Welcome to White Bear Park

In the episode White Bear we follow the story of a lost and confused woman. She wakes up in what she believes to be her house, and finds a picture of a young girl. When she steps outside she is constantly chased by someone with intentions of hurting her. Through out the entire film I felt bad for her, up to the point where I find out what she did.
Now, is it moral to put the woman through the same pain and torture day after day? I thought the punishment was fit, until the credits. It is not correct to make a show out of anyone's punishment. I remember when my brother use to get yelled at and I laughed my mother used to get on me too. Punishment is not made for other's entertainment, it is to punish the person for what they did wrong. They went a bit to far with this, to hire/recruit volunteers to do this day after day to teach her a lesson that she will not remember tomorrow is a bit excessive.
I will agree that she deserves a punishment, that she needs to pay for what she has done by watching the recorded video over and over again in a cell all alone, but to have people come and record this elaborate punishment is just not right.

White bear, nightmare

The video we watched in class stayed with me for a while. It made me feel sympathy for someone who had murdered a young girl. It made me feel disgusted at what the other people had done to her. But it also made me think about what justice truly means. Are we even capable of instilling real justice? Do we as humans have the right to punish other people? I feel like what the other characters in the movie we watched did was immoral. It was to the point where the woman could no longer remember what she had done anymore. How can we punish someone for something they have done when they can no longer remember what it is? This makes me wonder how we treat prisoners. I do think that people need to be held accountable for their actions. I feel like what they did in the video was overkill. I know that people have the need to feel like justice has been served. I also know that people often don't realize the extent to what they are doing when they are too close to it. I think that seeing it from an outside perspective helped me gain a better understanding of the cruelty that was being instilled. I also think that watching it helped me see what was truly happening. I feel like if I had read about this in an article I would have leaned to supporting the punishment rather than seeing its cruelty. I also liked that this movie showed the actions from the person who was being tortured point of view. I think a lot of times when we hear about these issues they are biased towards the person who is doing the punishing. I wonder if they would have left the main character's memory intact at the end if she could have done something to better herself? Maybe she would feel guilty about what she had done and might gain perspective into that young girl's feelings. I think that would have been more productive than just torturing the main character over and over. I feel like that should be the goal of our justice system. It should be about legitimate rehabilitation rather than just feeling like we are punishing people who have done bad things. I feel like what the main character had done was truly wrong. But what made this movie linger with me is that I can see something like this really happening. I can see people actually participating and agreeing with this form of "justice". There is something disturbing about how excited the actors are at the end of the movie. They truly believe what they are doing is just and productive. I feel like people in our society might feel the same way.

Is Torture Really Justified?

This week, our class watched a TV episode called “white bear.” It centers on a girl who is being tortured for a crime she committed. I thought this gave very interesting insight into whether torture is okay to do or not. It seemed like most of the people in the class were disgusted when they found out the terrifying situations the girl had to go through were all staged as a punishment for kidnapping a child. I have never been supportive of punishing people by torturing them, no matter what crime was committed. This is because I believe torture takes away the humanity of the person, which is something I believe should never be allowed under any circumstances. Everyone deserves to retain their humanity. I feel some people may be okay with torture because the person is seeing the human in front of them as a personification of the crime they committed, rather than a person. Seeing the torture from the perspective of the girl and getting to watch her go through the same sequence of events with the same amount of knowledge of what’s going on allows us to empathize her and see her as an individual human life rather than the personification of a kidnapper. I wonder if this episode had anyone rethink what they thought about torture and whether it is justified.

Are You Serious?

In the short film, "white bear" the main character was tortured repeatedly for the crime that she committed. The crime was helping her boyfriend kidnap and kill a young girl. Now to most that is just a big no no, everyone knows that kids are off limits, out of the question. For some reason the only excuse she had for her actions were that she was basically manipulated by her boyfriend into doing the crime. They showed her repeatedly day after day what she had done, and she continued to ask to be put out of her misery. Now I know what she did was wrong, but who gives anyone but the law the right to decide someone's punishment. At this point I felt that they were messing with her mental state and that is something people should not play with. Mental torture can do some serious damage to someone. Any type of torture is wrong, physical/ mental it is all still immoral no matter how you look at it. I believe that the community got justice confused with revenge. The community revolves around this "holier than thou" facade, i'm pretty sure if someone pulled the skeletons out of their closet they would be in the same predicament as the girl.  In a way I feel as if the community is no better than she is, they watched a woman get terrified and borderline tortured without saying one word about it. I'm pretty sure they felt as if they were doing what was right for the community and avenging the girl's murder, but in the end it is just tearing down another person along the way. If they felt so strongly about what the woman did they should have went about it the right way; and took her to jail. It all leads to the fact that the communities' actions are not just or moral at all.

