I thought that Maziar’s words were extremely touching. His words were a lesson in empathy. The media implicitly vilifies all Iranians, as they only show images and stories of Iranians attacking Americans. We forget that the people of Iran often do not agree with their own government, and are equally horrified at terrorist attacks. We see one situation, us against them. It is always Americans versus the Middle East. Talking to Maziar puts things back into perspective, as we realize he is experiencing the same emotions as us. In that sense, we are all the same. We all have that basic human nature. Murder is universally tragic. I think that we spend a lot of energy attacking Iranians as a whole, when we should be focusing our attention to the deeds of their government. We only look at extremists and forget that people like Maziar, who we can all easily relate to, make up the majority of the population.
I thought it was extremely poignant when the student from Oman paid his respects to Iran. When the Boston bombing happened, the whole nation was transfixed. There was an almost unprecedented amount of media attention. However, tragedies like this occur all around the world all the time. On the same day as the Boston bombing, the U.S. military killed dozens of civilians in Afghanistan. However, this is never mentioned in the media. We rarely talk about the kind of damage we inflict on other countries, although this is vital to resolving conflicts and building relationships. The media never focuses attention on the deaths we cause. Perhaps no one really wants to know how much pain we inflict on others, while it is easy to feel anger and hatred towards those who hurt us. No one of us is innocent in this world. We tend to see Americans as having some defining streak of nobility that contrasts with the darkness of those in the Middle East. Again, the student from Oman showed us the power of empathy. Once we realize how other countries see us, it is much easier to build healthy relationships. If we label others as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, we fail to recognize their complex range of motivations.
Although the media is at fault for presenting such a narrow image of the world, it is also our own responsibility to be informed. Being informed is a choice that is scary to make. We do not want to know what our governments are really doing because we know it is not pretty. However, it is vital in conflict resolution that we are aware of all the facts in a situation. Only then will we be able to move forward and find some kind of agreement with each other.

I never really thought about why women fake orgasms until the Needy Penis lecture. I also realized how weird it is that I never questioned it, since it is a pretty major lie and does not have a clear purpose. I think Sam put it perfectly when he said that women are living up to an expectation, and are essentially performing. The way that many people learn about sex is through porn, which is geared towards males. In this male fantasy, after a few minutes of hard intercourse, the woman has a very loud, dramatic orgasm. Therefore, many males expect this out of women in real life, while women expect to be able to orgasm as shown in pornography. However, physiologically it is impossible, as the clitoris must be engaged in order for a woman to orgasm. Before I really realized this, I would fake orgasms without even really thinking, because I felt as though I needed to live up to a sexual standard for females. In some ways, I thought that I would seem inadequate for being unable to reach an orgasm. That is interesting, because the male would also feel inadequate for being unable to get me to orgasm. Therefore, if I really voiced how I was not satisfied, we would both lie there awkwardly questioning our own sexual performance, when in reality women should not be able to reach an orgasm through intercourse alone. We kind of have this unrealistic image of sex from pornography that we try to live up to. That in itself is ridiculous, because it does neither males nor females any favors. Females are unsatisfied and males, who want to feel sexually adequate, cannot please a woman. Other reasons I have for faking orgasms include finishing things up faster if the sex is boring or bad, and just to avoid hurting the guy’s feelings. Ideally, I would be able to explain to a guy that I can have sex, not have an orgasm, and still feel satisfied. However, guys are built to need that release and it would be hard for them to wrap their heads around that concept.
I think guys do not ask girls whether they really had an orgasm, because it is firstly awkward and secondly the answer might be too truthful. It kind of breaks the intimacy of a moment when you ask “So…. Did you really…?” Pretending that everyone is happy is a lot easier. That’s not to say that guys are not concerned with pleasuring a girl, because most of the guys I have been with feel bad if the sex was too short or I did not seem satisfied.
Ultimately, I think faking orgasms does no one favors and communication goes a long way.

To be honest, I think that in college guys usually only ever approach girls when they are drinking. The major place where girls and guys get together is at bars and parties, where alcohol is served to loosen everyone up. In these particular social settings, it is expected and accepted that guys will try to get with girls, and vice versa. We go in with the expectation that guys will hit on us, and are ‘prepared’ for it. For example, at fraternities, it is expected that guys will try to dance with anything that moves. For the most part, girls do not get offended when guys hit on them in these settings. Furthermore, many girls go to parties or bars in order to meet guys. In other settings, such as a library or a study lounge, some girls do not want to be bothered and just want to get their work done. Therefore, guys are more willing to approach girls at bars or parties, because they know girls are open to advances. Alcohol also serves to decrease inhibitions and give people courage to do things they normally would not do. Thus, it is both the setting and the help of alcohol that lead guys to approach girls when they are drinking.
In general, I think the girl asking the question has a point. It is more intimidating to approach someone of a different race because we know less about how they will react. Growing up with people of your own race, you learn how to approach girls of your own race and read their signals. Guy girl interactions can be vastly different between different races. For example, African American guys tend to be more straightforward with their intentions, and African American girls are used to this type of interaction. In Philadelphia, it is not uncommon to holler at a girl passing by and ask for her number, and in some cases it is successful. Contrast this with Asian guy girl interactions, which are much more subtle. Asian girls are more likely to be offended by overt advances, and will respond better to a guy trying to get to know her first. Therefore, if an Asian guy wanted to ask out an African American girl, he would feel out of his comfort zone. The lines and moves he usually uses might be totally lost on her. As a result, it is definitely more intimidating to talk a girl of a different race. Combine this with the existing stigma around interracial relationships, and the fact that some girls do not like to date outside of their race. You do not know what kind of girl you are dealing with, and whether you will just get completely rejected off the bat. Thus, alcohol helps guys push these unknowns out of their minds, and approach girls they are attracted to.

