Sexual Violence: College Life and Beyond

During our class discussion with Lauren Bernstein yesterday, we had a very insightful discussion about the statistics of rape today at colleges across the United States. In addition to our discussion on this powerful subject matter, Bernstein informed us on her efforts here at Emory to provide support to victims through programs such as Respect.

Following this interesting discussion mainly pertaining to college campuses, I began pondering the larger picture of this issue. During our years in college, we are expected to gain knowledge, to increase efficiency and to learn how to juggle many aspects of life on our own. With all of this education going on, college campuses can be somewhat seen as controlled chaos. A place where students hustle and bustle to fit as much as possible in to one day, in one week and in four years, yet especially here at Emory, there are terms describing our campus as a bubble. Within this bubble sometimes, we as students fail to account for life and ways of thinking beyond the Emory campus. Therefore in these fundamental years, we should as students should walk away prepared for what lies ahead in life. This realization was partly sparked from a question that was directed to Bernstein about other instances of rape away from a college setting, and with this thought process in mind; I began researching for statistics pointing to where other instances of rape occur.

After a fairly simple search, I was led to the website An Abuse, Rape, and Domestic Violence Aid and Resource Collection (A.A.R.D.V.A.R.C.). This website combines various resources of information into one succinct location. On this site, data was provided from the Department of Justice Bureau. The table provides a series of tables based on criminal victimization in the United States from the year of 2005. Based on this data the majority of rapes occurred at the victim’s home, which was 36%. This was followed by 24% occurring at a friend, relative or neighbor’s home and 9% on a street other than near home.  Rapes occurring on school property were 8% of the data and a 3% total occurring at a common yard, park, field or playground. This information was then broken down into the activity of the victim at the time of the rape. In the order from highest to lowest, the activities were: leisure activity away from the home (29%), other activity at home (25%), sleeping (20%), working (11%), at school (5%), going to or from other place (4%), or going to or from school (3%) [1].

We can see from this data, which in all reality could be considered a bit out of date, there is certainly more of a risk for such instances to occur beyond the walls of Emory.  I would just like to urge my fellow classmates not to take for granted the safety that many of us are lucky to experience. I am not saying that we should walk around paranoid during our activities, but there should certainly be a level of awareness maintained. We have the fortunate experience of attending a close knit college, but as we explore beyond the limits of Emory and enter “real-life,” I hope that progress into a life of safety and happiness without having to experience such a tragedy as sexual violence.



Men Preventing Rape

In this past week’s reading entitled “Shifting the Paradigm: Primary Prevention of Sexual Violence,” the American College Health Association (ACHA) created a “toolkit” that spoke about ways to help prevent sexual violence from occurring. One particular section of the toolkit seemed of particular interest to me which dealt with “10 Ways Young Men Can Prevent Sexual Violence” [1].  This section became a strong focus for me considering that I am a man; and I am one who has seen the effects of sexual violence, and the trauma it can inflict on someone.

Incidentally, the Atlanta Journal Constitution published an article on November 18, 2012, called “Sexual Assaults on College Campuses a Problem Nationwide.”  The article was primarily in response to the Emory event “Take Back the Night.” In the article, Laura Diamond and Bo Emerson reported that there have been at least seven rapes this fall semester [2].

Looking back to the ACHA toolkit, the 10 things a man can do to help prevent such incidents were listed as the following:

  1. Define your own manhood.
  2. Take it over.
  3. Understand the ability to consent.
  4. Get a woman’s perspective.
  5. Ask guys.
  6. Be aware of pop culture’s messages.
  7. Choose words carefully.
  8. Speak out.
  9. Get involved.
  10. Show your strength. [1].

Initially looking at this, it seems to be a pretty comprehensive list, and one that I could agree with being potentially useful, but after a couple months of delving into observing sexuality more, there are a few points I would like to draw attention to, particularly, numbers 1 and 10 – define your own manhood and show your own strength.

