Monday, June 13, 2016
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Join SHOWTIME Free Trial
$3 for Free Trials
Amazon Third Party Video Subscriptions Bounty
Earn a fixed advertising fee for visitors you get to sign up for SHOWTIME Free Trial, part of Amazon Third Party Video Subscriptions Bounty. Our membership program offers special benefits for a low monthly fee: *Prime members can add subscription services like SHOWTIME and more to their membership *Manage subscriptions via Amazon Video on any device *No cable or satellite account necessary *Watch popular TV shows and blockbuster movies
Saturday, June 11, 2016
Thursday, June 9, 2016
A tattoo means
Why a tattoo means you're more likely to be aggressive: People with body ink found to have a more rebellious personality
Once only associated with convicts and biker gangs, they are now called ‘body art’ - and even the Prime Minister’s wife has one.
But people with tattoos are actually more aggressive and rebellious than those without, researchers have found.
The
research has been seen as surprising as it had been thought that as
tattoos had become more mainstream – with a parlour seemingly on every
high street these days – there would be little difference between the
inked or un-inked.
Professor Viren Swami of Anglia Ruskin University studied 378 adults, 181 women and 197 men aged between 20 and 58.
Of these 97 – one in four – had tattoos.
Those
with tattoos were found to have ‘significantly higher’ levels of verbal
aggression, anger, and were more rebellious compared with people
without tattoos.
The more tattoos a person had, the more angry they were, the survey found.
The
research found that tattoos had become ‘mainstream’ – with ‘no
significant difference’ in the social and educational background between
those who with and without tattoos, and men and women were equally
likely to be adorned with body art.
The
tattooed people – members of the general public questioned in high
streets, underground stations and parks in London - were more likely to
be rebellious in a ‘reactive’ way.
Someone
who showed ‘reactive rebelliousness’ would answer they would ‘get angry
and argue back’ if someone in authority shouted at them.
Pro-actively
rebellious people were more likely to answer positively to questions
such as ‘if you are asked particularly not to do something, do you feel
an urge to do it?’ on the test measures.
Professor
Swami, professor of Social Psychology said: ‘We found that tattooed
adults had significantly higher reactive rebelliousness, but not
proactive rebelliousness, compared with non-tattooed adults.
Scroll down for video
 |
| Add caption |
The fact that one in four people had a
tattoo in the study tallies with 2006 research by dermatologists in the
United States, which found 24 per cent of people were tattooed.
 |
| Add caption |
Pro-actively rebellious people were
more likely to answer positively to questions such as ‘if you are asked
particularly not to do something, do you feel an urge to do it?’ on the
test measures
‘One
explanation is that people who have higher reactive rebelliousness may
respond to disappointing and frustrating events by getting tattooed.
‘That
is, when these individuals experience a negative emotional event, they
may be more likely to react by pursuing an act that is seen as defiant.
The act of tattooing is perceived as rebellious, or more generally
tattoos themselves can signify defiance or dissent.
‘On
the other hand, there were no significant differences between tattooed
and non-tattooed adults in proactive rebelliousness. It is possible that
this form of rebelliousness, which is hedonistic and goal-driven, is at
odds with the pain and permanence of tattoos.
‘We
also found that tattooed adults had higher aggression scores on two of
the four dimensions of aggression that we measured, namely verbal
aggression and anger.
‘Although
tattoos have now become commonplace in modern British society, our
findings may have implications for understanding the reported
associations between tattooing and risky behaviour among adults.’
 |
| Add caption |
The researchers did not look at the
designs of the tattoos. It is very possible that someone with a dainty
dolphin on the foot, as sported by Samantha Cameron, might be less
aggressive than someone with a teardrop tattooed under the eye
 |
| Add caption |
Drawbacks of the research include that the measures of aggression were self-reported by researchers
Professor Swami, 35, has four tattoos on his arms. They include a cherry blossom tree, a flower, and a pheasant.
He
said that his survey found that women – whether tattooed or untattooed –
showed higher verbal aggression, proactive rebelliousness, and reactive
rebelliousness than men.
Professor Swami said that the links between tattoos and aggression ‘are slowly being eroded’.
‘Tattoos
are not being used in the same way , they don’t symbolise aggression,
you can’t go with that assumption any more. People are attempting to
emphasise their uniqueness as an individual. Tattoos have become an
accessory.
