Note Nov 11, 2012 (2)

Note Nov 16, 2012

Note Oct 4, 2012 (13)

Note Oct 4, 2012 (14)

Note Sep 27, 2012 (9)

The very first paragraph of Sexual Assault on Campus; A multilevel Integrative Approach to Party Rape states the saddest fact I have ever learned in college. “between one-fifth and one-quarter of women are victims of completed or attempted rape while in college.”(Armstrong480). As a man who absolutely loves women, and always insists on protecting, taking care of, and respecting them, this statistic haunts me. Why are our women living within a system that lets this happen?

The first fact I noticed to help me answer this question was one that I wrote about last week, alcohol and its correlation with sexual violence. Half way through the first paragraph Armstrong states, “At least half and perhaps as many as three-quarters of the sexual assaults that occur on college campuses involve alcohol consumption on the part of the victim, perpetrator, or both.” All through out life I never considered “party rape” to be rape. To me, rape was when a man or a woman, uses any type of force to have sexual relations with any individual against their will. I never considered being drunk the same as being forced against your will. But it is possible to be drunk enough to not be in control. Therefore, alcohol can be used to subdue a victim, just like physical force, a knife, or a gun. I always considered taking advantage of a girl who is too drunk to say no the lowest of all male actions. It is well known that alcohol takes away inhibitions, and sometimes leaves a girl defenseless. To my friends and I, man law states that if she is too drunk to know better than it is unacceptable, but as we all know, not all men live by such a chivalrous code. As the man if you are the drunkest person, you must be careful not to over step your bounds. Saying the wrong thing can have you walking home alone, and doing the wrong thing can have you in jail. If you’re both extremely drunk, then be extra careful. That’s the gray area, and suddenly two parties can both make mistakes. Regardless of who is how drunk, no means no, and real men should take a loss like a gentleman.

I have family and I would never want any of my younger female siblings to go through college having to worry about getting drunk and being taken advantage of. Armstrong repeatedly states that alcohol and environments with alcohol are key in setting up a situation where party rape can occur. It is listed that fraternity houses and bars are sexually threatening environments (Armstrong 481). This is a fact I agree with.  Many times in most of theses places men will be looking to get girls into bed, and women will be looking to get attention from the men who are trying to take them home (Armstrong 483). Girls can even “earn scorn” form a male by wearing a “failed outfit” (Armstrong 483). . To me too much emphasis is put on sex, instead it should be put on partying without sexual implications. Often times college students feel as though they are supposed to go out and party (Armstrong,482,). Both boys and girls seek acceptance into their own groups and the cost of this acceptance can often be steep.

The second paragraph of page 483 states, “partying was also the primary way to meet men on campus…..people “don’t talk” in class. This could not describe Emory more. Class is long and stressful, when the weekend comes around all one wants to do is party and blow off some steam. Men try to get drunk and hook up, and girls do too. But some times men are willing to do too much to get too far.

Personally, I think party rape comes from two things. First, from the culture of “group acceptance” (Armstrong482). Men try to have sex to “fit in with their friends” and girls dress nice, get drunk, and go out to meet cute boys and girls :). Because these young girls think they need to dress to get attention, and get drunk to meet guys they are constantly in a dangerous position. Secondly, far too many men do not know when to stop, and do not have the fortitude to hold themselves to a higher standard of living. Far too many men would rather brag about taking advantage of a girl, than to enjoy the satisfaction of being a real man. A real man does not need alcohol; all he needs is a conversation.

Changing the culture of alcohol consumption will not stop sexual violence. But it will help decrease the rate of sexual assaults. There is not one way to stop sexual violence. To chop down a tree, the ax must be swung many times. By addressing alcohol abuse in our college culture, we can all take a huge swing against a society of rampant college sexual assaults.

This week in the archives is stumbled onto an article about college programs and alcohol. This goes hand in hand with our readings Shifting the Paradigm: Primary Prevention of Sexual Violence written by the American College Health Association (ACHA), especially the sections on alcohol and sexual violence’s correlation. The reading went into great detail about the effects of alcohol, “Approximately 50-70% of all sexual assaults involve alcohol.”(ACHA, pg19, paragraph1). It is no wonder that RA programs in the past have aimed at creating functions that are not completely controlled by alcohol {Note Nov 16, 2012}. On the night of Freshman formal, a returning RA went as far as pouring shots of coca-cola at a late night meal to give freshman an alcohol-free post-dance late-night activity. On page 22 of our reading in the section labeled “sexual violence assessment tool”, #11 on this list is the ability to provide an alcohol free environment for students to have activities. Freshmen are not supposed to be drinking alcohol; they are underage, so the possibility of them making poor choices and not well thought out decisions can be high. The article quotes one freshmen student,’” ..the programs are a nice idea, but I think its hard to prevent people who have a set plan to deter them from what they’re going to do.”’  (Borger,third picture- sixth paragraph).

