I saw this issue on the news just the other night and was glad to see someone blog about it. Like many people have already said, South Park is a comedy show, it pokes fun at everyone and everything. This was not a serious news report to be taken seriously, its a cartoon making a funny joke. There have been many episodes that poke fun at Jesus. Did they not see that? If it were a serious talk show bashing on Muhammad I would understand why there might be some outraged people. But, again it was not. It is south park, and I am almost positive there have been spoofs on like the Simpson's about Islam and i do not think there was any threats in their direction? Yes religion is a serious topic and not one to joke about in a serious setting like a church, mosque or synagogue, BUT comedy central is none of those places. It is a place, as its name implies, a place for comedy. If you are looking for people to take issues like religion seriously you should not watch the channel. And it is not like Islam was the first time they ever made fun of anyone. It is a given that all issues that are in the media or not are fair game to make fun of. The people threatening the creators of the show need to realize how egocentric they are being. Focusing only on the fact that their religion was brought into a comedy sketch. It is like they had selective hearing, only picking out a certain episodes to focus in on. For example, the episode that made fun of the Jonas Brothers. The episode made a lot of fun of those three boys and everything they stand for, yet you did not see them sending out threats. I could probably go on for days with examples of all the people that South Park has picked out and made a considerable amount of fun of. I do not think there is really anything else to say other then, get over it , it was a joke, do not take it personally , just laugh. I am a christian and when they make fun of Jesus I know it is a joke and to not take it seriously. There is a time and a place for religion to be taken seriously and not to be joked about. If Muhammad had been made fun of in a context that was not suppposed to be funny then an uprising would be expected and more understood. And that is all I have to say about this topic today about South Park and religion.

Let me start off by saying that I am a woman and I like most woman have insecurities about my body. I am small chested and have obviously wanted to be bigger for a long time. But recently I have come to truly own the body I am in, and love it. Boys would be lying if they said that boobs do not matter, but they also are far from a really important factor. As many of my guy friends have put it, boobs are like a bonus. Women really do put a lot of emphasis on their appearance and many have false conceptions of what men really want. Girls are always complaining that guys do not really like them for them but for how they look , ie their boobs or butt. Yet we just enforce that behavior by trying so hard to look good and flash our assets. I am not saying that we should not try and look good, or that we should not want a guy to like us for the way we look, but for those girls who are looking for a guy to be in a real relationship with, looks can only go so far. I know its hard to get away from the media's constant influence and push to look a certain way. There are so many pressures for girls but they are pressures that we allow ourselves to feel. If every woman were to embrace herself, her entire self and be confident in who she was there would not be any of those pressures. Loving the differences in each other, in other women, is a powerful and beautiful thing. I love knowing that there is no one out there that looks exactly like me, that my body is unique and can not be replicated. Boobs, butts, lips whatever, they do not define us women. We are what we make ourselves to be that most of that is not appearance. I have a lot of guy friends so I like to pick their brains when it comes to their feelings on girls and I cannot count how many times they have told me that confidence is the biggest thing. A girl who is comfortable in her skin is ten times more attractive then a girl who is consumed by the way she looks and is constantly concerned of how others are perceiving them. Personality can trump big boobs any day and that is fact. On another note, I thought Laurie's play was awesome. I love the thought of turning the tables and thinking of what our social world would be like if flat chested was sexy. It makes me realize that we really are shaped by society and media and how caught up in stupid egocentric ideas such as big boobs make a woman a woman truly are.

I do not really know if Sam has changed my opinion on subjects we have talked about. I came into his class pretty open minded and aware of issues that are going on in our society. I think one thing he did do for me was bring to light a lot of other perspectives I was no aware of. Talking about how and why people view white people (because I am white) the way they do was interesting to me because its is never something I would have actually asked a black or brown person. Another thing Sam has opened my mind to is the issue of Native Americans. It is not that I did not know that they were poor and struggling as a race, but I did not realize to what extent that poverty was. I think it is really important to bring up these subjects and talk about these issues, because the more aware our population is about these problems the more likely they we all are to help make a change. In a class as big as soc 119, there will be at least 5 people that will go out and help, support, or help bring to light the issues we talk about in class. Though it is a small step it is a step. As much as I complain about how boring his class is sometimes, and how I feel like he is being super redundant, I think for a lot of people in that class it is really important for them to hear what he is saying. I know i was really excited for him to have the lesbian gay bisexual transgender talk because my roommate who is in the class with me tends to be very narrow minded when it comes to the topic. I think it was important for her to hear good solid reasons behind LBGT, reasons that I just could not think of myself. I do not know if her opinion changed at all, but I do know it got her thinking about it. I can only imagine that there are a lot of other people like my roommate in the class and hopefully some of the issues that Sam talked about did make them change their opinions. I do not think Sam is trying to shove his ideologies down our throats, he truly is just putting all these issues on the table to make us think. Like I said before, the more aware people are the more likely they are to take action and actually do something to help solve the problems facing society today. After years of teaching this class Sam has probably inspired a lot of people to do just that.

