I believe every man has his standards, just like every woman has their standards when it comes to a partner. Now, me personally in terms of dating, I have a "drearm body" just like anyone else. However, I don't strictly dictate my choice in women by "dream body" shape - personality also plays a big part for me. Like everyone else, I do have a minimum in terms of body build. For instance, I have between a small and medium build when it come it body shape, so I expect the same from a woman (for dating purposes only). Aside from dating purposes, as long as I really enjoy their personality, body shape doesn't mean anything. If someone was to look at some of my friends whom are women (friends only), they could tell body size is not an issue - they have good personalities and I get along with them really well.

For dating purposes, I do one have one physical characteristic that is necessary - which I will relay over the race relations project website. Like I said before, I don't discriminate women in terms of body shape, personality and if we share a lot of things in common are also a neccesity.

In terms of body shape, I believe women are biggest criticizers when it comes to judging other women. I mean seriously, this can be seen in class. As soon a woman walk down the stairs wearing something even a tight or slighty revealing, another woman is giving them a stare like "who does that bitch think she is," "I'd look so much better in that she does," or "what a whore." If anything, I feel like women should be more concerned with other women in terms judgement - not men so much. So overall, I have to agree with the girls in class who share the same opinion.

After watching this video clip, I must say, I was kind of shocked. As a former video game player, I used to love playing video games such as Grand Theft Auto, True Crime, and many other violent games. I also used to believe that video games didn't shape a player's actual intentions in the "real-world." However, my view has definitely shifted a little bit after hearing about a category of video games where rape is the main objective. Now, this is not to say I won't defend games like Grand Theft Auto or war games (Call of Duty), but those types of games are in a completely different category than those mentioned in this video.

Looking at games like Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto, the main objective or indirect mission is to kill others. For Call of Duty and other games similar to it, the game is supposed to simulate a war setting where the player is often a soldier that must eliminate a soldiers of an opposing country. For Grand Theft Auto, the player is usually a member of organized crime trying to make a name for themself and obtain the highest position of leadership within the crime industry. With each situation, although killing in involved, it is often done for a purpose. In Call of Duty, it should be pretty obvious why killing is done, but with Grand Theft Auto, the killing is done with the intention of surviving (financially or by self defense) by illegal means. The main point is that the underlying objective is to survive in both types of games.

A video game where the sole intention is to rape a woman is "crossing the line." In the video, rape is supposedly done out of shear revenge for firing someone. Rape is by no means a way of "surviving" like Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty - it is not necessary. The fact that a player can groupe or rape a woman at will is a big problem because rape is a crime that is committed a lot more frequently than say murder. I would say that a majority of murders don't kill from repeatedly playing Grand Theft Auto or other violent video games; murders kill because they are already mentally unstable or are using revenge as a motive to kill. If I had to compare the numbers, I would say rape is committed by a much larger population than those that murder and also by a much larger age range of people.

For instance, a statistic states that one out of every three women are sexually assaulted while attending here at Penn State. Now, I don't see a statistic that says 1 of out of every three, twenty, or hundred people is murdered while attending Penn State. Therefore, it is pretty obvious that rape, sexual assault, or sexual harassment is much more of a problem than murder when comparing the numbers. In fact, having a video game that allows its players to virtually assault women may actually increase the number of sexual assault cases all over the country. If players want to get some sexual enjoyment, there is plenty of porn videos, magazines, and websites where that business can be handled - not violent cases in video games. And Sam, keep your sick fantasies to yourself!

