Andrew's Adventures in Dating
Andrew La Rose
Read or be Shot? I think not!
Alistair Bowdidge
Underage Smoking vs. Legal Smoking
Jessika Quinlan
Andrew's Adventures in Dating
Andrew La Rose
You're a pimple-ridden, 17 year-old guy. You're getting ready to go on your first, and hopefully not your last, date. You've groomed yourself for more than the obligatory 10 seconds, bought the flowers, and borrowed Dad's car, after pledging on the Bible to bring it back in one piece. Now you're at the front door, ready to spend your life savings, the heart-shaped chocolate box and roses in hand, her parents' names memorized, and you've run through every worst-case scenario possible, just in case.
Does this sound even remotely familiar? No? Want to know why? Because it doesn't exist.
The question is: In terms of dating in the year 2002, what does exist?
Most of the time, a teenage girl is lucky if she gets the guy to "super size" her fries, if he's planning on paying at all, that is. And grooming? From the look of things recently, I don't think that it's even a part of the school dress code any more, much less on a date. If you're a teenager who's dating in our times, you tend to lower your expectations, and anything more is a miracle.
But, then again, if you're not supposed to expect anything at all, what's the point of going on a date in the first place?
To find this out, I decided to go to the only place where I knew that I could get an honest answer: the dictionary, where it defines the word "date" as a noun. More specifically it is "an engagement to go out socially with another person, often out of romantic interest."
"An engagement to go out socially with another person"? From the sounds of that, if you were to go out on a date, you'd be one step away from marriage. That's enough to scare away even the most desperate of daters.
At this point, I decided that I'd try and find a less "rigid" response to my question.
I thought that it would be best to start with the word "dating" itself. I asked Ms. Beaudry, a guidance counselor and teacher here at Jarvis, what she thought of when she heard the word "dating". She brought up a rather good point, " I think that dating is very superficial and just about getting to know the person. It's very 'surfacy' and more about impressions and chemistry."
However, Ali Karim, an OAC student, had this to say on the subject, "I think $H!T! I'm going to spend a lot of money, and the sex better be good'."
Ali's point about spending, not the sex, left me wondering if we still, secretly, feel the need to impress the other person on the date.
"The other bad thing [about dating]," Ms. Beaudry adds, "sometimes is when you're so self-conscious that you can't have a good time, because you're just worrying about what the other person thinks. You notice things about your behaviour and what you're doing that you would never notice otherwise with someone you're comfortable with."
Being self-conscious on a date can turn you in to a one-man freak show, if you aren't one already. However, if the person you're on the date with is self-centred, it could turn into an episode of "This Is Your Life, Loser!"
Joanne Mei, an 18 year old, OAC student, talked about one such experience where her date seemed to be holding his own private love-in. "Two and a half years ago, I went out with this guy. Very stylish. His name was Nick. We went out to a bar, or lounge, which was pretty empty at the time. We were having some drinks, and he's all like 'I like your jeans'; I said thank you. Then he asked what kind they were, and I said Parasuco. But then he just went on talking about himself. And then after that he says, 'I like my jeans, they're Hugo Boss'...He made me want to vomit."
Self-centred dates aren't a new thing. Mrs. Gotsis, another teacher at Jarvis, had a somewhat similar story. "[I was] going out on a blind date with someone I'd never seen before, and he was a pretty lovely guy, but we were very different. He had different views; I had different views, and basically he talked about himself all night, and I ignored him."
By this point, you may be starting to think that dating is a lost cause, and it is. However, the way to dull the pain of the date, as suggested by both Ms. Beaudry and Ms. Gotsis, is to not make it seem like a date at all.
But if we start to avoid "dating", and meeting people that way, time and time again, does it mean that the only other option is to accept life as a hermit; just you, and 20, or say, 100 cats?
Some people, however, like Ben Jensen, a 17 year old, OAC student, have made out just fine without dating. "In all honesty, I've never been on a date like you see in a sitcom, or in the movies. All my relationships usually start out with sex, or making out."
Now that's all fine and dandy, if you stick with the same person for a long, long time; like, say, a week.
On the other hand, another way to approach dating could be by examining what you expect from the other person. And it isn't necessarily sex. According to the Jarvis Whole School Survey, taken between 2000 and 2001, only 29% of Jarvis students were sexually active. Obviously, there is a higher percentage of Jarvisites dating than having sex.
For Daniela Scur, a Grade 12 student, all she expects out of a date is a nice good-bye kiss. "If there's not a good-bye kiss, then the date's not over. It brings closure to the date... Unless it was a bad date, then I'm like 'Please, go away'."