Wrong, wrong, wrong

In the episode "White Bear," the main character was tortured for punishment. She seen a picture of a little girl that she thought was her daughter. When she walked out of her house and seen the people recording her, we all could not figure out what was going on. The episode kept the classes attention by inflicting pain on her to make her not know who she was. She told one of the other characters she did not know her name. The goal of the Justice Park was to punish her for her and her fiancé's crime. She seen this symbol every where she went. Later, they took her to a forest that seemed familiar to her. After awhile, we seen that the forest was where they abducted and killed the little girl. As we watched the film, the questions rose "Is this moral?" and "Is this just or unjust?". I do not believe that this is moral. Even though the crime was wrong  there are other ways to address the situation. The forms of torture that they performed were immoral. Not only were they physical harm but also mental. Also, the actions were unjust. I know some may think that she deserved it for her crime. Yes the crime was very wrong but they mentally brain washed her. She does not want to live anymore. Therefore, it is going to cause more problems for her in the future. The Justice Park is immoral because they are getting enjoyment out of her pain and misery. At the end, they put her in a chair and made her watch videos of the little girl then placed electrodes on her head to swipe the memory as she screams. I think this is the most tortuous pain because this is mental pain she will never be able to recover from.  Overall, the episode kept the classes' attention the entire time.

"white bear"

This week, we watched an episode called “White Bear”. Within the film, the main character was tortured every day for at least 3 weeks for committing a crime. The crime was helping her estranged boyfriend kidnap and murder a little girl. She claimed to be “mesmerized” or manipulated into helping him. The community in which she lived decided to “mesmerize” her every day by making her forget who she was, thinking the community was all hypnotized by a radio signal that flashed across all TVs and radios, and having her think she was able to save herself. It was a full production called “The Show”.

While she was captured and shown the truth, she begged for them to kill her to put herself out of the misery. After they showed her the truth, they took her back to the house and repeated the process. Now, the questions are “Is this just? And Is this moral?”. My initial thought was yes it is just, but no it is not moral. My reason for that initial reaction was that yes she deserves punishment for what she did, but not using that method. It is cruel to repeatedly punish someone under mental torture.

After I looked at is in a different way, my opinion changed. To me, because it is immoral, it is also unjust. If it is not acceptable under morality, it also should not be accepted under the law. Yes she committed a horrific crime, but should we be the people to punish her mentally? I feel as if she should be put in jail. If she is put in jail, she would have plenty of time to think about what she has done and essentially punish herself. Mental torture is something human beings should not be able to use for punishment because humans are faulty.

Can you not?

The short film titled White Bear, is a psychological thriller that introduces a morally questionable punishment for criminals. This form of criminal punishment is designed to psychologically torture convicted criminals at a “Justice Theme park.” Individuals pay to help convince these criminals that the psychotic events the criminal is facing is reality. At the end of the psychotic torture, the criminal once again has their memory erased and must go through the same torturous acts every day. This form of punishment, I believe, is not morally good. It is not morally good because it is a contradiction. Criminal acts happen every day. Criminals are caught every day. But to place a human being convicted of a crime in a park to be psychologically experimented with, is inhumane. What this punishment method does is torture an individual for the crimes they have committed that has harmed others. But the people paying to scare these criminals because of their actions, are doing the exact same thing, they are watching someone be harmed for pleasure, by psychologically harming them. It is a contradiction to have a society that has laws to protect its citizens, be broken by a criminal, but then having the public think it is okay to treat humans this way. The spectators are supposed to find enjoyment from this torture, which is the most disturbing thought. We are all humans, we need to have respect for human life. Psychological torture should never, ever, be considered a punishable option.