After watching this video and also being in the soc 119, I have come to the conclusion that there just is no answer and no one will ever be happy with the labels put on race. There are way to many people in the United States who are of mixed backgrounds making it really difficult to put a one word description of their race down. But to fully complete a census the question must be asked. The only solution that I could come up with is to let people just write in what they are. It would take a lot more time probably , and more people would be less inclined to it because it would require more than just a check mark. But if people were given the freedom to write it in there would no longer be this controversy over what is politically correct, not having the right race listed or any other complaint people had. I was also interested while watching the video when the black male was talking and said that he would consider himself African American since we learned that a African American is one that has roots back to slavery in America which he did not. I guess hearing him say that made me realize that there really is not RIGHT term for a person. The RIGHT term is the one that that person identifies with whether other people believe it or not. Like Sam was saying about a person who is mixed black and white, looks darker but would identify as white because they grew up in the "white" culture. The only way to get a true census is to have people write out what they are. I think it would be very telling of how Americans view themselves as well. And the whole controversy about "negro" being an option, well clearly the people that wrote the census did not put it there to be offensive. They clearly had some sort of data that told them that there were still a significant amount of people that used that term to describe themselves. Most likely that term is used by an older population, and one that is more likely not to speak out in support unlike the younger generations who are clearly more vocal. Not being black I guess I cannot really relate or understand completely why the word is so offensive. I know it was a word that was used back in the day with slight negative connotation, but I feel like that era is over and the word has been so dulled from use. I do know of a few black people who refer to themselves as negro which is why I guess i did not understand the uproar of having it put on the census.

Let me start off by saying I am a woman and proud of it and periods are a part of life for all women. I guess i never really thought much about why people do not like to talk about when it is such a normal thing. But then again there are a lot of normal natural things that a lot of people do not talk about .. like lets say pooping, or peeing, or farting or queefing or smelling like body oder and thats just to name a few. And the reason people do not like to talk about it is because THEY ARE GROSS. They smell its not fun to look at, and i guess that is why people do not talk about periods. It's blood, it smells, its not fun to look at so why would people want to talk about it. I would not be offended for one minute if a guy made a face if it was mentioned or refrained from talking about it because like the other bodily funcitons i mentioned earlier, a know a lot of people who would be grossed out and make ewy faces to a lot of them. For example, my roommate is repulsed by burps. She does not like to hear them, if you could see them she would not like to see it, and she does not even like to talk about it. I was discussing this with one of my friends and she brought up a really good point. What if a woman's period was not bleeding blood, but was water? Would this changes peoples reactions to it? Would it be gross? I figure, a lot of people are grossed out by blood so why should they not be grossed out by the blood of a period. Makes sense to me. But no one is grossed out by water. It does not smell, it does not look weird or uninviting. Clearly no one is grossed out by the fact that women go through a natural cycle that allows them to carry a baby and give birth. Women and men alike are thankful for that. The whole concept of a period I believe would be different if it were water. It would probably still be annoying to most girls and boys may still be annoyed by the fact that we all go through mood swings, but all in all it would not be a disgusting or hush hush issue if blood was not involved. But since the period is going to remain blood, I think its fine that people do not want to chat about it at the dinner table or announce when they are bleeding. Just like what you do on a toilet is private, I think periods are private matters as well.

