Seeing as nearly every party I tend to go to has white people, I usually prep myself to see white people at parties. At Penn State, every racial group tends to stick together in parties, so when I do go to a party that has people of other races than white, I usually just do the same as I always do: I get to know people I don't and stick around with my friends or find new people that I'm interested in making friends with. I mean everyone's just trying to have fun, so I try to have the most fun that I can, it doesn't matter if there's different racial groups, people are people and they have their own styles and I respect that. I went to a party recently that was with friends that I didn't hangout with much; this party was a predominantly black group of people. I went in with my friends and it was fun, everyone was obviously there just to get drunk and have a good time. No one really looked like they knew each other so I wasn't entirely the odd one out, so I spent my time as I usually do, getting to know people, joking around and having a good time.
Now I can see why some people would act differently when in a situation where they didn't know anyone or feel out of their element; people generally want to be accepted and if they act similar to the people they are surrounded by, it would seem that they will be accepted. However, this can become a gray zone that offends people very quickly. If basing their act off of stereotypes, the person will be easily found out, and most people can tell when another person is trying to act a part. I think the most important thing to note for most people is to act yourself, and have a good time.
The one thing that annoys me when I go to a party of any racial group is the problem of their exclusivity. I'm all for mixing groups of people just to see how they'd act, but the problem with groups of people is that they tend to stick together when uncomfortable. It's not an action that is reserved for minority groups but also white people, and it bothers me because it looks like water and oil, not a cohesive party, but rather a divided party, and that's no fun.
The most important thing to note about being around groups of people that are not the same race is to not act any different from being yourself. You just have to have fun and be as friendly as you can to everyone you meet. At the end of the day, you choose whether you make something of the difference of skin tone, or you look past that and see them as another person, and not a representative of an objectified group of people.

I would think it'd be awkward if I just asked her if she orgasmed. I mean there are certain ways to do it, but it's an act that both people should participate in, so if one person orgasms and the other does not, it would be just like saying “I didn't do well enough to please you.” It is almost as if I would be asking “Did I please you?” as if pleasing the other person was the only thing on your mind, but both people should want to orgasm, and want to give the person an orgasm.
Also, another thing keeping males from asking if females experienced an orgasm is this sense of dominance in our male-centric culture. Men want to be strong and if he asks if she experienced an orgasm it puts a doubt in his mind about his strength and prowess as a man. He doesn't want to ask because it shouldn't need to be asked, because he has it placed in his mind that he did a good job, and that she was indeed pleased.
I think it would be more interesting to look at this from the converse. To me the most surprising statistic of the needy penis lecture was the fact that in their last sexual encounter, males only experienced an orgasm 70% of the time. That is just hilarious to begin with if we view it in a male-centric scope; 30% of the time they do not orgasm. I want to think that in 30% of the time, the man just wants to stop or he fakes an orgasm. Now how does a male fake an orgasm and why does he fake an orgasm? If the world was truly male-centric then 100% of men would be experiencing an orgasm because he'd keep going until he is pleased, but is it that he will fake an orgasm just to please a woman? So we see that it goes a little deeper than just assuming that only women fake orgasms, that actually both men and women fake orgasms to please the other person, maybe women do it more, maybe it's also that women do not orgasm from insertion, but we can see that we're tricked by media showing us that both men and women have to orgasm during intercourse but that's not the case. Sometimes men orgasm, sometimes women orgasm, but it's clearly not every time.
Essentially what we're seeing is that women fake orgasms, and men fake orgasms and not ask if there was an orgasm at all because of what we see in the media: pornography, romantic comedy movies, love stories, etc. What we see on television may not have a direct correlation to numbers of orgasms by men and women, but it does have an effect on how we go about orgasming, and giving orgasms.