Our readings clearly state that, “the influence of alcohol on behavioral and judgment may increase misperceptions of sexual interest and lead to perpetrators ignoring refusal cues or victims disregarding risk cues.” (ACHA, pg19, parag2) . This is more likely for freshmen students, who are mostly inexperienced in life. In my opinion this may be double true for Emory students protected by the Emory bubble.

RA sponsored programs like this contributed to a lack of alcohol related emergencies at Emory’s Freshman Formal. This article states that, “for the first time in eight years there has been no student hospitalized due to alcohol related incidents during the freshman semi-formal.” (Borger, line1, picture1). On average about 4-5 students drink far too much and require medial attention.(Borger, paragraph2, line1, picture1).  This is more of an alcohol problem than a sexual violence problem, but as we know from the readings and the previous paragraph the two can often go hand in hand. These alcohol free recreational activities help change the norm of alcohol abuse that is common amongst freshman. Personally, I have never drunk more often than my freshman years. The norm of alcohol abuse can often lead to sexual abuse, so changing this early part of college culture is a big step in the right direction.

On page 20 of our readings, there are a few things listed about alcohol and sexual violence. The article I found in the archives gives an example of Emory’s history establishing a community to help explain and deal with alcohol and its use. The article also gives an example of young adults being educated on the subject of abuse. This shows me that it is possible to change the culture and environment of any school, and in order to make Emory safer we must continue to carry on a tradition of awareness, alertness, and responsibility.

HIV changed view of sex, diseases and other parts of life. Society links HIV with certain things such as sex and sin because of religious, government, and social influences. AIDS has also been associated with minorities and gay men. Out of all the people effected, AIDS is the worst for people who are not able take care of themselves.

There are many who view this as an act of God, ‘”…the stroke of God’s wrath for the sins of mankind,”’. Reverend Jerry Falwell even stated on TV, “Do it and die”. In the past, rhetoric behind HIV was very morally based. Many individuals, mostly religious people and conservatives, viewed having HIV or AIDS as God’s holly punishment for sinners. Religion’s inability to accept homosexuality has caused people who sufferer from AIDS to become targeted. But not all of those who are religious condemn homosexuality. An article in a 2005 issue of the Emory Report an article caught my attention. Note Nov 11, 2012 (2) This article is about gay rights, as applied through religion. One of the best points made in this article was “..that whatever governments do about same-sex marriage or same-sex unions, Christian churches still have a question before them. The legal solution will not solve the religious question.” The same process can be applied to those with AIDS. The author also claims that scriptures are not always against homosexuality, there are churches such as the Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ that do not condemn homosexuality. So therefore, these churches do not see HIV and AIDS as God’s wrath against the gays. The article compares homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages to what a biblical marriage.

Government and religion’s influence were two major points in this weeks reading, and this made me think about the fact that those two are the most influential things in our country, pop culture and media not included.  If religion and government both are portraying negativity on the subject then the public will be unaware and uneducated as to the real problems occurring. On page 124, paragraph 3 of the Lewis article, surveys showed some disturbing things about America’s perception of AIDS and HIV. 60% showed no sympathy towards HIV victims, 30% wished them quarantined, and 25% favored discrimination towards HIV and AIDS victims. Four years after the initial survey, 27% still felt that people with AIDS should not get any compassion. Even if Koop did release a book outlining the dangers of HIV and AIDS, present Regan was not vocal about it and still there is a misunderstanding of what is actually going on.

