State Patty’s day is one of the only events at our school that shares the schools name. As explained in class, it is also owes the entirety of its conception and continuance to the Penn state student body. To my admittedly lacking knowledge, this event is one of the few times when we truly do come together as a school.
I am not convinced that sacrificing this holiday of sorts is even feasible. We had a good showing at the vigil, but even that was not absolute and entirely wide reaching. While we have significantly more time to plan and prepare to not maintain this tradition of sorts, I believe the extra time will also diminish the zeal we might otherwise feel for this cause. It is also my belief that the general reception will be akin to the vigil. I am aware that the rational behind the vigil was not for show, and do not seek to diminish that in any way, but do believe the media will draw parallels. I also am generally leery of sacrificing something for someone when the sacrifice does not benefit them. In this way, I believe that whatever we do should emphasize doing something positive, and not simply refusing to do something we enjoy. I am not entirely convinced this will work, for the exact same reason as previously enumerated. It is my belief that this was not Sam’s intent or general idea. As I understand him, Sam believes we should attempt to avoid any kind of coverage that could possibly be construed as negative. As another comment explains, and that I did not know previously, the school cancels giving tours of the campus to visitors and prospective students on that day. Our school clearly believes that our hijinks would be deemed unacceptable by more mature, or conservative, individuals. If this is the case, and indeed it is, then the media would be able to obliterate us for the same reasons. While students may recognize the effort of sacrificing State Patty’s Day, it is not my opinion that they will recognize the need to lay low, or that laying low does not imply guilt on the whole of the student body. Moreover, the effects are different for different years, and for around a fourth of the undergraduates this will be their last year to participate. I am of the opinion that this would prove to be more divisive towards the general student body than is useful to our community at this stage. To my limited knowledge of my surroundings, the two themes following this scandel have been attempts to alleviate the sufferings of the grieved and maintaining community unity despite media heckling. I don’t see how removing this bonding moment will help.

Well, you see, this is almost entirely dependent on extenuating circumstances. If I am walking down the street and some group of individuals are speaking another language, it does not make me uncomfortable. Quite the opposite, it stops me from unintentionally dropping eaves all over their conversation and having my thoughts sidetracked. Now, if this same group of people were speaking English up until they thought I was in earshot, and I were privy to this, I would be immensely uncomfortable. Tone and general body language is also important, but this is mostly for threat evaluation. If I’m in a decent neighborhood, and these individuals are not adolescents, I pay no mind. Other cases are opposite, if a stranger approaches me speaking another language, I am uncomfortable every time but not because I interpret any untoward or aggressive interests. Simply put, I do not know what the proper etiquette is for explaining that your language is not one that I know. This is more due to the fact that I take every available opportunity to hide my lack of knowledge from myself than any fear of what has typically been a little old lady or the occasional lost individual, in my experience. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is also different if I’m with my friends. Every friend I’ve ever had has been fluent in English, some were also fluent in Spanish. I immediately took offense when such individuals jumped into Spanish in my presence, because doing so directly excluded me from whatever was occurring in the conversation. I did not appreciate the concept of talking behind my back, directly to my face. Now, I understand that talking in your primary language is freeing and that some concepts are most readily conjured when you can use words that directly describe them, as opposed to translating, but the exclusion always felt dishonest to me, like I could not be trusted with the knowledge that a friend of mine might have a secret I was not to know. Note that the fact that I did not know this secret did not bother me, but I like to be told when I am not to pry as opposed to passive aggressively being removed from the conversation. Now, if I were to go to a foreign country, and for some reason unbeknownst to me I chose a country that did not speak English, I would not expect people to speak in my language and would not be upset by theirs. It is possible that I might take more notice of body language and posture in the general populace, but that might be more due to focusing on the senses of most use. After all, if I can’t hear anything of which I can make sense, my vision would be sole provider of environmental awareness.

