As the debate over gay marriage has been active throughout the years, I feel as though Americans truly have progressed over the years in terms of accepting gay and lesbian people in society. Just today an article was posted in the Huffington Post stating that Chris Kluwe, a Minnesota Vikings punter, defends gay marriage. More and more supporters are appearing and fighting for gay rights. The article says that it’s about “being able to lead your life free of oppression” [2]. Kluwe is now campaigning on behalf of a group called Minnesotans for Equality, urging votes to beat back a ballot initiative in Minnesota that would prevent gay and lesbians from marrying. In the Pew Forum Religion & Public Life article titled “A Contentious Debate: Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S” in 2009, it was started that four states have legalized same sex marriage [1]. As of now, six states have legalized same sex marriage: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont as well as the District of Columbia.
People are becoming more and more open about allowing gay people to form a life longing bond with their partner. Gay people have been calling for the right to marry since the 1960s, but same sex marriage has only become a national issue within the last 20 years. In addition to allow gay and lesbian people to marry, in June 2009 President Obama allowed family medical leave and other health benefits to same-sex partners.
But of course there are always people on the other side. For example the Catholic Church and many evangelical Christian groups have opposed gay marriage. In some instances, the “opponents of legalizing same-sex marriage have consistently outnumbered supporter” [1]. Gay marriage sometimes goes against the values of certain religions. Changing their views can be extremely difficult. In addition to religious groups opposing gay marriage, some political campaigns oppose same sex marriage as well [4].
But besides all the opposition towards gay marriage, Americans’ support for the moral acceptability of gay and lesbian relations crossed the 50% threshold in 2010 according to Gallup politics. Even in media now, gay people are becoming major roles in TV shows and movies. For example in Modern Family, Partner, Ugly Betty, Glee, Pretty Little Liars, Gossip Girl, and even Friends there is a least one gay or lesbian character. Especially in Modern family, the gay or lesbian character does not seem to be excluded, but rather seen in a positive light. With the rising awareness of gay people in media, I feel people are more open to the idea and acceptance of these individuals.
There will always be debate between the two sides of supporting and opposing same sex marriage. But I do feel that America has come a long way in becoming more open about the idea through the government and media.

[1] http://www.pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/A-Contentious-Debate-Same-Sex-Marriage-in-the-US.aspx
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/23/chris-kluwe-minnesota-vikings-gay-marriage-letter_n_1907200.html
[3] http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/americans-acceptance-gay-relations-crosses-threshold.aspx

When I first saw the subject title “Sexual Coercion and Aggression in Dating” in the Relationships and Sexuality article I figured it would be about rape and violent unwanted intercourse. These are things, although prevalent in the news and included in the plotline of many modern TV shows, I do not feel apply to myself. After reading the findings of scholars on the subject, I was shocked at how relatable their conclusions were to the average life of a college student.
Sexual coercion has come to encompass simply kissing someone and being manipulated into doing something against your will. This does not necessarily have to mean engaging in consensual sexual intercourse. With excessive drinking and peer pressure, I think that college is the quintessential setting for this type of behavior to occur in. I also think it was extremely interesting that they linked the frequency that one would have the tendency to engage in this behavior to ones childhood experiences. It makes sense that someone with poor peer relationships and who had more same-sex sexually active friends growing up were more likely to be coerced into an unwanted situation. I was also not shocked to discover that females have a much higher tendency to fall victim to manipulation than men.
From my personal experience, my friends who are more insecure and grew up with more girlfriends are the ones throughout college who have been more susceptible to being treated poorly by boys. When coming to college, relationships with boys were something they actively sought out because it was something that they previously did not get the chance to experience. I think that many people feel a sense of false security when they engage in a relationship with the opposite sex. Although it is comforting to be in a relationship, it often leads to even greater insecurities and lower self-esteem. More often than not, someone who is in a relationship “just to be in a relationship” would do anything that their partner tells them to do just to maintain their partnership. This form of sexual coercion just reinforces manipulation and dependence on others.
I also recognize the truth in the findings about sexually coercive men. It was concluded that these men date more frequently, begin sexual activity at an early age especially in non-committed relationships, and prefer casual sexual encounters. Men that exhibit these types of traits would be labeled in modern society as “players”. It does not help that more often that not, boys who engage in this type of behavior are lauded by their peers. This praise just gives fuel to the fire and reinforces a toxic cycle. So, from what I first felt was not applicable to me actually turned out describing a typical college experience. I would hope that this is a phase that teenagers go through and learn to grow out of, as they either realize that this is not a way to maintain a healthy relationship or, on the other end, gain more self-respect for themselves. It is also interesting to note that although this study was conducted in the 1990s, nothing has really changed at all.