Personally, I feel that Sam should use another term when referring to people whom are not considered white. For example, in everyday conversation, I use the terms "white" when referring to people who are caucasian and "non-white" when referring to someone who's obviously not white. Thinking back to when this class first started, I had a serious problem with Sam saying the term "colored" for non-white people because it's origin dates back to a time when the United States had serious racial tension. Back when the term "colored" was first used, the people who said it usually had little or no respect for the person they were talking about. So when someone today says "colored," that thought always comes back to mind. While I understand the reason it's used, I just don't prefer it to non-white. Sam also uses "black and brown" people interchangeably with "colored" people which also bothers me in this class only. I have a problem when Sam "black or brown" people because he uses it to make a generalization of all other different ethnicities in a class where there are people who don't fit into either category - Asian for example. After reading some comments, some people don't find that to be a big issue, but I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of those people were white. All in all, it's just about showing respect for another person's ethnicity and having the decency to consider them; this is why I use "non-white." Forcing people to put themselves in a category where they don't belong is not right because that's how some people identify themselves and they're proud to be another race. Some people might call my response overreacting, but try putting yourself in someone else’s' position, and I'm sure you wouldn't like it either. As I have attended more classes, I have gotten better at tolerating Sam's terms because like he said before, he doesn't care what other people think about how he conducts his lectures. Therefore, it would be an effortless attempt to try to change someone else's mind especially when I don't particularly like them. If Sam had an open-mind as he likes to make us believe, he would consider this.

Answering my own question, I think multiracial people should identify with whichever race they feel more comfortable with or associate with. However, if you use this concept, then what happens when a white person who associate's himself more with black people, what should he or she choose? Should the deciding factor be based on a certain percentage of whiteness?

Personally, I feel that Sam should use another term when referring to people whom are not considered white. For example, in everyday conversation, I use the terms "white" when referring to people who are caucasian and "non-white" when referring to someone who's obviously not white. Thinking back to when this class first started, I had a serious problem with Sam saying the term "colored" for non-white people because it's origin dates back to a time when the United States had serious racial tension. Back when the term "colored" was first used, the people who said it usually had little or no respect for the person they were talking about. So when someone today says "colored," that thought always comes back to mind. While I understand the reason it's used, I just don't prefer it to non-white. Sam also uses "black and brown" people interchangeably with "colored" people which also bothers me in this class only. I have a problem when Sam "black or brown" people because he uses it to make a generalization of all other different ethnicities in a class where there are people who don't fit into either category - Asian for example. After reading some comments, some people don't find that to be a big issue, but I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of those people were white. All in all, it's just about showing respect for another person's ethnicity and having the decency to consider them; this is why I use "non-white." Forcing people to put themselves in a category where they don't belong is not right because that's how some people identify themselves and they're proud to be another race. Some people might call my response overreacting, but try putting yourself in someone else’s' position, and I'm sure you wouldn't like it either. As I have attended more classes, I have gotten better at tolerating Sam's terms because like he said before, he doesn't care what other people think about how he conducts his lectures. Therefore, it would be an effortless attempt to try to change someone else's mind especially when I don't particularly like them. If Sam had an open-mind as he likes to make us believe, he would consider this.

Answering my own question, I think multiracial people should identify with whichever race they feel more comfortable with or associate with. However, if you use this concept, then what happens when a white person who associate's himself more with black people, what should he or she choose? Should the deciding factor be based on a certain percentage of whiteness?

I'm glad someone made this comment because I definitely don't agree with Sam's opinion regarding the sexuality of people. If someone's sexual preference is toward the opposite sex, that doesn't make them bisexual or potentially bisexual. I also didn't like how Sam chose to use his typical radical examples just to make people think further into their sexuality. By radical example, I'm referring to the situation where heterosexual men are forced to live on an island for year - leading to homosexual feelings. I must agree that some of the men would probably develop homosexual feelings, but that seems pretty obvious. I mean, if you stuck a person in a room where they could only eat their least favorite food, they would eventually learn to like it in order to survive, not because they want to continue eating it. If you only give someone one option, it's just natural to choose that one option especially if it's a "natural feeling" due to hormones.

When Sam chooses to relay his thoughts using such a terrible example, it makes the class seem more close-minded rather than open-minded. I mean why not put a homosexual man on an island with only 10 heterosexual women for years, and see if he develops heterosexual feelings. If a person is forced into a situation, you'd be surprised at the things they are willing to do outside of the norm, so I'd appreciate if someone doesn't claim everyone is bisexual especially when you don't know them personally. Also, don't try to create a "gray area" for sexuality when there isn't one and then honestly expect people to listen.