As a heterosexual male that aligns my gender identity along the “norms” of society, there does not seem to be any difficulty for me relating to this, but like I said previously, this class has added a new perspective when observing these two. Now, I can understand that this toolkit is more than likely aiming to target heterosexual people. What if I were a biological male who wanted to help prevent rape but I identify more as a female though? This seems to be a bit more difficult to comprehend at that point. OK, so I am a third party providing what possibly could be considered an overly critical point, but nonetheless, point number 6 says I should be aware of pop culture messages. This may seem a bit extreme, but what if this toolkit went viral, and I were the later  person that I described? There would certainly be an expectation set upon me as a guy to make sure I defined my manhood. Since this is a blog post and maybe there are some readers out there who do not know who I am, they would say who cares; it is not that big of a deal. But in reality there is a certain expectation of masculinity that goes along with someone of my stature, and I feel this would be particularly unfair to someone who may be more feminine than myself yet is built similarly to me. This of course directly ties into point number 10, showing your strength.

The toolkit says, “Don’t ever have sex with anyone against their will. Make a pledge to be a man whose strength is used for respect, not hurting.” Again, a well-written and intended statement, but in this case it is not what is said, it is what lies underneath the statement. In number 10, this is assuming some form of agency is to be taken by a person. I realize I am potentially speaking about a very extreme case that may only apply to a small amount of people, but it is those few people who are the ones that often go over looked. So again, here could potentially lay another issue for a guy whom is above average in size. This statement also indirectly implies that I would be using my strength at all. The way in which the toolkit is laid out, “a man whose strength is used for respect” would insinuate that my strength is used almost as some form of protector.

As I said before, I realize I am being a bit over critical here, but I have experienced certain challenges being associated with having to maintain a level of masculinity and expectations merely because of my size. Have I completely minded these challenges? No. I have grown to embrace some of them, but I understand this may not be the case for every person. Therefore, it could create issues for other young men as they grow, develop and search to find themselves. Overall, I believe the toolkit to be something that everyone should read, even if is not flawless of every politically correct issue. I have had close friends who have been raped and even girlfriends who have been raped in the past, and if I had read this prior to being exposed to these instances with them, I certainly would have felt more prepared on how to handle it. For those who only skimmed through ACHA reading, go back and read it again because these situations are always closer than you may think.






Failed Responses to AIDS

In the Peter Lewis Allen article that we read entitled AIDS in the USA, there was a section called “Mistakes Were Made.” The section title foreshadows a section primarily dealing with the failures of the United States in relation to the AIDS epidemic. Allen points out that there have been several AIDS successes in countries with fewer resources economically and medically compared to the United States. Despite America’s failure to hamper the spread of AIDS in the United States, he does acknowledge that the disease spread swiftly and quietly for quite some time until it became detected. One Allen’s staggering statistics claimed that the time AIDS was being reported in the United States, thirty percent of the gay men in San Francisco were infected. This was in part due to the lack of focus on disease prevention. Rather American focus is on the treatment, not the cure. Being a part of a capitalist society opens the floodgates for such instances to allow vulnerabilities like this.

Allen also ties back in to a previous section dealing with religion, and how religious communities reacted to the outbreak of AIDS on American soil. He noted that in 1986, for example, there became a movement from the Presbyterian Church in the United States stating that AIDS was not a punishment for immoral behavior. This particular part of the section seems particularly interesting because Allen obviously felt the need the point out that this was a movement from the Presbyterian Church in the United States, not the Presbyterian Church as a whole. This begs the question of whether he was trying to maintain scope within the article or whether there were differing views with in different regions of the Presbyterian sect. This notion perpetuates considering Allen’s next sentence about the Methodist bishops releasing similar statements about AIDS not being a curse from God. In this part, Allen does not limit to the bishops within the United States.