There’s this game we play when it comes to finding a sexual partner. I like to call it “the chase” and I’m sure you all know what I’m talking about. Step 1: You meet someone. Step 2: You talk for a little and you find yourself liking this person. Step 3: They don’t seem as interested (playing hard-to-get). Step 4: You desire this person even more now. What is it about trying to “get” someone who isn’t throwing themselves at you? There’s this satisfaction of sexually interacting with someone whom you’ve successfully “chased.”

Stated in “Sexual Desire and Gender,” the sociobiological view of desire is that “humans have an innate, genetically triggered impulse, to pass on their genetic material, through successful reproduction.” Speaking biologically, we are programmed to HAVE desire, to sexually interact, to ensure reproduction. In a social context, Schwartz and Rutter say that “a social conflict theorist would go a step further and note that the enactment of gendered fashion norms serves the political agenda of groups in power (in this case men) at the macro level.” In this sense, I think that women gain satisfaction from the chase because they are enticed by the “power” of men. Whereas in the case of men, I think men feel satisfaction from the chase in a more biological sense; they want the sexual pleasure and in a more innate sense, they want to pass on their genetic material – “reproductive fitness.” Now, I’m not saying that men are more animalistic or inferior to women in this sense, I’m merely stating that perhaps women and men have different reasonings for gaining satisfaction from this chase.

The saying “men inseminate, women incubate” wouldn’t accurately describe the sexual behavior at Emory University. It is known that women get way more attached when sex is involved, but honestly from what I’ve witnessed, girls are hooking up with numerous guys without that need for a relationship. Maybe because its college, or because Emory is different from society, but I think that just as many girls as guys are hooking up with various partners. There’s desire coming from both genders – women aren’t just trying to stick with one partner. Biologically, Schwartz and Rutter explain that women are more likely to get divorced and remarried because they’re looking to create a better child – they’re looking for better genes constantly. And men, men are likely to have many partners because they’re trying to pass on their genes as well.

Sociobiologists also claim that “older men generally pick younger women because they are more fertile; younger women seek older men who have more status, power, and resources because such men can provide for their children” (Sexual Desire and Gender page 278). I find this interesting (and weird) when looking at my parents that are 8 years apart. Where they thinking this when the initial desire kicked in?

So back to the chase… personally, I love the chase. As a competitive person, the challenge is enticing. And “winning,” well, it doesn’t get better then winning.

Same-sex marriage is a constant headline in the news and rightfully so. When I was
younger, social norms made me believe that same-sex marriage was “wrong”. As
a heterosexual, young, self-centered male, I didn’t give the social notion a second
thought because quite simply – it did not affect me. In college, things changed. I now
had homosexual friends – male and female – and the topic became more real and
present in my daily life. Under Social Control of Sexuality, the author of the article
compares same-sex marriage to mixed-race marriage, mixed-ethnic marriage,
mixed-faith marriage. I consider myself a well-informed, educated person… but I
had never thought of sexuality in this way before. Mixed-race marriage was against
in the law in our country until 1967. That was only 45 years ago, the ageß of many
of our parents! Historians say that we must study our past to prevent making the
same mistakes again in our future. How has our society missed this mistake that was
rectified only 45 years ago?

“You may break the rules or follow them, but you can’t forget them.” We are raised
to think a certain way – by our parents, teachers, friends, the media, politicians
– that creates unspoken rules that impose limitations on the way we think about
or perceive sexual norms. I have homosexual friends; I enjoy their company and
friendship the same that I do my heterosexual friends. But at the end of the day, I
can’t help but think that their homosexual preference is something “wrong”. Before
you label me a homophobe, hear me out. Growing up in the south, I was immersed
in an environment that was constantly teaching me that homosexuality was a sin;
it was disgusting and wrong and I should hate people who engage in homosexual
behavior. These “rules” of thinking were forced upon me at a very young age. I
have chosen to break the rules – to not participate in the ostracizing of homosexual
individuals and extend to them the same respect and friendship I would to any
other person. Shamefully though, I cannot forget the rules that were etched into my
brain as a child. As much as a value my friendships with my homosexual friends, the
notion of homosexuality as something “wrong” is a rule that, as much as I truly want
to, I cannot forget.

Schwartz and Rutter make it clear that sexual desire is anything but clear. There
are biological explanations, evolutionary psychological explanations, social
constructionist explanations that all make valid arguments and present valid
theories in regards to sexual desire and gender. Personally I think a blend of all
research disciplines makes the most sense. In any case, we only have immediate
control over one discipline – social constructs.