The issue of domestic vs. international spending has been one of the longest and most controversial debates in American politics. With the growing discrepancy between the wealthy and the poorest of the poor, many question why we cannot allocate more support to those suffering in our own countries. Specifically, Native Americans have arguably suffered most in order to allow for our own prosperity, and thus deserve more compensation for the sins of our ancestors. Furthermore, it is simply seen as a human moral obligation to help those who are living in so much poverty, right beside those who are wealthy beyond belief. On the flipside, investing in international relations is becoming more and more important in a world where globalization, terrorism, and trade are increasing. Giving aid to other countries does not only benefit those who live in those countries, but also benefits us with increased trade, economic efficiency, and more. In short, donating to foreign countries is as political as it is philanthropic.
Foreign aid is a means of leverage that allows the United States to influence the politics of other countries. For example, in December of 2006, Fiji obtained a new government that came to power through a military coup. The United States government opposed this unelected government and therefore suspended $2.5 million in aid money. It is clear that in this situation, the economic status of its residents remained the same while its political position changed. However, aid was withdrawn in order to pressure Fiji into changing its government, rather than because of changing needs of citizens. Influencing foreign governments ultimately comes back to benefiting the United States, and in most cases, the United States economy. Different governments will have different trade relations with other countries, some more beneficial than others. For example, a government that seeks to promote its domestic economy and reduce importation is undesirable because the United States thus loses a client. Thus, it is clear that foreign aid is not motivated solely by philanthropy, but also out of self-interest.
Giving domestic aid, however, does not seem to yield the same benefits as foreign aid. In particular, the Native Americans are a very small demographic, and increasing their economic status has little payoff for those who are controlling the money. Helping Native Americans comes back to helping them back on their feet, after all we have done to put them down, and would be a more selfless action. I believe that that is why it is so difficult to increase aid for Native Americans, while a much higher portion of the GDP is willingly spent on foreign aid. I believe we have a moral obligation to help Native Americans. However, foreign aid is crucial, as it is vital to the international relations that sustain our own country.

If a handout were offered to me, I would accept it without hesitation. I am going to broadly define handouts as something freely given to those in need. I believe the main objection people have to handouts is the feeling that the recipient did not deserve it. In essence, it is ‘unfair’ of them to receive something freely, while they are left in the cold. However, I believe we cannot apply the principle of ‘fairness’ in life. We have all received benefits in some way that we did not work for, whether they are apparent or not. As Sam mentioned in class and in his articles, the middle class received specific benefits due to their race that allowed them to reach their status, while those who are poor did not receive these same benefits. Government programs propelled white people forward, while leaving those of color behind. Although this was not explicitly done, professions that were dominated by white people received a multitude of benefits, while those that were dominated by people of color were ignored. However, we usually do not see how we have helped because we have equally put in our own effort to get us forward. This is just one example of the silent advantages we receive. There are constantly forces that work against each other, and it is virtually impossible to establish a level playing field for all. We have all been born into different positions in life, and that is unchangeable. Thus, I believe the solution is not to rework past decisions, but to allow people to strategically use what they have to advance themselves.
Accepting a handout cannot be considered cheating or unfair, because life itself is not fair. Instead, it is just an example of someone strategically using what they have been given. You would and should not turn down a job offer you received because of your race, because your ultimate need is survival. Therefore, because we do not start life on an even playing field, we cannot be expected to refuse help. Life is an unfair game.
This relates to the concept of affirmative action in general, which is portrayed by critics as an unfair and arbitrary advantage. However, as Sam stated, the choice is between discrimination and affirmative action. Applicants do not start on a level playing field. If they were initially equal, affirmative action would be less justifiable. However, applicants are considered differently depending on their race, clearly a factor outside of their control. Affirmative action gives a boost to people who are not granted such advantages. Thus, given the larger picture, affirmative action is just one of the many ways in which we are helped/held back, due to factors we do not control.

