teens. To stand out, they simply went against what they were expected to do - drink, have sex, and do drugs.

I really hope that made sense...I kinda tend to ramble and what not.
Daria
It totally made sense. What's more, it backs up an idea that I have been brewing for a while that there isn't really anything you can rebel against these days, apart from rebellion itself.
I was going to make a derogatory remark about straight-edge kids, but I actually secretly admire them. I'd quite like to be able to not drink- alas, such is the UK culture and my usual habits that it just isn't going to happen. Well, until they make alcohol-free Adnams wink.gif
Mata
So as the backlash against goth and emo we're going to have a generation of accountants? Interesting thought.

Now, I could see it working that way in America, but I think that British culture is a bit more set in its ways of rebellion. I doubt anyone over here is going to rebel through less of drugs, sex, and alcohol. I can see how the straight edge thing has happened in US culture, because being sober has a very wide appeal culturally, but in the UK I suspect that the only people who are tea-total are recovering alcoholics.

Admittedly, I'm basing this on a couple of weeks experience watching Americans socialise in California, and that was backed up by lots of US television. It seems like a character in 90% of US drama only has to sniff alcohol once and suddenly they're raving alcoholics. When I was staying with a group of students in California (as I've recounted in other places on this forum) they were very confused by my suggestion that we could all go out to a bar for the evening - that was utterly alien to them. Spending the night getting whacked out of their tree on pot was fine, but drinking alcohol? For fun and relaxation? Weird!

Am I going out too much on a limb, or does anyone else see this as a possible distinction between UK and US culture?
voices_in_my_head
It really depends on where you go - Southern states, in my experience, consider driking a plausible pastime (especially here in Texas, where the state motto is "Don't Drink and Drive - You Might Hit A Bump And Spill Your Drink") while other states may do completely different things instead.

I've actually noticed a new trend in fashion that, oddly enough, actually makes the main point of it to look as if you work as an accountant. Glasses, vests, pencil skirts, pinstripes, pearls and so on. To get rid of the "in" look of grunge, they bring in the office style. It's truely odd.
Daria
QUOTE (Mata @ Jan 8 2008, 03:07 AM) *
So as the backlash against goth and emo we're going to have a generation of accountants? Interesting thought.

Now, I could see it working that way in America, but I think that British culture is a bit more set in its ways of rebellion. I doubt anyone over here is going to rebel through less of drugs, sex, and alcohol. I can see how the straight edge thing has happened in US culture, because being sober has a very wide appeal culturally, but in the UK I suspect that the only people who are tea-total are recovering alcoholics.

Admittedly, I'm basing this on a couple of weeks experience watching Americans socialise in California, and that was backed up by lots of US television. It seems like a character in 90% of US drama only has to sniff alcohol once and suddenly they're raving alcoholics. When I was staying with a group of students in California (as I've recounted in other places on this forum) they were very confused by my suggestion that we could all go out to a bar for the evening - that was utterly alien to them. Spending the night getting whacked out of their tree on pot was fine, but drinking alcohol? For fun and relaxation? Weird!

Am I going out too much on a limb, or does anyone else see this as a possible distinction between UK and US culture?

That one is alcohol based, and the other drugs (well pot)?
Alcohol really is an integral part of British culture, and it is widely acceptable to go out on a Friday night and get sh**faced, and spend the rest of the weekend either drinking, or nursing your hangover before work on Monday. I really couldn't imagine not being able to drink- if, suddenly, the government decided that the legal drinking age should be 21 instead of 18. I was brought up with my parents having wine with dinner, and the idea that a beer/ glass of wine at lunchtime is perfectly acceptable. (I was also brought up with the idea that if you are going to drink, it should at least be nice, which is why I have a taste for local ales, Suffolk cyder and stout.) I sometimes wonder if I am drinking too much- over the Christmas period, I don't think there has been a day where I haven't had any alcohol. [I haven't been drunk (not even on New Year's Eve), either]
I do know of some straightedge UK kids, but they really are the bottom of the social rung. They are also ridiculouslly pretentiously emo, and it makes them seem as though they view themselves as being better than the rest of the drinking/ drugging world because they choose not to alter their brain with drugs/ alcohol.

I have no clue about American culture, in this respect. I am still periodically shocked by the way things are done in the US, that I have given up trying to find patterns!
voices_in_my_head
Like I said, I have a feeling that it varies from place to place in the US, but over all Drinking is bad, drugs are really, really, really bad. But as soon as you hit that magical age of 21, suddenly no-one really cares if you drink, as long as you don't do it every night of the week.