‘Nowadays a lot of celebrities have tattoos.’
He also said that tattoos were less painful to get than in the past, and the technology to remove them has also improved.
The
fact that one in four people had a tattoo in the study tallies with
2006 research by dermatologists in the United States, which found 24 per
cent of people were tattooed.
Drawbacks of the research include that the measures of aggression were self-reported.
The
researchers did not look at the designs of the tattoos. It is very
possible that someone with a dainty dolphin on the foot, as sported by
Samantha Cameron, might be less aggressive than someone with a teardrop
tattooed under the eye – said to be the sign of someone who has taken a
human life.
Body art
SARAH VINE: Body art? No, tattoos are hideous self-harm
 |
| Add caption |
Art? England's Ross Barkley and his tattoos
Their hair is neat, their shirts crisp, the three lions on their chests suitably rampant. There’s just one problem: the tattoos.
Great swirls of ink encase their biceps and forearms. Arsenal’s Jack Wilshere has had his arm-work mostly dedicated to his family.
Twenty-year-old Ross Barkley, by contrast, has used his to illustrate his more contemplative side. On the outside of his arm, in Chinese script, the word ‘fengxian’, meaning ‘to devote’. And at the base of his hand, a quotation from none other than the Greek philosopher Aristotle: ‘No notice is taken of little evil. But when it increases it strikes the eye.’
Wow. Who knew that beneath that rugged exterior lurked the sensitive soul of a classicist?
Now we see why he almost missed the bus on the first day of training in Rio on Monday: he was so busy applying Aristotelian logic to the likelihood of a 4-2-3-1 formation securing a victory in England’s opening game against Italy, he lost track of time.
Perhaps I’m being a bit mean and this young man really is a budding Greek philosopher. Or perhaps, like so many of his generation, he’s just got swept up in the ghastly modern mania for tattoos.
Personally, I find the whole thing mystifying. If any child of mine gets one, it’ll be the white spirit and wire wool, and no mistake.
Also, please can we stop calling them ‘body art’. They’re not. What they are is the British obsession with class made flesh.
When I was Barkley’s age, tattoos were the preserve of sailors, Hell’s Angels and ex-cons.
Then, in the mid-Nineties, they began appearing on the well-heeled ankles of the hipper scions of the middle classes.
 |
| Add caption |
Jack Wilshere and Ross Barkley: When I was their age, tattoos were the preserve of sailors and Hell's Angels
It was all part of that embarrassing ‘mockney’ trend, where middle class kids decided to stop trying to be posh and hang out instead among the ‘common people’.
And so they practised their glottal stops and got tattoos: risque, dangerous, a new way to rebel.
But — and this applies especially to women — there’s a darker side to this tattoo obsession. Designs of such ugliness they seem almost like a form of self-harm.
Think of poor, frail Amy Winehouse, her emaciated limbs decorated like a navvy’s; think of the ethereal, fragile Peaches Geldof.
The more beautiful the girl, the bigger the tattoo. If God had given me even half of what Cheryl Cole has, I wouldn’t have defaced the juiciest bit with a hideous rose.
Rihanna, Cara Delevingne, Rita Ora: they’re all the same.
Like Britney Spears shaving her hair, or Marianne Faithfull destroying her looks with drugs, it’s as though they are trying to spoil their greatest gift. And where celebrities lead, the fans slavishly follow.
So at the weekend there was the hideous sight of Emily Wood, 25, a former pupil at £14,000-a-year Sutton High School, at Epsom racecourse sporting all-over tattoos.
Mrs Wood owns a tattoo parlour where, surprise, surprise, her clients include several famous footballers.
No doubt she can look forward to a lucrative summer as young fans queue up to emulate their World Cup heroes by disfiguring their bodies with quotes from ancient philosophers they’ve never even heard of.
Rich boy Clegg and his very nasty tax
Ever since Nick Clegg officially became the Most Unpopular Politician of All Time, he’s been searching for ways to change this.So, in an act of stunning unoriginality, he delivered a speech on Monday attacking the rich and promising a ‘mansion tax’.