While this article did not end up on the conclusion I expected, it does a rather succinct job of affirming my current beliefs. Namely, that by looking for happiness, you hide it. In all of my, perhaps limited, experience the profound idea I have ever grasped is that you alone decide how you feel. Now, this can accompany the spiel on being comfortable in your own skin, as if you would otherwise don the skin of another in some macabre and grotesque form of “dress up” had you not been convinced that your skin would suit you better, but for me it did not. Like in the article, this advice simply meant that when you decide you do not appreciate your mood, you can change it. Being a lazy individual I immediately decided that seeking out happiness was for the birds, and I would simply will myself directly into bliss like a professional. This obviously was a complete and abject failure, and surprisingly shocking to me. After some thought I came to the conclusion this article posed, that happiness as it is defined today cannot be maintained for an extended period of time. I like to discover things, and by doing so sap some of the magic out of my reality and make my outlook ever so slightly less colorful, and rationalized this as the brain’s inability to continually pump the chemical constituents of “feelin’ good” into itself. Around this time, or perhaps later, I began to wonder about the effects of simply replacing these chemicals and showing the physical organism that continual and protracted happiness could occur, but the majority of literature I encountered described anti-depressants as numbing. Once again, I was defeated and somewhat flabbergasted. As it turns out, simply not being sad does not launch you directly into the realm of bliss. This is when I discovered that being content was in fact an option, and that contentment existed. At this point I understood the purpose of being in control of your emotional responses, the ability to willfully return to your natural state as the article explained. This also helped me explain how crotchety people always seem to look more comfortable when they were in the middle of some activity that allowed them to showcase just how bitter they were. It was also at this point when being comfortable in your own skin stopped having anything to do with self-esteem and became entirely centered around understanding that you can be content and how that feels/looks when you do it. I am not entirely convinced I agree that happiness is a direct result of interpersonal communication, although I will admit that we are the most social animal on this planet.

Alright, this is a twofold question. First you are asking what would be depicted in an adult industry created and marketed towards women, and then you are asking what the industry would itself be. It is rather easy in our current culture to forget that pornography does not necessarily involve nudity. In fact, nudity itself is on the borderline between hardcore and soft core pornography. Soft core pornography includes a vast majority of our current media, including music videos, commercials for a wide variety of products including some children’s toys, and many episodic shows marketed to audiences as young as fourteen. As defined, pornography is anything, “writing, pictures, films, et cetera, designed to stimulate sexual arousal” (Collins English Dictionary) meaning that the phrasing, sex sells, literally describes marketing as an aspect of pornography. Almost every screenplay has aspects that are pornographic in nature, especially if judged using the modicums of dignity present at the time. Beauty and the Beast would qualify in this case, considering she showed her socks, and had a somewhat lower cut dress than classically appropriate.
So to answer the first portion of your question, with the help of the lecture, a woman centered adult industry would place a much larger emphasis on an emotional connection, foreplay, and the female orgasm. As the popular stereotype dictates, women are more sensual and in tune with the emotional input towards the sexual experience. In a woman centered adult industry there would likely be a much higher emphasis on intimacy. It is also likely that there would be a story with a some manner of plot. I would also assume these stories would not conclude with copulation, and that these productions would most likely be episodic in nature. For these reasons it is my belief that it is likely an adult industry marketed towards women would more closely resemble soap operas, perhaps with occasionally more risqué transitions to black.
Now, in regards to what the industry itself would look like, you had better believe that the marketing would be much different. The films themselves would be considerably longer, and therefore more of an investment, likely more expensive, and require a more intensive approach to watch illegally. Coupled with the generally accepted fact that men have a higher libido then women, and the actual fact that men remain sexually inclined far past their usefulness and to a much larger extent, and it is my belief that the pornographic industry itself would suffer. Now this in itself doesn’t sound especially bad, and one of the newer definitions defines pornography as media of no intrinsic artistic value, but like any industry, pornography does give back under extreme duress. The industry is directly responsible for the handheld camera, which might otherwise not exist in what I believe would be a much lower key industrial arena if it were centered about the woman’s perspective.