The art of courtship has, thankfully, moved away from "an engagement to go out socially with another person." You don't have to be locked into a set way of "going out", which almost always ends up leaving you in need of a psychiatrist. You can get romantic, or just get it on. However you look at dates, when it's all said and done, just try to have some fun, talk about nothing and everything, and don't put pressure on yourself, or the other person.
Just relax; it's only high school.
Read or be Shot? I think not!
Alistair Bowdidge
Note: This is a response to an article written in a previous edition of the Jarvis Jargon: "Read or be Shot"
"If illiteracy, or poor literacy, is a problem in today's schools, is shoving a book down a student's throat really a way to solve it?"
The answer: Yes.
Questions like this one, appearing in a previous issue of The Jargon, are becoming all too common. Many high school students read books assigned by their teachers, but nothing of interest to them. Students need to comprehend the fact that reading is beneficial, not some kind of authoritarian rule.
Since the implementation of the reading period last year, many mixed reviews have been put forth. Some, like myself, feel it as an excellent way for students to broaden their psyches, whether it be through Stephen King or those free newspapers found on the subway. Others, however, feel it is a waste of time, if not that, then a perfect napping session.
It can be argued that it is a waste of time, but when you think about it, it's just a minuscule fraction (five minutes) of each class lost. The problem is, some believe that reading is a natural skill that is picked up effortlessly.
It's not.
Those who read on a regular basis find that the more often they read, the better the words jump at them, forming a lucid mental picture. Not only that, but they know they are reading faster than they were a year ago, for some, a month ago.
John, a Grade 11 student, finds these statements true: "Since this reading thing began, I've been turning pages quicker and quicker."
Another student in Grade 12 who admires the new period explains its effect: "Last year I used to start books in reading period and would only read in that twenty minutes. Now I read at home and on the T.T.C."
For these guys, university or college won't come as a shock when they see how much reading is to be expected. Others, however, who don't read in this time nor at home will be quite surprised. For them, post-secondary education will be overwhelming.
With technology practically everywhere around us, people pick up information paraphrased off screens and through speakers, rather than from reading newspapers. For some, reading might prove to be an effort; because of this, watching television is a quicker and more reliable source.
In some people's minds, the reading period is a law, meant to force those who have trouble reading to straighten up.
For those who complain that their teachers stop bathroom use once the bell has started: go before. If you find your class's reading material lacking, bring a book. If you find sitting and staring into air boring, get a book you like and get into it.
Some people despise the idea of reading so much that they refuse, forcing teachers to lay down the law and setting them out to be the bad guys. It's when this becomes a habit that altercations arise. I'm certain that doing something like a little last-minute work once in a while won't result in a referral to the office.
Other Jarvisites argue that the reading period is not fair because one's reading time should be a choice. I couldn't agree more. However, and I know I stand for many teenagers when I say this, television is a deterrent. Sometimes at home I want to read, but when Seinfeld is on, followed by Frasier, followed by The Simpsons, I can't help myself. The mastermind behind reading period must have understood the hypnotic effects of television, and other activities which put reading as one of the last things on people's to-do list.
Some of my fellow students choose not to read at the designated reading period. When asked why, a common response is: "I couldn't find a good book." Sometimes we don't find books, they find us. Everyone has an interest. Through the reading period, students have the opportunity to investigate things that intrigue them.
By choosing our own books we set our own pace. No deadlines.
When you think of reading period, don't think "read or be shot", think how Captain Ahab will catch the white whale, or who Holden Caulfield will find phony.
Underage Smoking vs. Legal Smoking
Jessika Quinlan
I am a student at Jarvis Collegiate Institute and I am sitting in class. It is 11:47 A.M. It's exactly three minutes before common lunch starts and the cravings are already unbearable. My lips are aching and my fingers are itching to get one. The seconds tick by like hours. Finally, the class is dismissed; it's time for lunch. I grab my bag and run down the stairs, taking them two at a time. Out the door and across the street to Mac's, not even waiting for the light to turn green. I open the door and walk up to the counter, more than a little out of breath. I'm starving for one at this point.
"A small pack of king-size Belmonts."
"Do you have I.D., miss?"
"No, sorry, I left it at home. I'm 20, though, I swear," I reply, knowing full well by the 'miss' that he knows I'm only 16.
"I'm sorry," answers 'John,' "I can't sell you cigarettes without I.D.; it's the rule. Sorry."