This is why Alicia Lurry’s article in a 2004 edition of the Emory Wheel stood out to me Note Nov 11, 2012 (1). She states that woman over the age of 50 are living longer and having more sex, therefore their chance of getting and transmitting AIDS is higher than they were before. What seemed in earlier years to be non-threatened demographic, white middle-aged women are now in danger too. In a survey, none of the women answered all 9 questions correctly. Most of the time these women received information about AIDS through television and friends. Less then half claimed they got information from healthcare providers. There is one quote that I believe is crucial in comparing our readings to this article, “The misconception is that older people don’t have sex anymore and that they are really are not engaging in risky activity.” This is the same misconception that labeled AIDS as a gay disease. This is the same misconception that leads to religion to condemn individuals with the disease. This is the same misconception that lead the government to tip-toe around the AIDS issue.

Our societies misconceptions about sex and who is having it are a detriment to how we as a country handles HIV and AIDS. If the interpretation of a problem is wrong, how can we as a society fix our misconception, and how long does it take to fix this misconception? If Ronald Regan, the President considered to be the greatest conservative ever, had been more publicly supportive of the plight of AIDS victims maybe in the present we would have been better off as a country, but as stated before, regardless of what government does to try and fix the issue, religion will still have its issues with sex and STDs. This is a issue with problems coming at it from all sides.

I was interested in the paper titled, “Risk, Identity, and Love in the Age of AIDS. I feel as though I understand this issue because I have seen some of the things this paper mentions as I grew up. The first thing I noticed was about teaching abstinence. On page 619 line 10 it says, “…not far behind was the remarkable popular consensus that no-sex was the best thing to teach and the best thing for teens to practice.” Growing up this lead to an initial cultural shunning of sexuality. I remember in middle school seeing pictures of STD’s, it was one of the worst visual experiences of my life. The scar left in my mind is still felt. However the problem with these scare tactics is that youth, especially youth such as my self, will take chances and make mistakes. Often times it is not until we make mistakes that we actually learn. In the article “A true coming to age story” she mentions how, “right now she is still in the land of flirts and smiles.” There is nothing wrong with her progression into her sexuality, there is nothing wrong with taking your time and figuring it out. But not ever girl will be as graceful and as safe as Suzanne Hyman was in this 2005 edition of the Emory Wheel.

The next major thing to catch my eye was the thought of straight people being able to hold on to multiple identities, were gay people could only be gay. As stated, “..his identity is straight, yes, but mostly he’s seen as African American, or Filipino, or Jewish, a jock, or a gangster or a nerd. But a gay kid is defined by what he is not; he is not straight.” In my high school, I remember it did not matter what ur talents were. If you were gay, you were gay; that’s all a person would have been seen as. Unless you were a female (homosexual or bisexual), note the double standard, you functioned outside of groups of men. They were brutally targeted and viciously insulted. Learning how to insult or “talk shit” is a cultural right of passage were I am from. Its like Sparta, but with words. It would change day to day who the target was. Sometimes it was you sometimes not. But if you were gay, you were always the target.

It was never the girls that hated, just the men. This is not the case 100% of the time, but more often than not it was. In my humblest opinion, gay men are less of a threat to women. Generally this makes it easier for a girl to become close with a gay guy as apposed to a straight guy because he is registered inside her mind as not a threat and therefore will be allowed more leeway with his actions compared to a man she thinks is trying to proposition sex. Men on the other hand, very possibly felt sexually threatened. After all, if he is gay, and he likes men, then may be he likes/wants/lusts after me? I believe this is where all the hate/distrust for the gay men came from when we were growing up. I made my first gay friend in high school when I was trying to get closer to the very attractive girl he was friends with. Not the noble of reasons, I know, but it was a path to understanding for me. Now one of my best friends is gay, and not because I am trying to flirt with his female friend or anything like that. He is just a homie, a good dude. Five six years ago that might not have been possible.

It was once very socially dangerous to be gay. Growing up in the South it may have been worse. After all, this is cotton-pickin-Georgia, and things have never been easy in the Buckle of the Bible Belt. But as I have learned in the archives, life and social progression is a series of battles in a long war. I see the gay community coming up and gaining social independence and more of a place in mass culture every day. Lessons in early school life prepare us for real life, they prepare our identity for all the risk and the love we will get from the world.

In the second paragraph the author gets into the heat of the argument. The pro-life vs. pro-choice debate. I did feel as though initially she came off as bias. At the end of the paragraph she while describing the pro-life philosophy she expressed it “sadly”. It sticks out so much because it is literally the last word on the page too…lol.

