http://watchmojo.com/blogs/images/swearing.jpgIn response to Christopher’s Blog Post
http://beyoungbefoolishbutbebad.blogspot.com/
I find your post on swearing quite amusing, i myself try not to swear that much especially not in front of my family especially my mom but when I’m out with my mates every other word seems to be a swear word. I think swearing when it is in the right context is a blessed thing lol.
http://edmondclothing.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/tattoo-pierced-face.jpg
In response to Kim’s Blog Post
http://kimrobbins23.blogspot.com/
I am all for individuality but the man in question in the image is ridiculous. Why has he done this to himself is his self esteem that low that he needs to get a attention by shocking people. He will never be able to get a normal job. Everyone has a right to express themselves but this man is an idiot.
http://justordinary.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/infidelity1.jpg
In response to Lisa’s Blog Post
http://airwickair.blogspot.com/2010_04_01_archive.html
I 100% agree with your views on infidelity. I think only the most cowardice and selfish people cheat on their partners, if you can cheat on your partner then obviously the love has gone for that person so it should be ended to make the hurting less then if that person found out about the infidelity.
http://surhul.co.uk/files/minisites/1852/Smoking_Logo.jpg
In response to Daniels Blog
http://airwickair.blogspot.com/
I can see from your blog that you have a very honest opinion on smoking, however smoking is one of the most disgusting habits ever and I believe that peoples health and society would benefit greatly from a nationwide ban on smoking. I predict that in the future that smoking will be banned sooner rather than later.
http://www.emoboyfriend.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/emo-vodka.jpg
In response to Jon’s Blog post on alcohol.
http://jonvbeingbad.blogspot.com/
I completely agree with you on the effect alcohol has had on my life. I started drinking relatively late on think I had my 1st drink when I was around 17. Alcohol is the social glue that holds me and my mates together, nearly all the best nights out or funniest moments involve alcohol!
http://bestseedbank.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cannabis_leaf.gif
Response to Kieran's Blog
http://ruthlessrandomz.blogspot.com/
I liked Kieran’s post on drugs. He raised the point of making cannabis legal and I believe that as well. Nearly everyone I know has smoked weed before or carries on doing it so if everyone is doing it maybe it should be made legal. Also weed has many health benefits should as helping with arthritis pains.
http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2007/09/25/lower-back-tattoos_1822.jpg
Response to Simone’s Post
http://beingbadmyveiwpoints.blogspot.com/
I found Simone’s post very interesting and I completely agree with your opinions on tattoos and body modification. I too have a tattoo which is personal to me as I got it on my 20th birthday present. I like the fact you draw on individuality as being important, because the world would be a very boring place indeed if everyone was the same.
http://www.moonbattery.com/Marquis-de-Sade.jpg
In response to Jodie’s Blog
http://jodieosullivan.blogspot.com/
I found your post on the issue of pornography very interesting, especially the research you have done on Marquis de Sade. This french aristocrat spent most of his life in prison or insane asylums , where he would write his pornographic novels . Regularly arrested for imprisoning and sexually abusing his male and female staff at his castle , he was sentenced to death for poisoning prostitutes and sodomising his manservants , though he was later given a reprieve. This man was very bad indeed and i think he epitomizes being bad.
http://watchmojo.com/blogs/images/swearing.jpg
Swearing in English
In 1914, the use of the phrase "Not bloody likely" on an English stage caused a national sensation. Upon the utterance of 'The Word', it was reported that there was "a few seconds of stunned disbelieving silence, and then hysterical laughter for at least a minute and a quarter". Contemporary newspapers delivered headlines such as 'THREATS BY DECENCY LEAGUE' and 'THEATER TO BE BOYCOTTED', and the Bishop of Woolwich proclaimed that "The Word should be banned". Today, public attitudes have relaxed tremendously, yet there remain in English several words that are considered powerfully offensive by polite society. In this study I will look at why people swear, and try to decide whether or not such words make a valuable and valid contribution to the great diversity of our language.