As for underage drinking, the laws on it are super-strict, yet it's still ignored by most teens. Cops have been known to think of silly reasons to pull teen drivers over just in hopes of catching one going to a party, one coming from one...ect. It's a bit sad, really.
Daria
QUOTE (voices_in_my_head @ Jan 8 2008, 10:22 PM) *
Cops have been known to think of silly reasons to pull teen drivers over just in hopes of catching one going to a party, one coming from one

That's very common in countryside areas in the UK, but trying to catch people coming from raves instead of house parties.
elphaba2
QUOTE (Mata @ Jan 7 2008, 10:07 PM) *
Now, I could see it working that way in America, but I think that British culture is a bit more set in its ways of rebellion. I doubt anyone over here is going to rebel through less of drugs, sex, and alcohol. I can see how the straight edge thing has happened in US culture, because being sober has a very wide appeal culturally
Admittedly, I'm basing this on a couple of weeks experience watching Americans socialise in California, and that was backed up by lots of US television. It seems like a character in 90% of US drama only has to sniff alcohol once and suddenly they're raving alcoholics. When I was staying with a group of students in California (as I've recounted in other places on this forum) they were very confused by my suggestion that we could all go out to a bar for the evening - that was utterly alien to them. Spending the night getting whacked out of their tree on pot was fine, but drinking alcohol? For fun and relaxation? Weird!

Am I going out too much on a limb, or does anyone else see this as a possible distinction between UK and US culture?

Hu-whahh? Being sober has a cultural appeal?

Now, see, here is that whole hundred-year-hundred-mile thing coming into effect. Because my experience is a gazillion times different from that in California or Texas or anywhere really other than where I am, a suburb outside of a major, giant, city, full of bored people with too many videogames. We mock the sober. We attempt expert drum parts on "Rock Band" in some kid's basement while unable to count the number of god-awful vodka-and-other-thing-combinations/miserable 151 shots/beers/fancy small glasses of someone's mother's Portuguese wine we have downed. And we walk home on twisty, quiet streets, hoping we don't get squashed in half by a drunk driver-mother in an SUV.

My teenage america loves its drinks (and its pot as well, probably more than the Brits because...I don't know why? Why don't you seem to like pot as much, Brits?) and we love not being sober but the thing that we youths do not like is Bar Culture. Because it is simply too impossible for us. There's transport to, transport from (not to mention ID anxiety--those lovely peers of mine who were also born in '90 know that it is a date practically impossible to chalk into anything else) and worries of being hit on by stupid blotto accountants and also The Law. So we don't, in that weird way, "grow up" with Bar Culture. Perhaps you should have asked your Californians if they wanted to hit a liquor store and grab a bottle and chill? But then again, that is silly.

Also, Mata, you are talking about silly TV like those moralizing "teen dramas" or Lifetime movies or anything else. We are a little slow over here in the States, but we are aware that not a passing whiff of hard cider does not an alcoholic make. In fact, us in the subculture, non-religious-right, baby-killin', degree-totin' Liberal North--we like alcohol a lot precisely because it has that whole goofy myth around it. It helps us think of other ways to make fun of the South.
Mata
Just quickly (because I really should go to bed at some point tonight), the alcohol on American TV thing is from a wide range of US programs. Usually they are of the House/OC/Friends/Prison Break variety, as well as in the movies... So pretty much everything. If a person (especially men for some reason) has a drink in a US drama or comedy it often seems that this is the start of a ridiculously fast spiral into full alcoholism.

Perhaps it should also be said that this drinking is happening outside of bars, and usually when there isn't an imminent sports game on the fictional character's television. If those circumstances are there then it's fine to drink, otherwise it's a quick trip to a tearful intervention for that character.
Daria
QUOTE
(and its pot as well, probably more than the Brits because...I don't know why? Why don't you seem to like pot as much, Brits?)

Well, depends on which Brits you're talking about. You get the chav/ wannabe gangsters who smoke, then you get the "alternative"s who also smoke (people who like cool music and dress differently to the norm). There's also people who do it socially- those who don't ever own their own, but will smoke some of others. There's also the people who take every drug under the sun, and have pot as a segway between them all.
USUALLY, though, the people in suits and the politicians/ TV presenters/ celebrities will be doing cocaine. It's faster, a "better" hit, flaunts the amount of money they have, and doesn't smell.
I think that the Brits do love their weed, but it just isn't as talked about because we have a massive amount of binge-drinking that takes over the headlines? I know that from growing up in the countryside, there's limited options for what you can do for recreation. You can't go to a pub because the landlord/lady have known you since you were three, and so won't serve you (if you're underage, obvs), you can't drive/ don't have enough money for petrol to go to the nearest city and watch a film or something, you can't just randomly have sex with someone (a fun past-time for all) because they're probably your cousin (or more likely an ex of a friend of yours) and so you're left with a couple of options: parties (house parties and raves included), getting drunk in a field, taking drugs. Personally, I didn't smoke weed until I was 19, and had not done anything else before (not even poppers)- but I'm an oddball tongue.gif
So yeah. I think it is consumed as much (probably percentage wise) as it is in America, but just not talked about as much. Or, there are other things that get all the attention.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.