In another portion of the section, Allen reflects back on the public figures of the time and their lack of contributions. The most notable national figure pointed out was President Bill Clinton. During his time in office, Clinton fired former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders over an AIDS prevention issue. Subsequently after the firing of Elders, Clinton’s serious mistake occurred through his appointed AIDS czars, whom proved to be weak and ineffective. Essentially, the conclusion seemed to be that AIDS prevention, especially in regards to intravenous drug users, stagnated between the years of 1981 through Clinton’s term in office. Interestingly enough though, this message would seem contradictory compared to the Clinton Foundation. According to the website, Clinton aided building a healthcare system to help repress the spread of HIV and AIDS. His site claims that he sought to essentially leverage his connections to help make a “measureable difference” in the areas he cared most about. Comparing these two side by side, there is an obvious difference in the picture painted about Clinton and AIDS prevention. This makes me begin to wonder if he recognized his failures in response to AIDS during his presidency.

Even though Clinton is revered as one of the greatest political talents, I guess he learned a play from Jimmy Carter on how to fail (at least in one aspect) as President but leverage that position to make a difference.

Radical Way of Increasing Awarness and Lowering STDs

In Judith Levine’s article entitled “Community: Risk, Identity and Love in the Age of AIDS,” she speaks a great deal about prostitution in the section of the article about respecting each person’s choices as a rational decision. Additionally, a great deal of the article deals with education about AIDS and how to expand the reach of knowledge of the disease. Considering the “matter of fact” nature of the article, and its acknowledgement how reasoning behind prostitution, I began rationale prostitution.

It is no secret that prostitution occurs despite legality constraints against it, and  as we can see in the article, “street kids” are using it to barter. Levine points out that many of these street kids are vigilant enough to know that they should condoms, yet there is a high bartering price for sex without a condom. Undeniably, contracting HIV/AIDS is the surest way to make you less desirable to barter with and limits you to who you can barter with through sex. A very similar notion can be applied for prostitutes [1].

In response to this article, there is a very simple way to increase knowledge about not just HIV and AIDS but STIs as a whole and to eliminate this whole concept of bartering for sex. Actually, allow me to be clear, it is simple in theory, and far too extreme to be applicable in today’s society. Nonetheless, legalizing prostitution, with a few regulations and guidelines, could solve many issues here domestically for us.

Due to the black market conditions of prostitution, several key factors emerge such as: minimal standards of sexual health, non-taxable income and safety. For a relative comparison, I will limit most my scope to within the United States, but there is data to be gathered from international areas outside the US that do allow prostitution as well. In the US, the only legalized prostitution is allowed in Nevada. Nevada state law requires that each week a registered prostitute must be tested for the absence of gonorrhea and Chlamydia and each month be tested for HIV and syphilis. By legalizing prostitution, we would at least have a regulatory mandate that would provide a “safer” environment (in terms of sexual health) through such testing regulations. These regulations also bar a prostitute from ever working in a legal brothel is HIV is contracted and is not permitted to work if tested positive for any other disease until properly treated [2]. I think implementing these regulations could create a true incentive for aiding increasing awareness by utilizing this multi-million dollar a year industry (that is legally speaking). In Nevada alone, prostitution rakes in state economic revenue of $400 million dollars a year [3]. Last time I checked the US has a large debit that they needed to pay off, and by taking a portion of this revenue, the government could allot more money to research and awareness programs. Not to mention, if it was legalized, there would also be a decrease in violent crimes committed against prostitutes. The profession is dangerous enough, in terms of disease, but it also one of the most violent professions where rape is common. I understand that some may have a moral issue with the idea of legalizing this, but at the root of it, it helps provide a safe haven for those who engage in the practice, and it can help stimulate economic growth.