The concept of a 'swear word' - one that is considered indecent and inappropriate in polite contexts - exists in most (although not all) languages and cultures. Linguistic taboos arise from social taboos; in English, these generally surround blasphemy (the defamation of Christianity) or obscenity (explicit references to sex and certain parts of the body). In the case of obscenity, the link between forbidden words and forbidden actions is illustrated by the fact that there is a surprisingly close correlation between the degree to which a word is deemed unacceptable, and the degree to which the action that it denotes is also considered publicly unacceptable. Thus, to burp or fart is considered only mildly offensive, and as a result these terms are not used as swear words. To shit or f**k in public, however, would generally be deemed highly inappropriate and this is reflected by the taboos surrounding these words.
Of course, even when the subject matter being described is highly obscene, some words are considered significantly more offensive than others. It has been said that there is no such thing as a true synonym in English, and this certainly appears to be the case where obscenity is concerned. Copulate and f**k may share the same denotative meaning, but their connotations are markedly different (the first is biological terminology, the second is crude and contemptuous), and it is this that differentiates the two words.
There is a widespread public association between swearing and social class, and many of those who criticise the habit most strongly do so because they believe it to be a 'common' and unrefined habit. It may be fair to say that many regular swearers come from anarchic or lower-class backgrounds, and that they swear primarily as a means of distancing themselves from mainstream society and affirming their position as a member of a particular social group. However, many famous swearers do not come from such backgrounds, and even English monarchs and American Presidents have been known to participate in the habit.
The taboos surrounding blasphemous words have been in decline throughout the past century, in conjunction with a decline in strict Christian beliefs. Bloody, damn, and hell are now considered mild, and most of the blasphemies used by Shakespeare - exclamations such as Zounds! (God's wounds) and marry! (By the Virgin Mary) - passed out of common usage some time ago.
The more recent liberation of sexual attitudes has also been accompanied by a more relaxed attitude to the accompanying swear words, although this liberation has not yet proceeded as far as with blasphemies. The uncensored publication in Britain of D H Lawrence's sexually explicit novel Lady Chatterley's Lover, in 1960 (three decades after it was first written), was a landmark in sexual freedom and in the liberation of the associated swear words. The book contains repeated examples of both f**k and c**t (considered by many to be the two most offensive words in the English language), yet the resulting obscenity trial returned a not guilty verdict. Nonetheless, the first utterance of f**k on the BBC five years later (in an interview with Kenneth Tynan) provoked a public outcry similar to the one surrounding the theatrical use of bloody in 1914.
Although much of the public angst surrounding swear words concerns their explicit meanings, a personal survey involving a wide variety of spoken sources revealed that only 7% of the swear words used were intended literally (and most of these literal examples were relatively mild words such as arse). Indeed, some swear words have become so dissociated from their meanings that they can be easily misunderstood. (As far back as 1848, Robert Browning used twat in his classic poem Pippa Passes, mistakenly believing the word to refer to an item of nun's clothing!) The relative insignificance of literal swearing may simply be due to the astonishing profusion of non-literal forms, or it may reflect the fact that some of the more severe swear words carry a level of emotion that is inappropriate for many situations.
One common non-literal use of swear words is as a way of venting anger or resentment, either in the form of a general interjection (F***ing hell!) or a personal insult. Many swear words are rich in fricative and plosive consonants that help to create a harsh and emotive sound. Often these insults accuse the subject of something deemed socially unacceptable: masturbation (wanker), incest (motherf***er), an illegitimate family background (bastard), or sexual deviance (bugger). These terms are rarely intended to be taken literally, but their unpleasant connotations may help to preserve their emotive nature. Alternatively, the subject may be likened to something offensive (arsehole, twat). Some insults are completely nonsensical; the writer Bill Bryson (amongst others) has commented on the irony that a frustrated individual may incite a hated person to commit the very act that would give him the most pleasure.