Taste of Her Own Medicine

This week in class, we watched White Bear. It was very interesting and held my attention throughout the entire film. The main character is being tortured as the consequences for her actions. The Justice Park feel that they are committing justice by bringing pain upon her, so the question is asked. Where their actions just or unjust? Where they moral? I believe that their actions were completely immoral. Many can agree that inflicting pain on others is wrongful. Although the main character participated in an evil deed, the members of the Justice Park are also committing violent actions. However they feel that their actions are just believe they are making her pay for her actions. Since the Justice Park is actually considered a park, I am going to infer that it is legal. The park is legal, their torturing of her is legal, and more. Does legality make something right? I don’t think so. Colonialism was legal. The Holocaust was legal. Slavery was legal. We can all agree that these things were wrong and inhumane, so I say the same goes for the torturing of the main character. Legality is power but not justice. I don't believe killing someone is morally right. Those who might oppose my position may say that it is fair in this situation. The main character participated in the murder of a child, so it can be considered fair that she is also murdered. Justice is still left out. What justice is being done by the torturing of her? There is nothing positive that is being received. There are now three lost souls. The dead boyfriend and child and the main character is included because she doesn’t want to live anymore. The Justice Park can be considered sick and vile because they are getting pleasure and amusement from her pain. Their actions are both unjust and immoral, and they are only doing the actions that they are punishing the main character for.

C average work

We have discussed the controversy of grades before and it always is the same conversation. If we were to get rid of the grading scale completely, people would be angry about people that don't work as hard as them but receives the same award as them. C is technically average but that definitely isn't good enough. Grades do have an effect on student. Personally, thinking about my grade stresses my out and distracts me to the point where I don't remember assignments for some classes because I become so stressed about other ones. If I didn't have the stress of the grades I feel I would learn better and may even pay attention more. Classes could simply be either you pass or you don't. Still have tests but simple pass or fail. No GPA stress or breaking our necks for an A. Just pass or fail.

In class this week during symposium I took the stand as Sartre. The subject of removing grades arose. From the stand point of Sartre, I believe that grades should be removed because now, since we have grades, the student is in Bad Faith because the student is acting as a being-in-itself because they are worried about getting good grades. Like the waiter in the cafe example, the waiter is acting as a waiter so that he or she can get wages and good tips. The student is being a student in the same way the waiter is being a waiter. The student is being a student for grades instead of doing it for knowledge. The student goes to class "because they have to" so they can get good grades and pass the class. Because, the student says that they go to class because they have to, the student is fleeing their freedom and this is bad faith. I also believe this not in the stand point of Sartre. I do believe that grades limit our ability to truly learn. Grades, to me, only measure the ability of the student to memorize material long enough to pass the test. 

The Problem with the Academic Grading System

During the class symposium discussion, the topic concerning the purpose of the educational grading system was introduced. Most people in the class seemed to agree with the argument that grades interfered with the intrinsic motivation to learn. I share the majority opinion in regards to this topic in that when classes place an emphasis on grades, we are only motivated to perform well in the class for the sake of that grade and not for the sake of learning. Marx would likely agree that this interferes with the process of learning, because grades interfere with something that should be a free and conscious activity; however, as we have all experienced, even learning is not free. My dilemma is this: Most of us agreed that the ultimate reward from attending university is the education we are receiving, so why did so many people oppose the hypothetical scenario in the class that involved everyone receiving an A? My honest opinion is neutral. Someone who learns nothing from the class and receives an A is no better off than someone who simply does not receive a college education. However, I think a lot of people opposed this scenario because how else would we compare one another (i.e., how would we know who the best in the class is?). Someone also brought up the very valid point that grades are a poor predictor of intellect; however, I have a hard time disagreeing with the statement that grades are a good predictor of someone’s motivation to achieve. I am also interested to know why some people very adamantly claim that others would stop trying to learn if there were no grades. I think agreeing with that statement requires a person to also completely reject the most basic human need---the need to know.

Are you HUMAN or an Object?

Jean Paul Sartre defines bad faith as a "lie to oneself." To many this may be a hard concept to understand or a pretty easy concept. Sartre uses the "waiter in the cafe'" example to describe how someone lies to themselves. This was a perfect concept for me, because my mom and I actually went for breakfast today and the waitress was very happy and seemed like everything was great in the world. But, whenever she walked to the back of the restaurant her smile disappeared and never seemed to return until she came back to our table. We all know that everyone is not happy about going to work day to day and waiting on others 24/7, but it is a part of life. Now back to the waitress I feel as if she put on this facade just to receive a nice tip at the end of our meal. I never really looked at the situation from Sartre's point of view, but now I find myself asking "is this person truly happy to be here or this just an act?" But, like Sartre stated "the waiter is acting as a waiter" I guess you can't judge that person for something they are trained to do. I actually work as a cashier for Office Max and everyday my manager will tell us to smile, make sure you tell them to have a great day, etc. I sometimes feel as I have to put on this facade to make a sale or to please my manager. I do everything my manager asks even though I feel as though I don't want to be there on a daily basis. This just shows how our society is today, that people will act and be treated like an object more than a human being just to make a living.