Homosexuality makes headlines because as a society, we are still imposing
the “rule” that homosexuality is wrong. I could start listing off court cases that have
demonstrated the fundamental right we have as individuals to freedom of choice,
but instead I will just say this – throughout its history, this country has enforced social decisions that time and time again we come to realize are, quite simply, wrong
– one of the greatest examples being slavery. These decisions are made and forced
upon us, but inevitably, we realize how incredibly idiotic and mistaken we were
to make these decisions in the first place. It takes years, decades, centuries, even,
to rectify the damage these social decisions make on our society’s mental view on
certain issues. The social damning of homosexuality is a mistake. We are making a
mistake that even when resolved will show consequences well into the years of our
children and grandchildren.

My parents moved to this country to ensure that their children would grow up in a
society that was less hostile, suppressive and controlling than the one they escaped.
Why do immigrants view the United States this way? – Because we are a progressive
nation. In most cases, I agree with this notion. But when it comes to embracing
the diversity that in fact defines our country, I think we have a long way to go. The
United States prides itself in being a “melting-pot” society but I think it’s time to
practice what we preach.

During our last class we grappled with the idea of “unlearning” behavior in an attempt be more accepting of gay and lesbian relationships. While Emory may be progressive,  the reality is that it is a difficult social controversy to break through. There is an undeniable construction of acceptance (or lack thereof) dealing with gay relationships that are formed through one’s exposure to the subject, and these opinions are largely shaped by the media, friends, parents, and political views.

It is no secret that the traditional institution of marriage is existing in a state of failure. Those who contest the implementation of accepting gay marriage claim that the institution of marriage would be further weakened.¹ But what are the negative ramifications of legalizing gay marriage if successful marriages are declining? Proponents of gay marriage appeal to legal principles of equality and also appeal to practicality of allowing hospital visitation rights, for instance.¹ Beyond these reasons of legality and practicality, what are some other determining factors that would seem to support gay marriage? Masci’s article “A Contentious Debate: Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S.” deals with another significant consideration of this debate, the role of religious communities, but for the sake of this particular post I am going to leave religiosity aside even though it too is an important factor in this whole issue.

Like I previously mentioned, marriages are already struggling to maintain success, but some of these failures could be accounted for by a lack of societal judgment.  Could the constraints of marriage be outdated? The frequency with which we hear about relationships ending due to sexuality and sexual preferences seems to have increased over the years, but because of the expectations of marriage, the institution itself rules out any digression. I would hypothesize that even though gay marriage may be “out of the norm” for the majority of Americans, it may actually help the overall perception of marriage. USA News published article claiming just that too, showing that divorce rates were actually lower in states that allowed same-sex marriage.² Consider the some of the terminology that a gay or lesbian couple uses today in substitute for marriage such as life partner. When considering the language and implication by using that particular term, it directly indicates what the goal of that relationship, and the reality is whether or not gay marriage is legalized, homosexuals will continue to live together. Therefore, who cares whether the couple getting married is homosexual or heterosexual, because as long as the institution of marriage is able regain confidence with people maybe that will eliminate the little voice in the back of people’s head wondering “is it going to last” and be replaced with some form of confidence in marriage in general.

From our previous readings, we can see that Emory was once extremely rigid with rules for students, even discriminatory. But if my previous points about marriage are applicable and confidence can be re-instilled in marriage, how can we then take Emory’s progressiveness toward the gay community beyond our community? Emory serves as an obvious example that with the proper steps taken a new behavior can be “learned” or “unlearned”.

An additional question that I would like to pose, is it the government’s responsibility to get involved with implementing this social change, or is a purely a change that needs to occur through each community?

1. Masci, David. “A Contentious Debate: Same-Sex Marriage in the U.S..” Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2009): n. page. Web. 22 Sep. 2012. <http://www.pewforum.org/Gay-Marriage-and-Homosexuality/A-Contentious-Debate-Same-Sex-Marriage-in-the-US.asp&xgt;.
2. Kurtzleban, Danielle. “Divorce Rates Lower in States with Same-Sex Marriage.” USA News. 6 July 2011: n. page. Web. 23 Sep. 2012. <http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/07/06/divorce-rates-lower-in-states-with-same-sex-marriage>.

Sex has been proven to be a particularly strong tool in society. The extent to which sex impacts the individual, however, is something that may not be as clearly understood as people may think. In “Sexual Desire and Gender” written by Pepper Schwartz and Virginia E. Rutter, the notion of sexuality being an individualistic trait was raised.

In society, sexuality is something that is typically used to group people together. It is a label that makes things easier to understand. Imagine a world where if somebody were asked their sexuality, the response would be a long list of personal preferences and a resulting answer on a scale of one to ten. Lady Gaga would love a world like this, yet imagine the challenges that would be posed to the gender norms that we have all subconsciously adopted throughout life. For simplicity, lets just say that society would be a bit more complicated.