"Whose rule?"
"The government's."
Damn government. They're the ones that supply us with the cigarettes. I run out, back across the street, up Jarvis, to a small variety that will remain nameless. I walk up to the attendant and start the routine all over again.
"Small pack of king-size Belmonts, please."
"How old are you?"
"20."
"You said Belmonts?"
I nod my head as he reaches for the pack and then hands them over to me. Finally.
If it's against the law to sell cigarettes to minors, then how am I a smoker? I went to eight different variety stores, and found that five of them sold me cigarettes. That's over half. Obviously the government-set rules are taken very seriously. I found that attendants at two stores didn't even question me at all, and three asked for my age, but no proof of age. If an attendant asked for my age, they're obviously aware that they're not supposed to be selling cigarettes to minors.
If you're aware of this rule and you're going to ask me for my age, but not for identification, why even ask my age? I doubt that they're just overly-trusting people who take my word for being 20, and I doubt that it's because I look incredibly mature for my limited 16 years. Maybe they just don't care. One would have to assume it's more the latter, after hearing what some students at J.C.I. had to say.
Leah Kainer, a Grade 11 student, said that at age twelve, a variety store near her house sold them to her "all the time." They sold cigarettes to a twelve-year old girl. Sandy Lieu, also in Grade 11, said on the other hand, that she had older friends buy cigarettes for her, when she was around 15 or 16 years old. However, 15 or 16 is still not the legal smoking age.
I conducted a 60-person survey at the Eaton Centre. I asked 60 people, male and female, who I believed looked younger than 19, whether or not they smoked. Out of 60 people, 37 were smokers; 16 were male and 21 were female. Out of the 37 smokers, 2 were over the age of 19. That means that 35 people, over half of the people that I approached, were underage. Three of them said that they got their older friends or family members to buy cigarettes for them, while 32 of them said they bought them themselves.
If it is possible for this many minors, including myself, to obtain cigarettes, then why does the government insist on keeping this law? I understand the line has to be drawn somewhere - I don't think that 11-year-olds should be able to walk up and buy cigarettes whenever they want - but a 16 year old? At the very least, an 18-year-old should be able to buy cigarettes. At 16 years of age I am apparently responsible enough to drive a car, possibly endangering not only myself, but all the other drivers on the road. More so, at 18 years of age I am apparently smart and responsible enough to vote. Our country's future leader can be put in my hands, along with many other important decisions, but I am still not responsible enough to buy cigarettes.
I can understand restrictions on alcohol. Alcohol causes accidents, accidents among any age group, but they are more common among teenagers. I cannot, however, understand the current age restriction on cigarettes. This truly does not make sense. Is it more harmful to smoke at 19? Recent Health Canada studies have shown that girls who smoke during puberty are twice as likely to get breast cancer as those who don't. However, smoking at any age can cause lung, mouth, and tongue cancer, heart attacks, gum disease and a countless number of other afflictions, including death. The government doesn't seem to see all that as a reason to make smoking in general illegal, or at least raise the age barrier to something ridiculously high.
If the government is going to regulate smoking, why not make it altogether illegal? Oh no, then where would they get all their money to not spend on schools and hospitals?
If the government is going to distribute cigarettes to the country, how can they say that a 16-year-old can't smoke because it's bad for them? We should all know that by now, anyway, since they put all those helpful and informative little warnings on our cigarette packages like, "smoking is highly addictive." Thanks for the heads up, because most people buying full packs of cigarettes couldn't possibly be addicted already, could they? Though I suppose I should pay more heed to those warnings instead of covering them up with my nicotine-stained fingers every time I open my pack. But really, how can the government allow the distribution of cigarettes but then turn around and try to make it seem like they don't want people to smoke?
The consequences for selling to minors can range from a fine to loss of employment to store closure, according to an attendant at a Mac's located down in the Beaches. The consequence for buying cigarettes for a minor is a $4000 fine. And yet I am still a smoker, and I am certainly not alone. How is this possible?
If the government legalized selling to minors, aged 16+, most of us wouldn't partake in illegal activities to feed our cravings. This is a weak argument, I realize, but true nonetheless. If the health risks are the same, not to mention the fact that we're all at risk from second hand smoke anyway, and other more important privileges are given to us at ages younger than 19, why not just lower the age barrier? In Canada, at 18 years of age we are legally adults. Adulthood is usually associated with responsibilities, privileges, and most importantly, freedom. But if freedom is so fraught with regulations, why not just call it regulated freedom?
No comments:
Post a Comment