It's important to note that guys generally don't want to go up to girls when sober to begin with.
There are a few factors why men go up to minorities only during parties; first off, when in public, you can't really make a connection right off the street. When you're at a party, obviously you were invited to the party (unless you are a party crasher) so you know people there already, you're in a confined area where there is a context of comfortability. You can make that connection easier because there are more things to talk about (example: Who do you know here?), and that works not just for women of color, but for all kinds of interactions. You don't have that on the street. You're in a public space, so there comes the possibility of sexual harassment just because you wanted to approach a woman. There could even be a stigma of sexual harassment due to the approach of a minority on the street as there is definitely a culture of minority fetish when discussing non-platonic male and female interaction.
Next off, it's not fair to say that white men are always drunk when they talk to minority women. Do we ever point out that black men generally don't go up to white women when sober as well? It's across the board that sobriety doesn't assist in the decision to interact with people of the opposite gender. White girls don't go up to guys of color when sober, girls of color don't go up to white guys when sober, so the question can't be posed to say that the white men are the only ones who create this problem.
It's also a good idea to point out the idea of liquid courage. Alcohol lowers your inhibitions, and it pushes men to break past any barrier of doubt that they could have in approaching a woman. Now there are plenty of barriers for a white man to break through. Okay, so he has the context of being at a party drunk (assuming he's not drunk in public), but he first has to break through the fear of getting rejected by the woman he wants to approach, or her friends, but he also has to get over the idea that because this girl is of a different racial or ethnic background that they won't have anything to relate over. That's where alcohol comes in. When you're tipsy, you don't care about anything else but the problem at hand, whether that is talking to a woman of color, or approaching a group of people of a different race. You literally do not have the fear of rejection, or even think about what race she is (because if you try to guess, you'll more than likely screw up and piss her and her friends off).

The American people, especially the middle class, need to know of the inequality of wealth in our country. Wealth makes people act differently, it makes interactions between Americans either go for the better or the worse. Right now, we've been blinded by the rhetoric of the top 1% controlling our views on how to gain wealth and be prosperous in our nation, but there is only so much a person can do before the politics and the economic weather keeps them down. There shouldn't be such inequality in bailouts and assistance towards the top 1%. They're living their lives comfortably, almost stress free, and so should the rest of the American people. The problem is that most of the American people own less than half of the wealth in our country, and that's very sickening to think 345 million people have less than half of our national wealth of 57 trillion dollars. If you do the math, if wealth was divided per capita evenly, each person would have 134,000 dollars in assets.
The next problem to address to the American people is the issue of the racial wealth gap. First we have to make sure that the U.S. Population isn't thinking our statement is that there is institutionalized racism. Next, we have to show the U.S. Population the huge wealth gap between the average white American and the average Latino, Black, or Native American. The last thing we have to show the American people is that the only way to reduce the wealth gap is to get more and more people educated. This will lead to people becoming aware of the issues at hand and move towards changing that. Education leads to higher paying jobs, living in less crime ridden areas, raising kids in a nurturing environments that will start the cycle all over again with the children of the next generation getting a good education.
If I had to choose a type of media outlet to send my message, I would use music. Nowadays because of the internet, and how quickly files can be sent and shared, an open source downloadable album that crunches all of the above messages into each song. People like free things on the internet, and people love free music that they won't get in trouble for downloading and sharing. These facts would get the ball rolling on change.
The last message I'd want to send is that we shouldn't be falling for the rhetoric of the politicians, and political pundits. Our responsibility as Americans is to stand together as a nation of individuals, e pluribus unum, and not to be led around blindly like sheep. We should make sure to especially not place our trust in those who lead us acting as if they will change our nation for a future that we all collectively want, when they take away our human rights and social freedoms.

Well, I think first we need to clarify what a hand-out is. When we're talking about a hand-out in terms of government hand-outs like affirmative action, it's a person gaining benefit because they are a specific gender or race; now in the given example where the guy obtained an internship because he had an uncle in the business, he already had a foot in the door due to relations through a family or friend. They're not exactly comparable in my honest opinion, because there is no connection from the government to a person. They don't know a person's integrity or character, and even if a comparable intern came along, they might not be as compatible as the original guy who got the internship.

I'm not against taking handouts, so I don't understand why anyone would not take a handout. It would be just stupid not to take an opportunity that you've been given; even if there was another individual more qualified than you, you still had the luck of the draw in getting chosen for some sort of financial aid, or a job.

To address inequality: there was another individual that was more qualified than you, and you got the job directly as a result of being a certain race or gender; that is wrong. Now we'll never know if that was exactly the aspiration of the employer, but it has to have that qualifier for underemployment to be wrong. Would it be wrong for the employer to hire someone that looks (racially) like him? If that is the main basis, yes and no; I believe there are many factors that play into this, such as the empathetic feeling that an employer wants to see himself in the employee and at times, it is easier to do that when the person looks like himself.

Is it wrong for people to take handouts, if they know they're underqualified? There's probably a sense of guilt about taking the handout, but that could turn into a motivating factor for the person to become a qualified individual. I don't think it's necessarily wrong for a person to take a hand-out, as long as they're in the state of mind that at any point, their position could be compromised for another person who is more qualified. It would act as a check and balance for underemployment handouts.

The final goal of affirmative action and hand-outs is equality, which means eventually through education and getting employed, that everyone will be hired at the same rates, or be given handouts at the same rates. How does a country stop the inequality? Education and assimilation. Too many times do we see the inequality of inner city education compared to suburban education. Why are the qualified educators working in places that they are not needed as much?