While on the subject of "bisexual", I have a question for those who believe that a person is born gay and choice plays no factor. Before I ask though, I'd like to add that I believe anyone who get's "turned on" and actually enjoys interacting sexually with someone of the same gender is gay or bisexual. If you somewhat agree with that "definition", how can someone actually believe they are bisexual when they are only born with the characteristic of being gay? Does this mean some people are only born heterosexual, bisexual, or homosexual? In addition, would this mean that SOME people who consider themselves gay choose this lifestyle rather than being born with it?

I definitely agree with the fact when a discussion is about race, the topic of "black people" is always brought up. In my opinion, the "black and white" conversation is typically brought up by white people, not black people. And I must say, white people always seem to feel the need to "double check" themselves when relaying their thoughts, especially when around a person who is non-white. When I say "double check," I mean to think twice before relaying their opinion or at least find a way to justify how their actual input by clarifying that it "wasn't rascist."

On the other hand, black people never really seem to have an opinion on the matter. No justification is ever relayed to the listeners as to why they believe there is tension among themselves and white people. While I may not be black, I can see their perspective as to why such negative opinions are generated about white people. For instance, I greatly dislike when white people feel the need to tell a story about a time when "they were the minority" and how "racism" towards them (them being white people) where experienced. In the end, they always say, "if this happened to a black person, it would have been considered racism." The truth is, these white people are often put in that situation for only a small amount of time, whereas non-white people have a greater probability to experience similar situations for their entire lifetime. People always claim how the minority population is skyrocketing in the United States, but when it comes down to the numbers, white people are the majority by a large amount.

When interaction between race comes about, power is always related to the number of people a race may have - strength in numbers. This tends to lead toward bias opinions, and therefore give a greater advantage to the race with a greater amount of people. Plus, it doesn't help that black and white people have the history of slavery between each other (in the United States). Thus, it wouldn't surprise me to hear from an older black person that a situation similar to slavery (with white people being in a slaves position) would be needed to "squash the tension" or "to get even." Whereas the younger generation of black people create this tension because there has been a bad interaction when dealing with someone white - an unfair or act of hatred situation.

I would like to state that I haven't seen Avatar, so my thoughts on the movie may be skewed. However, after reading Brooks' article on this relationship between the film and the "white messiah complex," I got better understanding of how this underlying "formula" (as Brooks calls it) is used in the movie industry. As Brooks' stated, Avatar is not the first movie where a director has applied this white messiah molding to. To be honest, I have seen some of the movies that follow a similar storyline and at that time, I didn't really give much time to think about something so obvious. Though after some thinking, I'm really not that surprised that this storyline is followed for many reasons in addition to just race.

First, one of the primary reasons that movies are even produced is to make money. In order to do this, a superior cast of actors, a great deal of advertising, and probably the most important, a story that will really capture the audience is needed. In the case with Avatar's director spending nearly a half a billion dollars to make, I don't really blame the director or producers for simply using the "white messiah" mold especially since it's storyline has led to many academy awards on many accounts - the goal for many movie makers. So ask yourself, if you were a movie producer and contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to a movie, would you really want the writer making the risk of choosing someone not fitting the attributes of the typical main character? While many people may not understand why the "messiah" can't just be someone "non-white", take some time to really think: would the movie really be that great of a deal or seen as something special by MOST people if the movie's "messiah" was "black" or another race? Most likely not, plus it is an extreme risk that the cast and staff would be taking in terms of money.

I believe the main point of choosing a "white" person as the savior is because he is viewed as the complete opposite of any "culture" in comparison to "non-white" people. If a "black" person were the "messiah", I think white people would just think, "oh look, it's just another minority helping another minority...nothing spectacular." Seeing as how most movie producers are white, why would they invest their money on something that may not attract the audience?