But I am on her side, so I cannot really complain. Pro choice has always been the softer, and for me easier to like, of the two sides, and they support baby killing. I do not say this to be shocking, I know it may seem that way. However, as a pious man it does not matter. All other variables excluded, if left un-aborted a baby would be born, have a life, and die like the rest of us. By aborting that chance at life is taken. It in my humble opinion is baby killing. I’m am also a scientist, and I recognize that as long as a baby is aborted early enough, it is not alive yet, thus no actually killing of baby’s has occurred. I do not think the author dives deep into the topic of the life of the baby. Probably because that is a whole different argument

Another reason I enjoyed this paper was because in Evolutionary Biology the other day I brought up baby killing when we were studying a paper about beehives. The queen kills all the babies that aren’t her own in order to maintain social fear control over the hive’s female-clone slaves (asexually reproduced worker bees). I promise I am not making this up. Some close relative may survive.  It’s her source of power and why she rules. I think some pro-life advocates, truly and genuinely fear giving up that type of power to a woman. Not a literal, she is a queen and we are slaves, but a biological and evolutionary power source that, lets face it, would be the ultimate ace up the sleeve in any relationship. The one who controls the production of offspring, all other things being equal, controls the relationship. But unfortunately in our society all things are not equal. I love women so I’m 100% with giving y’all more power. Because in the end I will never ‘fear’ you, I’ll ‘Love ’ you.

The rest of the paper deals with people’s opinions about what is acceptable and the moral battle. That’s exactly what it is, a battle. Life is a battle. L/G/B/T rights…a battle. Minority rights….a battle. Woman’s suffrage….a battle. The way I relate this to the archives, is that in all the articles I’ve seen in Emory’s past, at least between the years we were assigned, the battle is a slow grinding one, and the culture of Emory is becoming more accepting by the years. Accepting towards sexual choice, skin, race, and religion. And in that diverse community were we are accepting and open to empower woman, I think makes us better and stronger. It isn’t a battle that has been won, each of these groups fights the same war on different turf, but the progress we all make is towards peace, equality, and happiness.

Last week in the archives I looked through a yearbook from 1983. Needless to say, being a yearbook, I captured many images that clue into that times sexual identity. The first thing I noticed is that most all pictures of men together they were standing in an extremely masculine accord. This is either a popular consensus of social etiquette at the time, or a direct effect of the editor’s bias.

As we can see in      Note Oct 11, 2012 (11) the two men in the bottom picture are standing arm in arm, drink in hand, and with adequate pelvic distance. This is crucial for the picture to both paint the masculinity of the men and implied heterosexuality of the men. In the picture on the top right, the gentlemen on the left is clearly more sexually interested in the women he is standing next to compared to these gentlemen; arm in arm, drinks in hand, but notice how much less space exists between the sexual organs of the two women and the man. Notice how much more fluid this picture is compared to the squared up picture of the two men on the bottom. To contrast, look at the picture on the top. Women tend to lean in closer from pictures and “friend moments” but even they maintain a distance, shown by the girl on the far left. If the girl on the far left was sexually interested in the girl she stood next to, then she would have been closer. Plus looking at the fact they all have drinks implies they are drunk, and alcohol being drunk is one of the most frequent preludes to sex there is.

Note Oct 11, 2012 (5) gives incite into the sexual identity of popular culture of the time. In the picture we see a criminal in bars from a great movie, a Disney heterosexual love story, many famous celebrities, another heterosexual romance, a few more celebrities, a half dressed ( and I am assuming gay due to his stance) standing with two other men and a woman (sexual preference still to be determined), Modena, and a Governor/Actor. Aside from Michael Jackson’s sexuality (which in my opinion is up for debate { I nether view him as gay or straight, more like a musical idol}) there is only one “gay” thing that I can see in this picture with my  “straight” eyes. This to me shows that America was moving closer to a society that accepts homosexuality. Times were still hard for the homosexual community but socially there has been some progress.

Gay sexual identity is present, it is just hidden and slightly eluded to. This point brings me back to the picture above; maybe the men on the bottom picture were gay, and maybe they were trying to hide the fact that they were homosexuals, The sexuality might only be seen in the undertone. This of course, can be applied to any of the pictures seen and captured. Is what they portray heterosexual, or is it just how we perceive it to be?

The south to me, is a very complicated entity. The south has a lot of hate but at the same time a great sense of unity (much like the entire United States). I think this sense of hate and unity is reflected by the African American culture, especially in the south. And in my opinion, black culture is a perfect model of “the culture of the excluded”.