I think as time goes on, people will become more willing to accept different cultures, so that by the time our generation comes in for running the world, we'll have less bigotry. Every generation becomes increasingly more open-minded in accepting other races, other cultures than their own, and once acceptance becomes our culture instead of division by race, religion, or other factors, we'll find that a lot of these social problems, such as racial profiling, or hate groups, will solve themselves.

I also think that a huge difference in decision making for the nation will occur as more younger, tech-savvy leaders come into office; now we have huge panels and lobbyists and other advisers to our senate members and house congressmen, they are there to take in all the information for the congressmen and weed out what is important so that they can present what they believe is relevant information for the congressperson to know. People that are tech-savvy can speed up this entire process because they are more organized due to the introduction of technology; they can learn new relevant information quicker because the information that they couldn't read on their own is relayed to them faster thanks to e-mail and instant messaging. This means decisions nowadays that take months of deliberation can be solved exponentially quicker, allowing more and more change to occur in a shorter period of time.

I think we'll also find that for the vast majority of Americans want to be secure yet not want to fight wars, so we'll see a shift in military technology from upgrading weapons to be more efficient, or able to kill more enemy soldiers, to defense mechanisms for the protection of U.S. Soil. Americans tend to be family oriented, so they won't want to send their family members to war if we are essentially safe from most dangers from the outside world.

Another thing we'll find when our generation assumes power will be a stronger foreign connection. More Americans than ever before have passports, so we'll assume they're leaving the country and exploring new lands that our preceding generations have never seen before. The next generation is expanding their mind to new cultures, and understanding what it means to be out of their element. These experiences carry over to their interactions in a university or collegiate setting; international students come to the U.S. To get a good education and they find that they are totally out of their element, and that some nativist-Americans will see them as strange and different and not understand why they are like they are. As more Americans go to college, especially in our generation, we'll see that there will be more understanding of cultures between international students and Americans.

Well I don't think there is a difference between befriending a lesbian or a gay man. Is there a difference between befriending a straight girl and a straight guy? What would even make the difference? I think that recognizing a person's sexual orientation before recognizing their personality is stupid because above all else, a gay man or a lesbian is just another person. Maybe the difference for some people is themselves and their genders, that they are afraid to befriend a homosexual of their gender because it might start the thought that they are homosexual themselves. That thought is just stupid because if you were gay, you'd know it, and it's nothing to be afraid of, rather it should be embraced just like another part of your being, another part of the culture of discovering yourself in college or university.

To anyone who is struggling with depression, eating disorders, or self mutilation problems,

It isn't difficult for individuals to fall into self-loathing because of self image issues involving confidence, or appearance; it isn't difficult to think you are alone in your problems, your thoughts, with the thought that you are helpless to change the hand you've been dealt. So it isn't difficult or out of the ordinary to cope with problems with solutions that make “getting through it” easier for now, like cutting, or binging and purging. The problem with just “getting through it” (for now) is that it doesn't truly solve your depression problem, and that you will still turn to these acts in the future to cope. And there isn't anything wrong with coping with real issues, real stress problems, but the manner that you cope is wrong, and its painful for yourself, and people that surround you. In this sense, your acute problems are problems that plague the community, and soon, you will realize that you aren't alone in your struggles. And your issues then are not your fault, since there are people of the same demographic as you, with the same experiences as you.

So what does that mean about your struggles? They're equally as hard as all the other people's issues; that's definite, but you should take solace in the fact that the strings that pulled you to have these problems pulled other people to have very similar problems, and because of this, you are not free to even choose to harm yourself. So if it isn't your choice to hurt yourself, why would you let yourself do so? Feel free to blame the system for your problems because the more you ask yourself “why” or “how could all of this happen to me,” the more you will find that it's not just happening to you, it's happening to you and a lot of other people like you. In a sense, you were helpless to receive that hand you were dealt, but you aren't helpless to shape your own future. It all starts with stopping, stopping the painful thoughts and painful actions, and it's hard to do that alone, but remember you aren't alone in this; you must always remember that there are always people out there with the same problems as you, and are going through the same exact problems and solutions as you.

Depression is a problem that will always stick with you throughout your life, and learning how to cope with it in a healthy manner for the first time is the first step towards healing all the scars that depression leaves, emotionally and physically. People always ask what is wrong with the world today, with more and more people falling into depression, and other emotional problems that lead to physical pain, and the problem isn't with people in the world, but rather the societies we live in that lead to the increasing numbers social problems. The first step to fixing the societies today is making individuals know that the pain comes from things out of their control, and making them see that their personal problems are the problems of the community.