By far the most common function of swearing is a descriptive one, a role filled mainly by two words: bloody and f***ing (the latter is undoubtedly the more severe). Most sources classify such words as adjectives or adverbs depending on their grammatical context, yet these words often refer ambiguously to an entire phrase or sentence rather than to a specific item within it. Because of this generality, the positioning of such words within a sentence is often arbitrary, and although their natural position is preceding a noun or verb, a speaker may subconsciously reposition them to create emphasis or rhythm in a sentence. Occasionally this involves splitting a clause in two, or even inserting the swear word as an infix within another word (as in absof***inglutely). Swear words may be deliberately positioned in such a way as to create alliteration or assonance.
Descriptive swearing usually conveys one or both of two impressions: emphasis or contempt. In their emphatic capacity, these words have sometimes been regarded as straightforward synonyms of very, but there are important differences (besides in acceptability). A profane epithet relies on connotation rather than denotation to express a feeling, with the result that, unlike the word very, it serves to strengthen the impact of a particular statement regardless of the grammatical context in which the word is used. To see what I mean, consider how the meaning of the phrase that I quoted at the start of this study - "Not bloody likely" - would be altered if bloody was replaced with very.
The epithet can sometimes be dispensed with completely, and the effect created instead by the substitution of a self-evident noun with a swear word (as in "I hate this shit"). The fact that such speech can still be understood perhaps illustrates how many of the things that we say are in fact redundant. Some speakers, unfortunately, may use descriptive swear words so regularly that they become largely meaningless, except as a means of creating general tone, or (worse) as a crude and clumsy way of maintaining the rhythm of a sentence.
In addition to these major uses, all of the most obscene words have spawned a wide variety of bizarre idiom. They can be used by an experienced swearer to add emphasis or contempt to the expression of almost any feeling or situation. The use of such words seems non-sensical, yet they follow strange and arbitrary rules. For instance, we would not say "arse off" or "piss you", yet f**k can be used in both of these contexts.
With blasphemy no longer highly unacceptable and the impact of obscenity deteriorating fast, what will give rise to the linguistic taboos of the 21st century? One likely source is the language of racism. In 1994 one prominent professor told the US News of the World that 'if she used f**k in class, no one would bat an eye, but she would never dare to use any racial epithet in that context'. Other prejudices are similarly frowned upon, and the persistent ability of c**t to cause great offense despite the word's recent overuse may stem partly from its sexist connotations.
As a means of expressing extreme emotion, swear words undoubtedly have great power, and they can sometimes achieve effects that are hard to create in more legitimate ways. Swearing may also be beneficial as a means of relieving pent-up anger, and studies have indicated that those who swear regularly suffer less from stress than those who do not. When used in moderation, I therefore believe that swearing is a valuable part of our language. However, excessive overuse of swear words is less commendable, not only because it is tedious, but because it gradually diminishes the impact of the words involved.
As for the offense that may result from the explicit or blasphemous denotations of many swear words, this is a question of individual morals.
http://www.andrewgray.com/essays/swearing.htm
http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u15/Property_crime.gif
Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority (via mechanisms such as legal systems) can ultimately prescribe a conviction. Individual human societies may each define crime and crimes differently. While every crime violates the law, not every violation of the law counts as a crime; for example: breaches of contract and of other civil law may rank as "offences" or as "infractions". Crimes are generally considered offenses against the public or the state, distinguished from torts which are offenses against private parties that can give rise to a civil cause of action.
When informal relationships and sanctions prove insufficient to establish and maintain a desired social order, a government or a sovereign state may impose more formalized or stricter systems of social control. With institutional and legal machinery at their disposal, agents of the State can compel populations to conform to codes, and can opt to punish or to attempt to reform those who do not conform.