Clegg was vague about his definition of both ‘rich’ and ‘mansion’. (I can help, Nick: a rich person is someone who went to Westminster school; a mansion can be a chateau in France or chalet near Klosters — both of which your family own. Personally, I don’t object to either, but since you clearly do, it’s best to be clear).
 |
| Add caption |
Nasty: Nick Clegg wants us all to think he would
be targeting the oligarchs. But for those who have worked hard all
their lives, saved and become relatively affluent, the mansion tax will
be a genuine source of anxiety
Clegg wants us all to think he would be manfully targeting the oligarchs and bankers. But I can’t see Roman Abramovich quaking in his Salvatore Ferragamo loafers. For the truly wealthy, losing a few grand is nothing.
But for those who have worked hard all their lives, saved, and who now find themselves in positions of relative affluence, the mansion tax will be a genuine source of anxiety.
Instead of being able to enjoy the fruits of their labour, they will find themselves squeezed dry to plug the gap in the nation’s finances caused by years of profligate spending on layabouts such as White Dee from Benefits Street.
Take an elderly couple who live a few streets away from me. They’ve lived in their two-up, two-down terrace for 50 years. They bought it long before the area was fashionable, and probably paid just a few thousand for it.
Their kids are grown-up and gone and they lead a quiet but active existence, tending to their garden and strolling backwards and forward to the local bowling green.
But if local sales prices are anything to go by, their house is now worth over £1 million — which technically makes them millionaires.
Rich. Bad. Evil. And punishable by tax.
Except, of course, they’re not. They’re just a nice, old couple who have the right to enjoy their final years without being given sleepless nights by politicians trying to resurrect their ratings.
Hurrah for a tipsy Goddess
 |
| Add caption |
It may not be dignified, but I love this photo of Nigella
Of course, it’s not terribly dignified but I love this picture of Nigella, rolling out of a charity night last week.
Just look at that sheepish smile which says: ‘I know, I know, I’ve had one too many glasses of wine — but I’m my own woman now, and besides — don’t I look ravishing in this lovely midnight-blue dress?’
So different from the gaunt figure in the grip of a controlling husband that we saw last year. Good for her. I hope she went home, ate half the contents of her fridge and then fell asleep on the sofa and snored until morning.
At the start of this year, a friend of mine was diagnosed as being pre-diabetic.
Despite being an avowed bon viveur, he had always enjoyed an iron constitution. So the news came as a big blow.
He was prescribed a variety of pills, and told to start taking them immediately. Being of an age, however, he disobeyed his doctor’s orders.
Disobeyed — but not ignored. Instead of swallowing the tablets and carrying on as before, he embarked on a serious lifestyle change. For three months, he gave up booze and rich food.
They were, he told me, the most boring three months of his life. But at the end of it, the news was good: he was heading out of the danger zone.
Now that a third of British adults are thought to be pre-diabetic, the message from GPs should be clear: wherever possible, shape up.
Self-control is free; if we want the NHS to stay that way, it’s up to everyone to start exercising a bit of it.
Meat should be a luxury
I like Jay Rayner, food critic and MasterChef guest judge, despite his curmudgeonly demeanour. I also agree with him when he says a farmers’ market chicken is a luxury — but for different reasons.Until relatively recently, all meat was a luxury. Not just for financial reasons, but for sound health ones, too: recent studies have shown that daily meat consumption may even be linked to cancer, especially bowel and ovarian.
It’s only because supermarkets have pushed down prices by selling intensively reared poultry that the cost of a real bird — one that hasn’t been pumped full of antibiotics and kept in horror conditions — seems extortionate.
Britain is obese, and the reason is we eat too much junk food. Quality, not quantity, is the key.
Gear-stick wine-stoppers, chocolate cigars, novelty socks and cufflinks— all in the name of Father’s Day.
Why waste your money when most would be happy with a kiss, a wonky card and a free pass for all the England games?
A volley of silly sexism
 |
| Add caption |
Deserving: Andy Murrau's new coach Amelie Mauresmo (pictured) is a capable former world No. 1
I turned on the radio on Monday, and found myself transported back to the Fifties. A woman — oh, the effrontery of it! — had been announced as Andy Murray’s new coach.
It was one thing being coached by a woman as a child (Murray’s mum, therefore also regrettably female), said a male pundit, quite another entrusting your international career to a girl.
The
fact that Amelie Mauresmo is a former world No. 1 — which is more than
can be said for most other coaches — presumably doesn’t count?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)