A Predetermined Purpose

     I believe that living in a nation where "free thinking" is moderately accepted influences the way we view existentialism and the concept of "taking responsibility of our actions." We are not forced to do anything, whether it concerns career or personal life choices, and have the opportunity to choose. However, I do ask myself if what you want your purpose or value to be can be can be restricted by what you believe is the more rational choice, REGARDLESS of what you want. In order to understand this more, I'll offer a more understandable example.
     If one were to be brought up in a culture or environment where the purpose you serve is predetermined and enforced, how exactly can you be responsible for your actions. If you are, say, forced by your government to participate in a war & ordered to destroy the "enemy" or face death yourself, and then you later find out the "enemy" is a group of innocent civilians, what exactly do you do? What purpose do you serve if you sacrifice yourself in order to avoid something that is not in your free will, knowing that you won't make a difference because someone will do it regardless? What was your purpose in life then? Alternatively, how can you be responsible for carrying out your orders for the sole reason of avoiding your own death? What option can you fully hold full responsibility for I think living in a place where there are not as many limitations on your free will or resulting consequences can determine how much you agree with and even embrace this concept of existentialism.

We All Wear Masks

  Suppose someone says one day that they are lying to themselves all the time. You as an individual in this society accept that as a fact of nature and life, and while yes they probably have been lying to themselves at some point it is not in the way that you think.
  The way that most people conceive lying to themselves is this, I am not sad, they are not dead, they conceive it as you are telling a false truth but you know differently and what the truth is. To lie to ones self is not all that hard people do it every single day. We just don't think of it as lying. The way that a person lies to themselves is actually pretty simple, we lie through doing and being. The way that this happens is by playing a role in life that we think we are. Take a president of a company for example, they say that they are the president and yes in a way that is what they are doing but that is not what they are. It is a role that they are made to play in society today and while they may play it well it is still not that person. Another example to look at on the opposite end of the spectrum is an elementary student, you sit in a classroom, pay attention and are silent for hours on end, and listen to one person speak. For one it is not natural for little kids to sit still that long and two a student is not who that kid is it is another mask to the real person that may never be found. The reason for this is in life we put on so many labels and so many personas that we practically are what we are doing or labeling, it is not hard for you to get lost under the mask of just going about a normal everyday life.
  So in conclusion we all wear masks for one reason or another just the same as we are all lying to ourselves everyday without really thinking that that is what we are lying about. So try to look for who what you are but don't be surprised if it is not what you expect.

Does everything need a label?

A topic in class that really struck my interest was when we talked about labels and how many times we categorize people with labels. In class the example was the homosexual friend and getting the friend to acknowledge that they are in fact homosexual. However, it was discussed that even the word homosexual is a label and caused many questions on actually what it is. The same issue can be seen with many other things such as race, age, and gender. We have become so accustomed to labeling people throughout society that we are sometimes oblivious to it. Furthermore, I was curious about what society would be like without labels and if society could function without them. In my opinion, I believe that labels are needed for society to function, but are actually bad to have. Society cannot function without labels because it is how our country is ran and how it has been for many years. If there was an immediate change, then people would not know what to refer to people as. In addition it can cause more harm than actually help due to conflicts that people feel that labels should stay and that labels should not stay. There could also be a group of people who will not even argue the subject because they will not even want to be a part of it. Despite all this labeling is still wrong. Though a society without labels may seem unattainable right now, there is still hope that one day people will refer to people as just people. To me labeling can be compared to smoking cigarettes in that smoking may satisfy the urge of nicotine in the present. However, in the future is when they really do the most harm to people.  

To choose or not to choose. That is the question.

This week, our class discussed Sartre. He is the founder of existentialism, which is a philosophy of human freedom and responsibility. He also says that human freedom is defined by our ability to negate. I thought it was very interesting when we were talking about whether we can lie to ourselves. I thought the examples that were given were interesting as well. In particular, I liked the story about the woman on the date. I found it relatable, but in a different way than others in the class may have. It talks about the woman choosing not to choose whether to go further with the man she is on the date with or not. However, this statement is contradictory because you have to choose whether to choose or not. This reminds me of when people are debating and agree to disagree. The people are deciding not to make a decision whether they are going to change their beliefs or not. I used to debate with others often when I was younger, and have “agreed to disagree” with many people in the past because neither of us were willing to change our views. This made me relate to the stories. Finding this way to connect myself to one of these stories made me wonder if anyone else had ever been in a situation similar to the ones presented in the class and whether they related to the examples as a result.