Authorities employ various mechanisms to regulate (encouraging or discouraging) certain behaviors in general. Governing or administering agencies may for example codify rules into laws, police citizens and visitors to ensure that they comply with those laws, and implement other policies and practices designed to prevent crime. In addition, authorities provide remedies and sanctions, and collectively these constitute a criminal justice system. Legal sanctions vary widely in their severity, they may include (for example) incarceration of temporary character aimed at reforming the convict. Some jurisdictions have penal codes written to inflict permanent harsh punishments: legal mutilation, capital punishment or life without parole.
The label of "crime" and the accompanying social stigma normally confine their scope to those activities seen as injurious to the general population or to the State, including some that cause serious loss or damage to individuals. Those who apply the labels of "crime" or "criminal" intend to assert the hegemony of a dominant population, or to reflect a consensus of condemnation for the identified behavior and to justify any punishments prescribed by the State (in the event that standard processing tries and convicts an accused person of a crime).
Often a natural person perpetrates a crime, but legal persons may also commit crimes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime
http://www.nationpains.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/baby_faced_british_boy_a_dad_at_13_1310331858.jpg
Voters are deeply pessimistic about the state of Britain today, believing that society is broken and heading in the wrong direction, a Populus poll for The Times has found.
Nearly three fifths of voters say that they hardly recognise the country they are living in, while 42 per cent say they would emigrate if they could.
But worries over the pace of social change and dislocation are balanced by the belief that life will get better, according to the survey undertaken at the weekend.
It suggests that 70 per cent believe that society is now broken, echoing a Conservative campaign theme of the past two years, while 68 per cent say people who play by the rules get a raw deal and 82 per cent think it is time for a change.
The snapshot of Britain also confirms, however, that the battle between the parties has tightened with Labour two points up at 30 per cent.
Women, working-class people and Tory voters were more likely to say that they hardly recognise their own country.
Overall, 64 per cent think that Britain is going in the wrong direction and just 31 per cent believe it is on the right track.
This is a widely used measure of mood in the United States where 57 per cent of people think America is going wrong and 37 per cent believe it is on the right track.
It is not all gloom. Three fifths (60 per cent) of those polled say they look to the future with optimism, against 38 per cent who are looking forward with anxiety. While 45 per cent say Britain’s best years are behind us, 50 per cent say that they are still to come.
More than half the public (55 per cent) say that their children’s lives will be better than their own, while 37 per cent say that they will be worse.
Voters’ main fire is directed at political institutions: 73 per cent say politics is broken in Britain and 77 per cent say there are far fewer people in public life that they admire than there used to be. The poll suggests anger at MPs who have had to repay expenses. A third say that they will vote against their local MP if he or she had been required to repay money.
David Cameron claimed yesterday that his generation of Tories were better placed than the Government to “fix broken politics”, and unveiled new rules that would bar former ministers in the private sector from lobbying government for two years.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7020009.ece
http://www.bhsj.org/satf/images/satf_logo.jpg
According to the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), substance dependence is defined as:
"When an individual persists in use of alcohol or other drugs despite problems related to use of the substance, substance dependence may be diagnosed. Compulsive and repetitive use may result in tolerance to the effect of the drug and withdrawal symptoms when use is reduced or stopped. This, along with Substance Abuse are considered Substance Use Disorders...."
Substance dependence can be diagnosed with physiological dependence, evidence of tolerance or withdrawal, or without physiological dependence.
The related concept of drug addiction has many different definitions. Some writers give in fact drug addiction the same meaning as substance dependence, others for example provides drug addiction a narrower meaning which excludes drugs without evidence of tolerance or withdrawal symptoms.