There are too many stereotypes to accurately list the ones I do or do not believe to be expedient and practical. It is my general belief, for instance, that when my brother explains that there is a monster in his closet he is wrong. The only fact that I would base such a decision on would be his age, and my brother’s age is in no way relevant to the factuality of the existence of another entity. If I maintained an absolutely open mind the most prudent course of action would be to grab him immediately and evacuate. Prejudice, while the bearer of negative connotation, is essentially what allows us to interact with other animals, people included. The sweet old lady with the walker could rob you at gunpoint just as effectively the young adult in the hoodie, but it seems much less likely. The only reason it seems less likely is prejudice. Similarly, your level of situational awareness is determined by how safe you perceive your location. Simply put, the severely disenfranchised are more likely to rob you than the obscenely wealthy, in person at least. This is not to say that all impoverished persons are inherently violent or dangerous, as shown in the Haiti videos, the working poor are outrageously resourceful. It is also my personal opinion that the working poor possess superior strength of character, and that in itself is a prejudicial and stereotyped belief.
Almost every stereotype has its roots in reality. Moreover, I find the idea that it is racist to be cautious of a six foot two, two hundred fifty, clad in ill-fitting clothes, black man ridiculous. You had better believe I would be on my guard, I would be similarly cautious someone resembling the hick stereotype, or any number of short tempered racial stereotypes. I have literally no shame in this because I know absolutely nothing about this person besides the fact that I believe they could demolish me in an even fight. I obviously would not know this person’s situation, maybe they just lost it all in a fire, were diagnosed with something no one can really pronounce, or simply inexplicably close to a psychotic break. Literally none of this would matter to me, I have been mugged twice and neither time did I wonder at my aggressor’s specific situations. This is not to say that I immediately avoid the physically gifted, some of my friends are massive, but people can be dangerous. If people are modeling a violent stereotype, there is the chance that they are more prone to violence, and coupled with my predetermined knowledge of my current location, I will be cautious of them. This is not to say that supposedly respectable people cannot be prone to violence, but arbitrarily fearing everyone is more crippling than useful.

First off I would like to start this week’s blog by talking about the peanut butter articles and how a seemingly good gesture very well could have devastating effects on some Haitians. When I read how most Haitians are malnourished and lack a good source of protein, I thought sending the peanut butter sounded like a great idea. Then the article when on to explain how the lives of the woman and her family would be ruined because producing peanut butter for her community was how she supported her family. I thought the clothing lady video was very interesting. When Sam said the jean handbag was $25 US I was a little shocked because it seemed very expensive to me. The tee shirt that was priced at $10 also seemed expensive because I know many people here in the US that spend that much or less on tee shirts. I liked Sam’s idea about attempting to get the lady large quantities of textiles and raw materials for her clothing so she didn’t have to buy it at such a high price from the Dominican Republic. I think what the lady if providing for her people is not only essential but also practical, although I do believe she should lower the price of her products. I thought that it was very interesting that the pastry woman was looking into buying an industrial mixer for her cooking needs. The other thing the woman needed was a vehicle for transportation of mass quantities of her product. Obviously this is one of her long term goals and is something that we might not be able to get her, but I’m sure if we were able to get her a mixer she could be much more efficient and profitable which could ultimately make her business grow and then provide more openings for new workers. It’s amazing to me that a simple Kitchen Maid that could easily be donated could make such a difference to peoples’ lives. When I read about the hospital portion of the project I was saddened to learn how much these Haitians are lacking. Lack of medicine, food, and clothes for hospital patients is not even a possibility in the US yet in this part of the world; it is a problem Haitians face on a regular and daily basis. I think it is a great idea to donate money in an attempt to allow the hospitals to afford additional staff, obtain much needed supplies, and get scrubs/other clothing needed for the patients so they don’t have to worry about providing these essential items for themselves. The last video I watched was about the solar appliances. I think this is a great idea and it is a project that would greatly improve the Haitian community.