Condom Vending Machines

After reading a CDC article and comparing it to my research in the archives this past week, I am a bit astonished with Emory.  Back in 1994, The Emory Wheel wrote an article entitled the “A, B, C’s of STD’s: be smart, safe, protected.” [1]In this article, the author Christina Bell informs readers that safe sex is the only way to protect against STIs (big shock there). In the CDC’s research filed under STS in Adolescents to Young Adults, they report that “the ages 15-24 represent only 25% of the sexually expierenced population, [yet] they acquire nearly half of all new STDs.” [2] Within this same study the CDC postulates that there are a number of factors that lead to this including: behavioral, biological cultural reason AND the barriers to accessing STD prevention services. [2]

Going back to the Emory Wheel article, Bell notes several services such as Student Health Services, but what difference exists now from 1994? Condom vending machines! I find it shocking that this practice has not continued on the grounds of an institution for higher education. Admittedly, I can see the issue that Emory could potentially have on Parent’s weekend when the “folks” see these types of vending machines as they go to get a Coke in the Psychology building. But let us be realistic; this is college. Sex happens whether parents like it not, therefore it is a reality that must be taken into consideration. Would a parent not feel more comfortable about the University offering a method that would protect their “little baby?” Yes, parents can be naive and assume that would never be their child, but the University cannot be. The idea of strategically placing a condom vending machine throughout various parts of the campus is ingenious (it’s another way Emory can find a way to get more money out of the students—right along with the ridiculous parking office). Reverting back to the point, we have seen through the various articles we have read this past week that alcohol plays a serious role along with one’s personality toward having risky sex [3].

Again, here is another shocking fact; college students drink. Recapping just to make sure we have this clear, college students have sex and they do drink on occasion, now consider where is Student Health Services in relation to where students spend their time? It’s roughly a 20 minute walk to go ask for some free condoms, and roughly the same to walk to CVS. Breaking this down now, the free condoms that Student Health Services gives away certainly are not good quality. In fact, they are the ones that epitomize why condoms are hated during sex, not to mention they make the guy look like he has a Jolly Rancher (not referencing D4L’s song “Laffy Taffy”). Therefore, the options laid out right now consist of a relatively short walk, but who really has time in the midst of classes and other campus events to walk to either of these places, more realistically who WANTS to make that walk?

So after all this, let’s play out a little scenario. A guy and girl just left a party on either Frat Row, or otherwise, and let’s say the guy has forgotten he ran out of condoms. What happens? One of two things they continue and end up having unsafe sex, or the night does not end quite as it should have. But wait, what if there were condom vending machines conveniently and strategically located? Well let’s leave it at, there could be a happy ending for all parties involved.


A,B,Cs of STDs (1/2)

A,B,Cs of STDs (1/2)

A,B,Cs of STDs (2/2)








The Untouched Element of Hooking Up

In our classroom discussion on hooking up, we covered the article “Hooking Up: Men, Women and the Sexual Double Standard,” and we spent and extensive amount of time sorting through the double standard presented for men and women. Also, we covered how after a certain point in college women begin to have hopes of marriage while men continue to prolong the idea of this. There exists a part of hook-up culture today that we failed to even touch on though and it continues to grow as a phenomenon of hooking-up. As a class, that integrates a high amount of technology, we can all attest to the ease and efficiency that technology allows to occur. Well, this ease and efficiency has flowed into the hook-up culture to what we now refer to as sexting.

Channel 2 News here in Atlanta organized a feature back on April 22, 2012, about “the social media revolution” (which I happened to have been invited to attend). During the segment, Monica Pearson, Justin Farmer and Scott Slade moderated questions as they introduced risks associated with sexting through social media. They showed examples of girls who had been exploited by having their pictures unknowingly posted on third party websites, but these examples were not limited to just females. Examples of how men had been exploited through sexting and social media were also shared through testimonials. Instances such as this obviously break through though the gender double standard presented in the article mentioned above.

The rate of commonness that sexuality occurs now has sparked websites such as to write an article called “Sexting Etiquette,” which provides men recommendations of how to avoid a scandal, and even GQ has published a similar article called “A GQ Guide to Sexting”.  Now an interesting fact about this article is that is written by a female, but when it comes to giving advice to guys in a guys magazine, why not have a female write it? Fox News took a similar approach as well in their article “The Do’s and Don’ts of Sexting.” With this article though, you get an education beyond just sexting though, it even includes a list of acronyms to make sexting more efficient.