The definition of racism according to first entry in the free online Merriam-Webster dictionary states that it is "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race," while the definition of racism according to UrbanDictionary.com claims under the fourth user given definition that "if you are a white man, this is what you are." It's interesting to see that in the first entry, they don't claim that it is some sort of prejudice towards a certain race, almost as if race was just a distinguishing factor of different human beings, even giving the synonym "racialism" which has a first entry definition as "an emphasis on race or racial considerations." However, in our society, the definition of a "racist" or "racism" has evolved to mean a person that discriminates other people based on their skin color, heritage, etc.

I think we need to focus on, when talking about what is and is not racist, the specific wording used in the definition. "Discrimination" suggests a bias, the opinion that a race is lesser than another race. Let's take a hypothetical example of a white comedian getting on stage in an audience of mixed races, and making jokes about black people. Now if the comedian attempts to belittle black people by claiming they are poorer than white people, or dumber than white people, that would be racist because it's not true. However, comedians get away with making race jokes and comments because they realize it's not true, and never focus on a single race of people, they just make fun of all people including their own race.
In the given example of Chi Omega, maybe some of the girls that were part of the photo knew that it wasn't true, and it was meant as a joke, but this joke couldn't be taken lightly because the only story that people could see was a bunch of white girls making fun of the Mexican race, and not any other race.

Back to the Urban Dictionary definition, that if you are white, you are automatically a racist. It's funny to think that minorities (the whole 37% of the USA) would automatically see a white person and think that the white person is racist. If this idea were true, then more than 199 million Americans would be racist. The evidence that the writer for the UrbanDictionary definition gives is in the media. White Americans seem to be the only ones that can be racist, as they were the oppressors of the minorities so many years ago. Although this history fact is true, the logic in getting to this end is not sharp, it's just a slippery slope type thought; how could a person say "They were oppressors and abusive before, what is supposed to stop them now?" (Answer: Basic human decency)

So how would I define racism? I see racism as I see any remark that is meant to hurt someone else, it's just more specific and holds painful roots in history. Instead of claiming someone is a douchebag or an asshole, calling them a nigger or a wop, that doesn't just attack the person, it attacks their history, and their family.

In direct response to how comedians tend to get away with making racial jokes, or making jokes about a certain population of people, it's the medium that the statement is presented in, comedy, which deflects seriously offensive mentalities. In the given example of Howard Stern, a middle-aged white comedian, the audience sees him as this larger than life personality, with his afro and dated clothing and therefore already doesn’t take anything he would say or does seriously. When he does make a commentary on a group of people, they aren’t imagining a serious depiction, but rather a caricature, similar to the image that he gives himself. By deflecting the serious nature of some comments in the medium of comedy, the masses do not get offended.
On the other end, however, there are comedians who deflect racial stereotypes by commenting on their own race of people. Dave Chappelle, a black stand-up and skit comedian, primarily focuses on black stereotypes; he takes these stereotypes and blows them out of proportion, making them unbelievable, making each personality a caricature of real situations. One of his more famous stand-up performances, Killin’ Them Softly in D.C., Chappelle uses the dialect of Black Americans, with the slight slur and multiple uses of expletives, while telling stories about him crossing the country and seeing the different ghettos with problems that plague the projects. At first glance, you can see that the audience has a strong black population, but he notes on the large number of white people in the audience, and although he maintains a focus on his social commentary of African Americans and the “hood,” he also comments on unequal treatment of blacks and whites by different members of society: the police, banks, etc. Nearly every time he wanted to show the difference in treatment between whites and blacks, he would change between the Black American dialect and his “white man” dialect. He eases into the seriousness of his skit by preluding it with his hometown connection with Washington D.C. His connection to the audience due to experience of being within both types of communities, shown in his sympathy towards both the black and white audience members, creates immunity towards criticism and allows him to get away with making jokes about the projects, the “hood,” and white and black inequality.

So why didn’t the sorority get away with Mexican theme party picture, if it was in clean, party fun? To begin with, the published national image associated with the sorority didn’t have a person that could sympathize with the Mexican population, and the visage that each girl took on was a Carlos Mencia-type stereotype with ponchos, sombreros, and thick mustaches. Although these offenses were enough to make some headlines, what really blew up their spot was the cardboard cutouts referring to marijuana and beer; by playing on the word “grass,” a slang synonym for marijuana, they took the stereotype of illegal Mexican immigrants (agriculture and landscaping related jobs) and associated Mexican Americans with slovenliness.