Sticky Situations

This week in class, we discussed Sartre. He believes in existentialism, which basically means people can always choose, human freedom and responsibility. He is one of my favorite philosophers that we have covered so far because the concept of existentialism is very interesting. Humans have the ability to make and choose their own decisions. We love the idea of freedom, but we don’t always want the affects of having it. We are responsible for our all decisions. Sometimes we may try to pin the blame on someone else or not take accountability for our actions, but still claim to be free. We must understand that freedom is essential for responsibility. However,  he also believes that there is never a case where you are absolutely unfree, and humans can always choose. This is where a disagreement can emerge. For example, a person that is brain dead. Is this person still considered a person? I believe they are. Regardless of that person not being functional, they are still a person. When I had a conversation with those who agreed with Sartre, they said that that person wasn’t a person. That person could not think for his or her self, so they really were already dead. Although that person may be on their last thread, would you pull the plug? What if that was your mother, father, sister, etc.? You would still look at that individual as a person, regardless of them not being able to do for oneself. I believe this is a case where a person can not choose. That person is not functional, so they can’t choose to get up. They can’t choose to pull the plug. They can’t choose anything. I do believe that there are several circumstances where a person can definitely choose and make a decision, but the fact remains that the person has to be functional in order to do so.

Sarte not Sarte

I found the concept of punching up and punching down interesting. When I was growing up I was always told to respect my elders. I was never told that I should offer criticism, constructive or otherwise. The response was always yes ma'am or yes sir despite what an adult asked me to do. The idea that punching up is more respectable than punching down is a concept that is understandable to me as an adult but would have been ludicrous as a child. Why don't we teach children how to offer constructive criticism? Is it because we want them to obey rather than change our opinions? I work with children and I understand how frustrating it can be when a child doesn't listen. It is so much easier to tell a child to just do as you say than to explain your reasoning behind a rule. But why should they want to follow rules if they don't understand the reason behind them? As an adult when I question or criticize an authority figure people think that I am standing up for myself and others that fall in the same "ranking" as I do. If I did this as a child my peers would just wait for me to get in trouble. There is a concept in teaching children K-12 that is called setting an example. Sometimes this can be used productively. You, the teacher, can have the children mimic your behavior. Sometimes when they are being particularly loud I will have them line up on the wall and wait for them to be quiet. While they are lined up on the wall I am on the wall across from them being silent. Soon (not always soon actually) they follow my example and become quiet as well. However, there is another way to set an example. This requires punishing one child that has been misbehaving with a harsh punishment. The other children see this and know that if they misbehave that they will be punished the same way. I don't consider punishing a child that has been misbehaving as punching down. But I can see how a child might view this punishment as being kicked while they are down. When punishing a child they tend to point out everyone else that had been doing "the same exact thing." This punching up of my discipline style is not seen as respectable. I think that age has a role to play in how punching up and punching down is received. Maybe it has to do with feeling like you have gained a small sense of recognition as an adult.

Sarte in My Blood

I personally believe that Sarte is in my blood and in my family. My father is an entrepreneur and always talked about how he just couldn't handle being told what to do. My brother is the same way and would always end up fighting and arguing with people for what seam like absolutely no reason, including with me. He would fall victim to the Lappell du vide and would simply do stupid and otherwise mean things just to impose his freedom on people. I was always the thinker and expressed my "Sarteism" by unconsciously ignoring authority and only doing things I understood or wanted to do. I strangely would recognize other people's freedoms while also recognizing mines by agreeing that I should do something, but simply not doing it because I didn't want to and I was perfectly fine with any consequences (lol). I would hear my mother tell me to do something, not do it, and be perfectly fine with getting yelled at. I would not do homework, and be perfectly fine with getting an F, mainly because I understood that to get good grades I needed to do everything I was told, but are good grades as important to me than being free and seeking my own personal knowledge (accepting responsibility). For some strange reason, I simply cannot do something unless I completely understand everything I need to know about it and convince myself to have an interest in the outcome. In the end I completely understand the master-slave dialect, I see it everyday; so I inevitably choose to be a master while also respecting others as masters. Is this possible?