When I think about the notion of sexuality being individually defined, it is interesting to note the differences that there would be in politics. In the current political election, the notion of gay marriage would be a bit different. In “Sexuality in Marriage, Dating and Other Relationships” by F. Scott Christopher and Susan Sprecher, gay marriage was discussed and the social factors that are involved. In the other readings on gay marriage as well, there was a general acceptance of the notion that gay marriage is not widely accepted. In a society where sexuality was determined on a personal basis, marriage would be interpreted differently as well right? It would seem so since gay marriage is as taboo of a subject as is the rising number of different sexual identities.

Yet what is true about our society is the fact that gender brings with it a list of expectations regarding sexuality. As a male, it is funny to read about the expectations and mental processes that “men” experience. The idea that men have this fast twitch sexual drive while women have a more sustained desire is one that I’m sure we have all heard before. The belief that an orgasm is more difficult to reach for women than men is, in addition to unfortunate, thought provoking when bringing in to the picture the idea that sexuality is individually defined. If sexuality really is tailor made, then what role do the gender norms play?

A world without sexuality expectations and preconceived notions regarding gender and sex would be a very different world indeed. The example of politics becomes even more relevant. Although we often do not consider sex to be a huge factor in politics, it is crazy to think of just how much of a role sex plays in the way our country is run. Besides the easy to digest commercial world where sex sells, tougher topics such as marriage are actually the ones that define candidates in the eyes of citizens. All that is to say that if sexuality really was individualistic, things would be more complicated maybe, but there would be a lot more time to talk about more important things.

Here is a link to an article about gay marriage from Dr. Lynne Huffer, a Professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Emory University:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynne-huffer/

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/09/18/kinsey-institute-app-debacle-highlights-privacy-hazards-around-new-research-method

Finger Rings- Quote begins 4 lines down

Last week, we traveled back in time to a more defined, more segregated, Emory. We all discovered the influential power of a particular Korean student and how he identified the 1890’s as a time hugely influenced by whites. Yun Ch’i-ho documented his experiences in the United States and his experiences on our beloved Emory campus during the 19^th century. He carefully details his everyday relationships with the students of Emory and most intriguing of all, were his documented feelings of attraction to the lovely ladies of Atlanta and Miss Janice.

What I found most interesting from Yun’s writings was his sexual attraction to the white females of The South. The Caucasian female was and, perhaps still, can be fundamentally described as pure- in character and beauty. Their golden blond hair and soft eyes caught the attention of Yun as he studied at Emory during the 1890’s. I think that this fundamental “stereotype” of white females is most interesting in Yun’s case because then I wonder…is it love? Is this attraction to Miss Janice pure love or is there something else we can decode from his scriptures in his diary. Could his profound feeling be lust? Lust to obtain something he couldn’t “have.”

The dynamics between what one truly loves versus lust is something to be considered when reading these documents. Most of my colleagues and I can be defined as two kinds of people; those of us who like to be “chased” by lovers and those of us who live for the chase. What I have found in my experience is that if not sometimes, most of the time, the chase and fight are far more pleasurable than no chase at all. There is a sense of accomplishment once we obtain the unattainable won by our sweat and blood. Whether the strategy of the chasers includes romantic letters or mariachi serenades on a veranda; the struggle feeds sexual appetite.

Where am I going with this, you might ask? Well, if we take this notion that Yun is an outsider- an alien to the Emory females during the 1890’s and if you give him this fundamental idea that white females are the “best” of all women then, do you think that his sexual attraction to Miss Janice is valid for this time? Or do you think that he was a chaser and went against the notions that told him that he couldn’t have a white women so he sought out to prove everyone and himself wrong…. that yes, it was obtainable?

What I am struggling to believe is whether or not Yun was in love with Miss Janice for being Miss Janice or was it lust- to have that which he couldn’t have? Yun was unquestionably smitten with Miss Janice but was it more than that? Sprinkled throughout his section of dairy that I reviewed were romantic quotes to Miss Janice. My favorite quote from Yun’s dairy reads, “I wish I were one of her finger rings, so that I may be with her always.” Sweet huh?

Using Yun’s writings can we ask ourselves if this “love story” could have been avoided if the time period allowed for a more diverse campus? Would Miss Janice go against her social norms and consider Yun as a possible mate? Is Yun’s ideology of the white women enough to explain why he was so attracted to them? If Yun were to live on the Emory campus today, would he still strive to obtain the love of a southern belle?

A short description of Miss Janice. Last paragraph reads "She is so pretty (I think) so modest that it is simply impossible not to love her."