Drug addiction is a pathological or abnormal condition which arises due to frequent drug use. The disorder of addiction involves the progression of acute drug use to the development of drug-seeking behavior, the vulnerability to relapse, and the decreased, slowed ability to respond to naturally rewarding stimuli. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) has categorized three stages of addiction: preoccupation/anticipation, binge/intoxication, and withdrawal/negative affect. These stages are characterized, respectively, everywhere by constant cravings and preoccupation with obtaining the substance; using more of the substance than necessary to experience the intoxicating effects; and experiencing tolerance, withdrawal symptoms, and decreased motivation for normal life activities. By the American Society of Addiction Medicine definition, drug addiction differs from drug dependence and drug tolerance.[3]
It is, both among scientists and other writers, quite usual to allow the concept of drug addiction to include persons who are not drug abusers according to the definition of the American Society of Addiction Medicine. The term drug addiction is then used as a category which may include the same persons who, under the DSM-IV, can be given the diagnosis of substance dependence or substance abuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_dependence#Drug_addiction
http://www.caterersearch.com/blogs/catering-news-blog/binge-drinking.jpg
What is binge drinking?
The NHS definition of binge drinking is drinking heavily in a short space of time to get drunk or feel the effects of alcohol.
The amount of alcohol someone needs to drink in a session for it to be classed as ‘bingeing’ is less clearly defined but the marker used by the NHS and National Office of Statistics is drinking more than double the daily recommended units of alcohol in one session.
The Government guidelines state that men should not regularly drink more than three to four units a day, and women should not regularly exceed more than two to three units daily.
Binge drinking for men, therefore, is drinking more than eight units of alcohol – or about three pints of strong beer. For women, it’s drinking more than six units of alcohol, equivalent to two large glasses of wine.
What’s the difference between drinking normally and binge drinking?
Two large glasses of wine may not seem like very much. But drinking six units of alcohol in a short space of time – an hour, say – will raise your blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and could make you drunk very quickly. Drinking the same amount over several hours, and accompanied by food for example, will not have the same effect on your BAC.
Some studies show that drinking a large amount of alcohol over a short period of time may be significantly worse for your health than frequently drinking small quantities.
Getting very drunk can affect your physical and mental health:
More commonly, binge drinking can lead to anti-social, aggressive and violent behaviour.
Alcohol is a factor in:
Binge drinking is most common among 16–24-year-olds , and is more common among men than women. The General Lifestyle Survey 2008 showed that 21% of men and 14% of women drank more than double their recommended units on at least one day in the previous week. However, in the last decade binge drinking among young British women has increased rapidly.
And binge drinking when you’re young can become a habit. Studies have shown that those who drink a lot in their teens and early 20s are up to twice as likely as light drinkers to be binge drinking 25 years later.
How can you tell if you’re a binge drinker?
Even if you don't drink alcohol every day, you could be a binge drinker if you regularly drink:
http://www.drinkaware.co.uk/facts/binge-drinking?gclid=CL-9y-WovqECFQuElAodDD8y-A
http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/1/18/633678862466542786-BodyModification.jpg
Body modification
Body modification (or body alteration) is the deliberate altering of the human body for non-medical reasons, such as sexual enhancement, a rite of passage, aesthetic reasons, denoting affiliation, trust and loyalty, religious reasons, shock value, and self-expression. It can range from the socially acceptable decoration (e.g., pierced ears in many societies) to the religiously mandated (e.g., circumcision in a number of cultures), and everywhere in between. Body art is the modification of any part of the human body for spiritual, religious, artistic or aesthetic reasons.
Some sources of controversy stem from the notion of attempting to artificially beautify the natural form of the body, often leading to charges of disfigurement and mutilation. Extreme forms of body modification are occasionally viewed as symptomatic of body dysmorphic disorder, other mental illnesses, or as an expression of unchecked vanity. Unlicensed surgery (i.e. the plastic surgery field) performed outside of a medical environment can often be life-threatening, and is illegal in most countries and states.