Objects or people?

In Being and Nothingness, Jean-Paul Sartre discusses many bad faith scenarios. Bad faith is a “lie to oneself.” First, he explains the “waiter in the café.” We all have had that waiter that walks up to the table smiling and excited to greet you. We all know that person if not truly that excited to be at work or greet customers. Sartre says, “The waiter is acting as a waiter.” I had never thought about this before but after the discussion in class, I noticed it. It is like a waiter has two personalities. For example, when you see the waiter fixing your drink or entering your order in the computer he not excited and friendly until he has to act as a waiter towards people. Most people think that waiters do this in order to receive a tip but they are trained to act this way. I also noticed that the waiters normally have the same shirt, pants, shoes, and similar ways of performing certain tasks. The waiters are trained to do this because they have to. This is bad faith because he is not being what he is in the mode of being it. The waiter is “fleeing one’s responsibility.” Therefore, they chose to do the job or take responsibility for it. If we look around the restaurant we often notice that the space is perfect. They all seat people a certain way, take orders a certain way, place the food on the table a certain way, and clean the table a certain way. It is almost as if nothing could possibly mess up their route.  However, people used to be classified as a “waiter in a café.” This expression meant that a person was acting as an object in the world rather than a person. After noticing this behavior, I realized that many people in several occupations act as objects in the world.

lies

When we begin to talk to about Sartre, we consider his views about the theory of existentialism. Existentialism focuses on an individual and their individual freedom. An individual decides on their own actions because they are free. We are technically never “unfree”. We are in predicaments where we have choice to take an action. We have free will and the power to choose what we do. Many humans have what Sartre calls “Bad Faith”. The reading describes lying to oneself. It brings up the question: “Can you actual lie to yourself?”

Hmmm… my initial thought is: yes, but what is a lie? A lie would be telling a false statement intentionally. It is intentional because the person telling the lie knows the truth. If I tell myself a “lie”—according to definition—can I still tell myself and believe a lie. Well that changes the answer. If I know the truth all along, no I cannot tell a lie by definition. So the conclusion is no you cannot tell yourself a lie. Yet, why do we still label it as a lie?

Maybe it should be labeled as something else considering it is not a lie because we know the truth all along. I guess we could just call it false hope. We know our capabilities and intentions. We tell ourselves to believe something but we know what the outcome would most likely be. For example, I want to lose weight and I keep telling myself the weight will fall off, but I am still eating fatty foods and not exercising. That is not a lie. I know the weight is not going anywhere considering that I am not taking the action for the desired result. I know, even when telling myself that I am, that I am not going to lose weight.

Bad Faith and homosexuality

Yesterday in lecture we continued to discuss the concept of bad faith and examined several examples. Overall, the concept of bad faith correlates with the idea of avoiding our “inescapable” freedom. As human beings, we have the distinct characteristic of having absolute freedom, that is to say we have the power of negation. Accordingly, Sartre identifies two types of being: being-in-itself and being-for-itself. Briefly, being-in-itself (en soi) is characterized as an unconscious being. This type of being is unable to change, meaning it has definite properties, and is unaware of itself. On the other hand, being-for-itself (pour soi) is what is characteristic of humans. This type of being is conscious AND incomplete (lacking an essence). Because the being-for-itself recognizes what it is not, a being-in-itself, it essentially becomes a nothingness. Each individual can be thought of as a blank canvas in which his/her being (the artwork) is created through the choices that are made due to having absolute freedom. When one makes a claim such as “I had no other choice” or “I have to do this”, the individual is fleeing his/her own freedom. Therefore, the individual is claiming him/herself as an object in the world, not a free agent; Sartre calls this as acting in bad faith. 

One of the examples Sartre gives to demonstrate bad faith is the homosexual and his friend. There were some debate in class as to who was acting in bad faith, the homosexual or the friend. Initially, it is assumed that the homosexual is acting in bad faith because he is maintaining that his facticity (past) has nothing to do with him. However, the friend is also acting in bad faith because he is trying to convince him to apply the label “homosexual” to himself. A sketch from the show Madtv (one of my favorite shows ever!) is a bit similar to this example. In the sketch, a couple hires a bi-curious woman (Bambi) to join them in a threesome. However Bambi, who is very much a lesbian, backs out claiming that she is 100% straight. 

Madtv sketch enjoy! =)