I really liked this video post for two reasons: one- I really enjoyed Laurie's book as well and thought it was a great read for people to truly see the white perspective and understand it, and two- it was refreshing and really reassuring to see this video post from a black women because as she said it really helped her to be more open minded when it came to how and why white people may react the way they do. I think this post relates extremely well to the lectures we had this week as well. I would say that I am very comfortable talking about race with blacks and browns (being that I am white), I have a lot of relatives that fall into those categories because of marriage and lots of cousins who are mixed due to it. But having friends and aquaintances who are not as comfortable, I have seen first hand the awkward and quite reaction that my white friends will have when faced with the issue of race. I was thankful to Sam for making the point that just because white people do not speak up, does not mean they are racist. It truly has been taught and ingrained in us to not acknowledge race. And when some of us do , there is a high probability that a black or brown person will say something back to us to make us feel like we said or asked something wrong. I obviously know that it is not all black and brown people that tend to put down and react strongly to a white person bringing up race, but it is common. I would hope that more black and brown people would be more open and understanding to the fact that for many people it is very uncomfortable to talk about race because of the culture and society we were taught in. I also really liked Sam's point about not backing down from statements that you said and not trying to defend yourself when it happens. It really does make situations worse when you start to stutter and try and take back your words. Defending your statements truly does little good, a simple sorry for offending you would really work just fine. The person may be upset, but they will get over it unlike when people begin making excuses situations tend to escalate and become much worse. I really think this class should be required for all students! Unlike what that old senator said on the video about talking about race to much, I do not think there is ever to much talk about race. The more informed people are, the less judgmental people will be. People would be much less likely to bash or talk trash on a race if they had a friend who was that race. I Think people should acknowledge color and be afraid to say "the black guy over there", or "that white girl here" . I have yet to meet a black or brown person who would be offended if i called them, black or brown, just like I would never be offended by someone describing me as white. It is a characteristic, one that should be seen but not judged.

My first reaction to watching this clip was that it was terrible and Abercrombie and Fitch are discriminating and it needs to stop. Then I read one of the comments above written by someone who took the opposite stance. Their argument made a lot of sense to me saying basically that, Abercrombie is a privately owned business and they have the right to enforce a dress code and religious wear or any kind, not just a hijab, should not be an exception. So I pretty much agreed with that writer, but am still left with a very uneasy feeling about the story. The hiring then firing deal aside ( though is definitely one of the worst parts to this story), there is clear cut discrimination that occurred; the young woman was denied a job due to her religion. Yet I am still torn more. Yes Abercombie denied a job on a religious basis, but their argument was not because of her beliefs it was due to her dress. Yes many would argue that her dress, the hijab , IS a belief and therefore not to allow the hijab is not allowing a religious practice. Again, torn. I understand from a company stand point the want for a certain image. Any type of company that has a label or picture attached to its name is going to have an image they are trying to portray, and Abecrombie's image is one that is of young men and women, who are clean cut, wear the Abercrombie clothes, and do not wear things covering their heads. Another comment above made the point that, this girl could always just find another place to work that is willing to accept employees and head ware. But is that fair since her head ware is of religious meaning? Should this girl have to limit her job options because of her beliefs? Should private businesses have to alter their "image" to make exceptions for religion? I honestly have no answer, and I am truly torn by the issue. I think private businesses should have the right to put in place dress codes, they should hire based off credentials not race, color, ethnicity, or religion, and they should treat all employees equal. So I guess through all this banter, I believe business should be blind to religious beliefs, but I am still struggling with the clothing aspect. Abercrombie was not directly saying that they fired her due to her religion, but as I said before many would argue that a hijab is a huge part of the religion. Was there discrimination, YES. But is it even possible to not discriminate at all when it comes to hiring people at a job? The whole promoting an image thing just begs for discrimination. Abecrombie would not hire someone who looked like a washed up hobo because they want that clean cut image. Other businesses may not hire someone due to other features whether innate or a chosen. It is all discrimination. Which leads me to another question; is religious discrimination any worse than discriminating on how someone dresses or talks?

I only read a few short little blurbs of others replies, but my opinion is pretty much the same. My guess is the girl that posted this heard of one or two parties that were themed "ghetto" or .. I honestly cannot think of any other party theme that would be offensive to blacks? But anyway, this girl probably heard of one or two of those parties and assumed that there were so many people that do that , when in reality its very few and far between. I have been to many themed parties here at penn state especially since I have been a part of THON for the past three year and just about every social that there is is themed.I have been to more themed parties that were more offensive and making fun of white people then anything else. And those themed parties were not just full of white people either. There were many people of different colors at these parties "making fun of white people". But even if there was a ghetto themed party, why is that so offensive? Maybe that kind of dress is typically black, but I also know a fair share of white people that dress 'ghetto". So therefore I would not be able to understand a black person ,thinking a bunch of white people dressing that way for a party, being upset about it. All I kept thinking about was Halloween. I'm pretty sure a lot of different groups of people are portrayed and mocked yet no one really says anything about that. People dress up as nerds, as goths, as cheerleaders, as jocks, the list could go on. And all of those groups are being made fun of. I guess what I am trying to say is that A. the girl who posted the video was wrong in her assumption that a LOT of parties thrown by "whites" are themed making fun of blacks, and B. I feel like there is not much justification behind being offended by people dressing up ghetto. And I keep saying ghetto, because like I said before I really have no idea what other kinds of themes there are that would be portraying a black person. I also think that it is unfair to assume that all these parties are being thrown by white people. Sometimes I feel like black people can be very quick to assume that whites are out to mock and make fun of black culture. That is really the farthest thing from the truth. I hope the girl that posts this video reads some of these and realizes her fault in assuming these things, but not to be discouraged since her question I understand came from a honest place.