"Disfigurement" (a subjective term) and "mutilation" (regardless of any appreciation this always applies objectively whenever a bodily function is gravely diminished or lost, as with castration) are terms used by opponents of body modification to describe certain types of modifications, especially non-consensual ones. Those terms are used fairly uncontroversially to describe the victims of torture, who have endured damage to ears, eyes, feet, genitalia, hands, noses, teeth, and/or tongues, including amputation, burning, flagellation, piercing, skinning, and wheeling. "Genital mutilation" is also used somewhat more controversially to describe certain kinds of socially prescribed modifications to the genitals, such as circumcision, female circumcision, castration, and surgeries performed to conform the genitals of individuals with intersex conditions to those of typical males or females.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_modification#Controversy
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00678/Roy-chubby-Brown_28_678129a.jpg
Bad Comedians
What is a bad comedian? The answer from me would be a person who makes light of a subject that re-enforces stereotypes on particular members of the community. This could be racial, social, cultural, or religious or a combination of them all. Everyone makes jokes in one form or another. How they are told and in what context has an effect how the joke or funny story is received.
Comedians that use a racial basis for there jokes are often seen as highly offensive, and it is this type of comedian that has received the most criticism over recent years. Bernard Manning, Jim Davidson, and Roy Chubby Brown are at the forefront in this type of stand up comedy.
As a person who is deemed an ethnic minority, I personally find many of their jokes extremely offensive. What I find most offensive about racist comedians, is their willingness to re-enforce stereo types that are inflamortary and not true.
Bad comedians use the stage to voice their own racial and social ideologies. The effect of this is to spread a belief that once killed millions of Jews and Polish people in the second world war.
About eight years ago I was stood out side a chip shop in my home town of Walsall. I over heard a small part of a conversation. One of the men speaking said to his friend "If Germany had won the war; we wouldn't have a problem with black people". I did nothing but pay for my chips and walk home. http://www.funny.co.uk/stand-up-comedy/
One thing I know for sure with out any "ifs" and "buts" speculation is that nothing like the holocaust will ever happen on that scale again. Mans fear to understand one another will be short lived in scale of time and history. Social integration is a part of evolution, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.
http://sheridanbeingbad.blogspot.com/2006/05/nasty-comedians.html
To you what defines a nasty comedian?
http://arts.monash.edu.au/film-tv/conferences/bad-cinema/bad-cinema-320v.jpg
Stinkers Bad Movie Awards
The Bad Cinema Society (formerly known as the Hastings Bad Cinema Society) was a Los Angeles-based group of film buffs and movie critics devoted to honoring the worst films ever made.
The society was founded by Mike Lancaster and Ray Wright, two former ushers who met in the late 1970s at what is now the Pacific Hastings Theater in Pasadena, California (from which the society originally got its name).
They offered the annual Stinkers Bad Movie Awards, which was a parody of the Academy Awards. The Stinkers were similar to the Razzies. Aside from the usual categories one might expect in an Oscar parody (worst film, worst actor, etc.), the Stinkers offered other clever categories such as Worst Fake Accent, Most Painfully Unfunny Comedy and Least 'Special' Special Effects. Unlike the Razzie, the Stinkers did not have an awards ceremony.
The Stinkers' first ballots were handed out to the public in 1997. In the years that followed, the Razzies and Stinkers rarely agreed on a list of nominees or "winners." The Stinkers initially opened their balloting to the general moviegoing public but soon discovered that most people surveyed hadn't seen many of the films on the ballot and often just voted for the person they hated the most, usually someone like Mariah Carey, the Spice Girls or anyone connected with the film Gigli.
In 2004, the Stinkers went to a more selective way of obtaining votes. They dismantled their membership and offered ballots by invitation only to a small, select group of film geeks and critics, who had seen a majority of the films during the year.
In 2006, the Stinkers refused to nominate hotel heiress Paris Hilton for her supporting role in the horror film House of Wax. Said Lancaster, "To get on the Stinkers ballot you are judged on your performance, not your tabloid persona. Anyone that would put Paris Hilton on a list of the five worst supporting actresses in 2005 didn't see a lot of movies in 2005. I could list 12 actresses who gave worse supporting performances than Paris Hilton."