I do not believe that the United States of America had any direct involvement in the September eleventh attacks. Simply put, the government had nothing to gain from the attacks. The gulf skirmish the attack precipitated was not the first golf conflict, and an attack of such magnitude would have been unnecessary. The conflict itself is outrageously costly compared to the nonexistent benefit it could otherwise provide, and is a matter from which we are unable to recuperate our losses, especially in regards to the armed service personnel. I’ll admit a limited knowledge of architecture, but I am aware that jet fuel burns with immense speed resulting in high heat transference to the surrounding environment, and that no modern buildings are designed to withstand a multi-ton, essentially missile, impact at speeds exceeding five hundred miles an hour. I also find the idea that the government might not have engaged in full disclosure, well, rather obvious. Would you honestly want the government to disclose all of its intelligence to newscasters? Are you of the belief that you should be privy to the delicate tactical information implicit in such events? Maybe you think you should be, but should every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a limited connection to society? It is also important to note that after the attack most people were braying for blood, yet war was not declared. There were certainly hostilities, but during constitutional wartime our fine country essentially becomes a dictatorship. If this were a power play, the government could have taken it, all. The patriot act would seem liberating in comparison. As to whether I believe we are safer, I know we are not. As Benjamin Franklin once said, “he who would sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserves neither, and will lose both”. I find the fact that we leapt to discard our civil liberties for the patriot act disgraceful, and doubt we will ever see them returned. As for the travel security agency established to supposedly protect planes, none of their measures are effective. The limitation of liquids to however many ounces is immediately obsolete if the individual brings a friend, scanning the laptop for interior ordinance would not stop you from close circuiting the battery for an improvised explosive device post departure, and sniffing my shoes for hazardous materials does no more than establish that the ground may be dirty. All of these new regulations simply hassle the traveler or suppress them using fear tactics and the threat of what is essentially unconstitutional incarceration. The measures taken to prevent a future attack do no more than scare the average citizen into believing they are secure because preforming legal traveling actions is unnecessarily difficult.

While I accept that this is primarily a semantically oriented argument, I would not say that I believe in evolution. I would express that I accept the scientifically gathered data that suggests evolution as a likely natural process. As to your comment on coming from monkeys, we were no more monkey-like then than we are now. We did not come from monkeys in the manner that I believe you reference, we came from a different hominid than the chimpanzees that exist now. This is not to say we did not come from monkeys, in the sense that we are from and still in the family of the great apes. The fact that we are a member of the Hominidae, or great apes, is not something with which I have contention. I’d argue that being the descendants of great apes is significantly more favorable than being built out of dirt, such as in the story of Adam. I am minimally aware of religions outside of Christianity or Catholicism, but assume that most religions have some similar story, as that story itself can be traced to a variety of older pagan religions.

I do not believe in the inherent superiority of humanity, despite the fact that we have clearly conquered our planet. I find our inability to survive in the wild somewhat disgraceful and am convinced that we have risen to the top by cheating. I am also convinced that our superior intellect is not the primary cause of our current situation, although I do recognize it as tremendously useful. The main reason we, as opposed to other animals, achieved this much success is that we are the most capable of communication. Superior intellect is likely a significant contributor to our ability to have such complexities in our communication, and the ability to mod our environment to produce tools was doubtlessly significant as well.

I am not religious, which is only important in that I do not espouse a belief in an everlasting soul that we would have through virtue of being “rational” beings as opposed to soulless animals. It is my belief that other animals are in fact conscious and merely stunted by their environment, or our selective choices for their species, like with domesticated animals. This is not to say that I have any qualms with eating meat, or our general enslavement of farm animals. I do not rationalize these acts as somehow morally right or wrong, instead choosing to believe that my consumption of other beings is precedent by my existing as an omnivore. This quality of being omnivorous is another portion of what made humanity dominate on this planet, our ability to subsist on a wide variety of organisms has served us well, and I accept that.