None the less, the evidence of how main stream culture has adapted to accepting sexting with relatively little opposition. This acceptance of sexting in our culture certainly adds a new dimension to the hook-up culture, but in this realm there would appear to be little to no double standard. Beyond scandals though, how does sexting affect our culture today? I briefly touched on how youth are now exposed and subjected to adult experiences sooner, but are they the only ones negatively affected, or are all of those who engage in this negatively affected in some way? Additionally, since adolescents are engaging in sexting now and seemingly unaware of its implications for their future, how does this affect our future politicians and “leaders” of the future?

Emory 1994

Over and over again we have discussed Emory as progressive school in terms of acceptance of openness towards sexuality. Since this is partly due to the part of the semester we are in. we have not had the opportunity yet to delve in to topics about Emory towards sexual health. As alluded by my blogger name, I am focusing my research on sexual health with respect to sexually transmitted diseases and AIDS.
This week I my researched pertained to Emory yearbooks in 1994 and 1999. Before even starting my research, the question that kept coming to mind was, “How am going to find anything dealing with sexual health in a yearbook?” Maybe I am the only one to think that sexual health does not seem like the typical subject in a memoir reflecting over the past year of school, but either way. I was wrong. It turns out that in the 1994 yearbook there were several examples dealing with sex and sexuality. In fact, it only took turning to page 3 to discover my first example. The editor of the year expressed a desire to create a plot idea for the yearbook that depicted a homosexual couple, but ultimately refrained for fear of being offensive. The editor goes on to say, “well okay, we’d probably be offensive no matter what we did.” Granted I was young during 1994, but the prevalence of homosexuality in the early 90’s certainly was not as well accepted as is it is today (and we live in a time today that it is still contested). But I feel this serves as a great example of the Emory student body being able to look ahead of the times to come. Who was the editor of the yearbook concerned of offending though? Later on in the same year, the year wrote a feature about a guest speaker named Dr. Ruth Westheimer who is a sex therapist that came to speak at Emory in 1994. Obviously since Emory allowed a person who focuses on dealing with sex, the school was not opposed to having someone come talk about the topic. Later in the same volume, the yearbook staff made a blatant sexual innuendo about a girl who was wearing a hat which read “COCKS” which is a common reference to the University of South Carolina Gamecocks. This shows yearbook staff was not concerned about making such references. So who exactly was the concern because surely there must have been enough of a homosexual representation at Emory during this time that making a statement then retracting it must have been thought to be okay on some level.
Plot Summary for 1994 Yearbook
Dr. Ruth
Dr. Ruth ArticleSo about that hat....


The “School’s Out: Asexy Teens” presents an interesting perspective that I have little consideration to in the past, and it even convinced me to give thought to the subject matter of asexual persons in the world. During my thoughts, I found myself asking to whom have I known that this could apply to? I then brought the subject up to a couple of people that I was in the room with to ask their opinion and about their experiences with this. After a couple of minutes of contemplation, they were as empty for answers as I was. The only potential person we could think of was an acquaintance who claimed to be unsure of whether he liked guys or girls, which we concluded to perceive his response to make him bisexual. This brought of the theory we have discussed about sexuality being on a continuum. We discussed the continuum as homosexuality on one end and heterosexuality on the other, but there was no discussion of asexuality. So after reading this article, it begged to question where does asexuality fit in?

Toward the end of the article, my thoughts began to reach conclusion on the topic as the author Sharday Mosurinjohn wrote the final section of the article. Mosurinjohn’s posting on sex education and the lack of mentioning about asexuality reached a point that made me understand why it is never mentioned in sex education. It is not a “sexual orientation”; it is more like a lack of sexual orientation that is a part of a whole other spectrum.

I guess because I cannot fully grasp the concept of not having any sexual desires or needs, the idea of asexuality seems so foreign and unrealistic. This is not to say I do not believe it is not possible for someone to be this way, but when considering the spectrum for asexuality ranges from “people who prefer no physicality with others, or only some forms, or only self-gratification, as well as people who don’t experience themselves as having sexual “needs” or “desires” but will have and enjoy sex with their sexual partners,” it all comes across as contradictory to the term sexual orientation. An additional problematic area concerning this comes from the last part of that quote. If they do not have needs or desires for sex, then where does the arousal emanate from? From my understanding, in order for one to be aroused their must be some stimulation which would be derived from a fantasy, desire or need. Therefore, there exists a lack of accuracy dealing with this, or maybe it needs to be better clarified.