The very next year, the Stinkers did nominate Paris Hilton for an award -- Worst Performance By An Actress In A Leading Role -- for her performance in the barely released National Lampoon's Pledge This!. Society co-founder Mike Lancaster had this to say about Hilton's nomination; "It was like Paris was baiting us, I'm not sure why she needs us to confirm to her that she's a bad actress appearing in a bad movie, but if she has the nerve to play her movie in a theater five minutes from my house, I will take notice. I still have my ticket stub if any one doubts this film played in a theater. It was like a gift from the bad movie gods."
In late January 2007, it was announced on the website that following the announcement of the year's winners, the Stinkers website would be officially closed down after ten years on the internet. On July 1, 2007, four months after the announcement of the worst of 2006 winners, the site was taken down. Its' final headline was a review quote from Chicago Sun-Times critic Richard Roeper calling the film Evan Almighty "a paper-thin alleged comedy with a laugh drought of biblical proportions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinkers_Bad_Movie_Awards
The Golden Rasberry Award
The Golden Raspberry Awards, called the Razzies for short, is an annual award ceremony held in Los Angeles to recognize the worst in film. Founded by American copywriter and publicist John J.B. Wilson in 1981, the event precedes the corresponding Academy Award ceremony by one day. The term raspberry in the name is used in its irreverent sense, as in "blowing a raspberry". The awards themselves typically cost US$4.79 each, in the form of a "golfball-sized raspberry" which sits atop a Super 8 mm film reel; the whole of which is spray-painted gold.
American copywriter and publicist John J.B. Wilson traditionally held potluck dinner parties at his house in Los Angeles on the night of the Academy Awards. In 1981, after the 53rd Academy Awards had completed for the evening, Wilson invited friends to give random award presentations in his living room. Wilson decided to formalize the event, after watching a double feature of Can't Stop the Music and Xanadu. He gave them ballots to vote on worst in film. Wilson stood at a podium made of cardboard in a tacky tuxedo, with a foam ball attached to a broomstick as a fake microphone, and announced Can't Stop the Music as the first Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture. The impromptu ceremony was a success, and the following week a press release about his event released by Wilson was picked up by a few local newspapers, including a mention in the Los Angeles Daily News with the headline: "Take These Envelopes, Please".
Approximately three dozen people came to the 1st Golden Raspberry Awards.[ The 2nd Golden Raspberry Awards had double the attendance as the first, and the 3rd awards ceremony had double this number. By the 4th Golden Raspberry Awards ceremony, CNN and two major wire services covered the event. Wilson realized that by scheduling the Golden Raspberry Awards prior to the Academy Awards, the ceremony would get more press coverage: "We finally figured out you couldn't compete with the Oscars on Oscar night, but if you went the night before, when the press from all over the world are here and they are looking for something to do, it could well catch on," he said to BBC News.
The term raspberry is used in its irreverent sense, as in "blowing a raspberry".Wilson commented to the author of Blame It on the Dog: "When I registered the term with the Library of Congress in 1980, they asked me, 'Why raspberry? What's the significance of that?' But since then, razz has pretty much permeated the culture. We couldn't have done it without Hollywood's help." Wilson is referred to as "Ye Olde Head Razzberry".
Paid members of the Golden Raspberry Award Foundation vote to determine the winners; individuals may become members of the foundation by visiting the organization's website at www.razzies.com. For the 29th Golden Raspberry Awards in 2009, award results were based on votes from approximately 650 journalists, cinema fans, and professionals from the film industry. Voters hailed from 45 states in the United States and 19 other countries.
The ceremony, typically held one day before the Academy Awards, is modelled after the latter but "deliberately low-end and tacky". The awardsards themselves typically cost US$4.79 each, in the form of a "golfball-sized raspberry" which sits atop a Super 8 mm film reel; the whole of which is spray-painted gold.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Raspberry_Awards