Not going to lie I have always been a bit on the fence about bi sexuality. I am not sure how I feel about Sam's statement on everyone being a little bisexual. Loving someone deeply, or even thinking someone is attractive I really do not think makes you bi sexual. In my head I see any kind of sexuality, straight , gay, or bi, as something that is very innate and almost unexplainable. I do not know why I am attracted to guys, no one told me to be, maybe media portrayed it to me, but I am very confident saying that I am fully attracted to males in a way that I am definitely not attracted to females. Sam made the point when bringing up the study of men watching gay porn and even though they were straight were turned on by it. I think its a very strong argument, but at the same time I think humans in general are an easily "turned on " species. Watching any type type of peoples be intimate will absolutely trigger something in our brains, I do not think we can help it, but I also do not think it means we ourselves would want to engage in an act we see. In a perfect world with no judgments, stereotypes or prejudices, where people were not opposed to being more affectionate and/or open with their sexuality, I do not think everyone would enjoy participating in sexual acts with the same sex if they were by definition straight, or with the opposite sex if they were gay. I I do not doubt that there are some people out there that are honestly attracted to both sexes, but from what I can discern its a very small number. I have met a lot of girls that like to "experiment" but they say they know they are straight, and I have known a few guys who have made out with another guy but would not consider themselves gay or bi. I guess through all this ramble, I am really just trying to say that loving and being affectionate ,if you are straight with the same sex, or if you are gay with the opposite sex, are not synonymous with bisexuality. I will always link sexuality with actual sexual acts, and hugging, kissing on the cheek or whatever, just do not cut it for me. I think definitions of all these terms are up for debate so really , if someone were to tell me they classify themselves as bi sexual because they like to look at women but sleep with men.. fine. Everyone is entitled to categorizing and labeling themselves. And that is all I have to say :)

Hilarious. That would be the first word that came to my mind after reading this article. As a few people have mentioned before, Hines is truly just a dude trying to make a living in one of the most profitable industries out there, the sex toy porn industry that is. He had an idea, the smarts, and ability to create something that he felt was marketable. So from an inventive stand point, way to go Hines. Now on the other hand, this doll is just begging for debate. To all my girls out there, I am sure that many are repulsed, disgusted and think this doll is just one more media injection to make girls more self conscious. To an extent, I agree. But honestly ladies if there is a guy out there willing to pass over a LIVE HUMAN BEING for a FAKE ROBOTIC DOLL... not worth your time ! Like the Hines said himself, the main buyers of this product are lonely socially awkward men who clearly have little to no social skills. So am I threatened by this plastic model figured robot? Not at all. I know damn well that robotic "thing" has nothing on me :) So to all you guys out there, if you really think that a robot will satisfy you better than a real women, you clearly need to re-evaluate and maybe think about finding yourself a legit girl for a change. I cannot see any girl being turned on or attracted to a man that would own a Roxxxy doll. If anything it would just make a man look incredibly pathetic. I agree with one of the posts above about a man actually purchasing this toy and how they clearly have some deeper issues then just an overactive sex drive.
I think this product brings up another aspect of our culture that is not 100% correct. There is the very prominent idea that men way more active, aggressive and demanding when it comes to sex then women. My theory, women just have way more self control. This does not mean that we want to have sex less then our men counterpart, it merely means we are not as willing to take it from just anything that walks by us ( for the most part). This is one of the reasons I found this article so funny. The creator sells the doll as though it is a necessity for men to have because their women just are not up to their rigorous schedule of needs. Us women can and will step up to the plate, but this is where the differences in men and women come into play. Guys instead of going out and buying a fake ass doll, learn a little about romance and how to actually treat a girl.