Now my statements don't mean I like or agree with the whole "white messiah" storyline, I just understand why it's done and why it's continued.

this class needs to have more "discussion groups" and less lecture

First of all, the article above clearly states that these comments made by Harry Reid were in a private conversation - not a public statement. While the Constitution grants us the freedom speech, how does that hold any relevance to private conversations? If Reid had made such comments in a press conference, for example, then this would be a valid argument. Second, I am a little confused on your actual opinion of Reid's comments. In the beginning, you use the constitution to protect Reid - whether you realize it or not - but yet you go into great detail as to how his comments are wrong. I understand that Reid's political status make him more vulnerable to public criticism than the general public, but his comments were coming from a personal standpoint not a professional one.

I do agree with you on the fact that racism is wrong, but that is a matter of personal opinion. Some people who belong to a younger generation and interact with a diverse group of people are so quick to call Reid a racist and mark his comments as insensitive, but his personal conversations are not anyone elses business. In addition, there are probably a large amount of political figures who share his opinion, but then again, they didn't get referenced making a similar statement.

As I've grown up, many people seem to believe that racism is almost extinct and that it will die along with the older generations. The truth is, racism is still very strong in the United States, but unlike 40 or 50 years ago, it is a lot more hidden than people realize. If you don't believe me, just take a look at the "KKK" website and tell me if you see anything racist on there. Thus, people blindingly believe is it fading, or remain ignorant to it. I believe there are two types of racists: a racist that makes their opinion evident to everyone by speech in a public setting, and a racist that "hides" his or her opinion by never actually admitting it or ever being caught. Racism can hide by using a collective group of actions or false accusations as a justified excuse to attack another race. A popular example of the "hidden" racism is demonstrated when a police officer stops a car specifically because of the driver's race. The officer may even charge the driver with speeding and assign a ticket in the amount of a few hundred dollars or more. If the driver fights the ticket in court, the judge will most likely trust the officer and rule the driver guilty. In the end, nobody except the officer and the people in the car will ever know what really happened. The actions in the example can be done by one person, but the tactics to remain "hidden" can be scaled all the way up to corporate America by a large organized group.

Segregating racists into two groups can show how one group is rapidly decreasing, while the "hidden" group progresses as time goes on.

First of all, the article above clearly states that these comments made by Harry Reid were in a private conversation - not a public statement. While the Constitution grants us the freedom speech, how does that hold any relevance to private conversations? If Reid had made such comments in a press conference, for example, then this would be a valid argument. Second, I am a little confused on your actual opinion of Reid's comments. In the beginning, you use the constitution to protect Reid - whether you realize it or not - but yet you go into great detail as to how his comments are wrong. I understand that Reid's political status make him more vulnerable to public criticism than the general public, but his comments were coming from a personal standpoint not a professional one.

I do agree with you on the fact that racism is wrong, but that is a matter of personal opinion. Some people who belong to a younger generation and interact with a diverse group of people are so quick to call Reid a racist and mark his comments as insensitive, but his personal conversations are not anyone elses business. In addition, there are probably a large amount of political figures who share his opinion, but then again, they didn't get referenced making a similar statement.

As I've grown up, many people seem to believe that racism is almost extinct and that it will die along with the older generations. The truth is, racism is still very strong in the United States, but unlike 40 or 50 years ago, it is a lot more hidden than people realize. If you don't believe me, just take a look at the "KKK" website and tell me if you see anything racist on there. Thus, people blindingly believe is it fading, or remain ignorant to it. I believe there are two types of racists: a racist that makes their opinion evident to everyone by speech in a public setting, and a racist that "hides" his or her opinion by never actually admitting it or ever being caught. Racism can hide by using a collective group of actions or false accusations as a justified excuse to attack another race. A popular example of the "hidden" racism is demonstrated when a police officer stops a car specifically because of the driver's race. The officer may even charge the driver with speeding and assign a ticket in the amount of a few hundred dollars or more. If the driver fights the ticket in court, the judge will most likely trust the officer and rule the driver guilty. In the end, nobody except the officer and the people in the car will ever know what really happened. The actions in the example can be done by one person, but the tactics to remain "hidden" can be scaled all the way up to corporate America by a large organized group.

Segregating racists into two groups can show how one group is rapidly decreasing, while the "hidden" group progresses as time goes on.