Can Divorce Rates Really Get Much Worse?

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. <;.
  2. Kurtzleban, Danielle. “Divorce Rates Lower in States with Same-Sex Marriage.” USA News. 6 July 2011: n. page. Web. 23 Sep. 2012. <>.



Emory’s Early History of Rules and Applications Toward Sexuality

Here we are today in a class all about sexuality, one of the oldest and most controversial topics of all time. We can trace the history of sexuality and sexual relations back to Biblical times and even trace some of the benefits and repercussions stemming from these experiences. I find it particularly interesting that we sit in classrooms today discussing what would have made people shutter at the very thought of openly discussing no more than fifty of 60 years ago. Then it occurs, to me that there seems to be some cyclical trend that had evolved over time with the nature of sexuality and how one’s sexuality and one’s sexual relations is perceived. Going back to my reference of Biblical times, let’s think about sexuality was considered back then. During these times, we could similarities of today throughout the books of the Bible—people arguing and fighting over the abominations of sexual desire and sexual habits. Not unlike today, there was controversy over prostitution, over sexual desire, and over sexual orientation. Now fast forward several thousand years to the times of when Greece was the pinnacle of human nature and the epicenter for a model society, and consider how sexuality was viewed. During this time of Greece (which we exalt as a great society), homosexuality, bisexuality and what today would be considered pedophilia were everyday phenomena. Again, as time went on, the perception of sexuality reverted back to more conservative notions. This brings us to today, where again we see the acceptance of homosexuality and bisexuality, and where we now have begun attempting to explain these preferences and classify them with models such as the traditional model and the inclusive model.

From the perspective of this class, we are evaluating sexuality as it has pertained to Emory University. As shown in the previous paragraph, sexuality has been a complicated topic that society seems to periodically changes its levels of acceptance. Early in the history of Emory, the administration sought to control the behavior of its student through a rigorous set of rules that included banning “students from attending any ball, theatre, horse-race or cock-fight; from using intoxicating drinks; from playing cards; from playing at any game for stakes; from keeping fire-arms or any deadly weapon, a horse, a dog, or a servant; from engaging in anything forbidden by the Faculty; from associating with persons of known bad character; from visiting Covington or other near points beyond the limits of Oxford without permission of some member of the Faculty, and from visiting points more distant without written permission from parents or guardians and the permission of the President of the College; from visiting any place of ill-repute, or at which gaming is practiced, or intoxicating liquors are sold; from engaging in any ‘match game,’ or ‘intercollegiate’ game of football, baseball, whatsoever.”1 By extension of these rules and considering the time-period, we can assume that Emory would have frowned upon sexual promiscuity and homosexuality. By implanting such rules, Emory seemed to believed they could influence their student’s lives and repudiate such “ill” temptations through these rules, but upon, evaluating the excerpts of Yun Ch’i-ho’s journal we can see the effectiveness of these rules. In the very first sentence of the excerpts we reviewed, we can see Yun Ch’i-ho’s opinion of American women when he states, “if there are some things in America that I envy more than others, they are, first, it’s beautiful women.”2 In another portion of Yun’s journals he fell into a “vortex of seductive pleasures” where he would frequently seek the companionship of prostitutes and drunkenness.2  Yun shows us today that even though Emory had implemented these rules, they obviously failed in effectively altering their students overall opinion of such actions.

1. Urban, Andrew. “Romance and Race in the Jim Crow South: Yun Ch’i-ho and the Personal Politics of Christian Reform.” n. page. Print. < from Romance and Race in the Jim Crow South.pdf>.

2. Huak, Gary. “A Brief History.” Emory History. Emory University, 16/9/2010. Web. 16 Sep 2012.