All types of people, (Irish/Hispanic/Arab/Asian) have all had moments in their history as Americans where they have been hated and secluded, few more so than America’s black population. The article presented above brings to mind an issue i mentioned in my last blog, hate within groups that are discriminated against.

In the black community, being homosexual and acting gay is looked down upon. Just like how, in some white southern communities acting black or gay is looked down upon. Just like how in some areas of the United States, the South is looked down upon. Which brings me to my final point. On this planet, filled with many different people, cultures, races, sexualities, and religions, America itself is hated against. In terms of identity, I am first a Muslim and second an American. Based on those to aspects of my identity there are numerous people that could hate me. EVERY TIME i have left the country to go visit family in the “old country” or to go on vacation, the fact that i am a proud American (one who is  proud to claim his USA on any occasion at any location and hostility level) will bring me some very blatant and obvious hate. Our planet is filled with different people, and somehow we have managed to find a way to hate each other for the trivial differences that actually make us strong. A fundamental biological principle is that variance is good for a population, it leads to increased survivability when the environment changes (which it eventually will).

I think that the struggle of the Gay and Lesbian community is much like that of any other minority, and in the last 20-30 years they have been going through one of the roughest parts of American acceptance. The author in this article compares ELGO groups to Black student groups and rightfully so. Do we not acknowledge these people for being hated against and not having an easy pursuit of happiness, and by doing this do we sometimes try to help them out? Does this acknowledgement invite hate towards the very group these organizations try to uplift into social acceptance?

Of course we make these groups to help discriminated people find a place, and of course the existence of these groups will cause hateful out lash just because they exist. As a Muslim American living in a post 9/11 America I have grown up in the prime of the Muslim/Pakistani hate, the prime of the paranoia. And what did I find? Hate for Blacks, Gays, Jews, Southerners, Indians and other American groups is so prevalent within the Muslim American population itself that i grew to hate the very people i was a part of. True Hate within Hate. All Americans hate on each other, but I honestly think that until one has been hated and until one has had the right to hate back, a human being can not truly appreciate what they have and are a part of. Hate will not and can not disappear until we  as a people realize that there is a thin line between love and hate, and that most hate comes from the pain one will suffer at the hands of another hurt and pained individual. One must realized that the hate one expresses is often the hate that one will be confronted with.

In my opinion we do not hate each other, not at all. Our biological responses to love and hate are the very similar, so when we see someone who we hate that feeling is nothing but a reflection of the love that we all wish we would have gotten. The love we all wish we could have shared.

This week in the archives, I noticed an article about Theater Emory. The title says, “Theater Emory Probes the Complex Nature of Women.” At first glance it seems like the perfect article for sexual identity, and the title makes one hope for some sort of bisexual or asexual topics in order to line up perfectly with what has been read this week. Although nothing is explicitly said about any type of sexuality other than heterosexual, the play has some controversial undertones. The first thing that really stuck out, was that the “five portraits” of women, or five plays, were all written by men. The article claims that the plays are about the “myth of the feminine experience” but that myth is through the eyes of men. I thought this odd at first, and easily forgave them because I figured that they just didn’t have any female play writers. However I personally think this is a prime example of men overstepping their reach and imposing what/how they believe women behave, desire, and represent.Note Sep 27, 2012 (9)

Even though they do claim to “paint” a “myth of the experience” it will be a myth told by men. Often times we see men influence, if not dictate, the perception of many things, in this case the identity of a the female. Men’s interpretations and believes are also one of the reasons female homosexuality has a less negative connotation than male homosexuality. It was not mentioned but one does wonder if they will have any homosexually based story lines, or if the male writers thought that was not essential in painting the myth of a woman. This article was written in 1983.

In a 2003 article in the Emory Report there are two sections outlined in blue, one about the status of minorities, and the other about LGBT. It tells of a Pride banquet, and also mentions the first openly gay black female to hold office in Georgia, which is a very impressive accomplishment considering the state. There is also mention of a gay-hate art exhibit. This article was published in 2003 and one can not help but think about how different it was for gay and lesbians then compared to the 1980’s. Most of the articles I have seen have been from the 80’s so it was nice to have a fresher opinion on homosexuality.

Note Sep 27, 2012 (7)