I think Sam was trying to get a point across but he used a really ineffective example. His message was that we are not free because there are still so many subjects that are hushed up and swept under the rug. That might be true in areas such as racism and inequality. However, using the fact that girls don’t want to openly admit that they are on their period is not a similar situation at all. He declared that women are not liberated. I would not want to declare that I am on my period because I know it makes other people, particularly guys, feel uncomfortable. This social norm has been ingrained in me, from the time I dropped a tampon (unused) and saw a look of absolute terror in a guy’s face, to the time a guy just got up and left when girls were talking about it. I believe that many girls, particularly in my age group, are completely comfortable and open with their sexuality. They would only choose not to talk about their period just out of etiquette. These are the same girls who have absolutely no problem dishing on their sex lives, but out of respect to guys, tone it down when it comes to things that are gross and bloody. Thus, I do not really know what Sam meant when he said that women are not liberated. Liberated in what sense? We are sexually liberated. We have freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is the right to freely express yourself when you choose. Thus, it is also the right to not voice yourself when you choose not to. Therefore it is a testament to our freedom that we choose not to talk about it.
Honestly, it felt kind of insulting when Sam told us that we are not free. That is probably why so many girls spoke out afterwards. It felt like he deliberately put us in a situation where he knew we would be uncomfortable, and then was like “ha! It’s true that you are not free.” Using the word “bleeding “ just conjures a really grotesque image of the life force draining out of someone. The wording of his question caused a specific reaction that he misinterpreted.
Respecting a social norm does not mean we are oppressed, but just means we are helping society run smoothly. I similarly do not want a guy to tell me when he takes a smash, although that is completely natural as well. I equate the phrase “take a smash” with the phrase “bleeding”, as they both conjure unsavory images.
If Sam was trying to say that there are issues we keep hidden, that is a completely valid point. Issues such as workplace discrimination or sexual assault are indeed often swept under the rug, as we do not feel comfortable addressing them. However, it is incorrect to draw a parallel between my period and these issues.

People censor themselves more out of fear than respect. I have noticed that when a certain racial group is not present, the amount of jokes aimed at that racial group is higher. For example, in a group of all white people, it is not uncommon to hear them joke about black people. Within this group, this joke will typically not be taken offensively by anyone. However, if the targeted racial group is present, it is extremely rare that jokes are made about them. This is because people know their comments could be taken offensively and they would be labelled a racist. The few times that people have openly targeted racial groups, these incidents have been highly publicized and critiqued. People have a fear of offending the other person because of how it will reflect on themselves. If they were censoring themselves out of respect, they would never state those jokes anyways. For example, Miley Cyrus took a highly controversial photo with mostly white friends. They were slanting their eyes in imitation of Asian faces. While the white people in this photo were comfortable with this joke, when this photo was shown to the world and all its racial groups, it was slammed as racist. The presence of a targeted audience automatically shuts these jokes down.
In this era of political correctness, people go to great lengths to appear educated and tolerant. At its extremes, people use phrases that are completely roundabout ways of describing something in order to avoid offending people and seeming racist. Using these phrases does not show respect to the audience, but shows a fear of saying the wrong thing and being criticized.
White guilt, the collective guilt felt by white people for their previous treatment of people of color, is an example of fear driving censorship. After Obama got elected to office, many of my white friends felt that if a black man had just won an election by a landslide, they wouldn’t be afraid of charges of racism anymore. They knew they weren’t racist. They were not afraid of being called racist anymore and so they let their feelings be expressed.

If we definitively knew that God did not exist, I believe the world would be a much more peaceful place. Throughout history, religions have been at the source of many wars and murders. Religious antagonism, religious contentiousness, religious hierarchy, and religious hypocrisy have caused numerous, if not most, wars. Religious individuals base their identities around God’s view of them, and for this reason, are very sensitive to threats to their beliefs about God. Numerous wars have been fought between competing religions, with either side wishing to convert the side, or murdering those who refuse to conform to their beliefs. Throughout centuries of scientific enlightenment and ‘progress’, we still see such behaviour. The Thirty Years’ War fought in the Holy Roman Empire between Protestants and Catholics caused anywhere from 3 million to 12 million deaths in the 17th century. Recently, the Lebanese Civil War fought between the Sunni, Shiite, and Christians caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in the 20th century. As much as we like to believe that we have progressed and developed enlightened perspectives, religion will always hold the same power. Thus, I believe that if we definitively knew there was no God, and therefore abandoned our religious systems, the world would be much more peaceful.
That is not to say that God is the cause of war and death in this world. I believe these are due to religions, the institutions created by humans that dictate our dos and don’ts, those who are worthy and those who are not. Although many religions preach that everyone is equal, the concept of morality and doing good is present in the majority of religions. Thus, those who ‘do good’, are basically allowed to feel morally superior. This religious inequality, like any inequality, inevitably produces discord. When someone claims, explicitly or not, that they are better than others, there is always a strong reaction. No one likes to be told that they are inherently not as good as another. Therefore, we go to great lengths to show how wrong they are, including waging wars.
I believe that the concept of God and religion are completely separate. Believing in God does not lead to being moral, but rather entails acknowledging a force much larger than yourself. It would be a tragedy to lose something that can give such a deeper sense of meaning, although its loss could also lead to the loss of conflicting religions.
Howevrer, I do not believe that humans would abandon religion even if they knew there was no God. We see this on a smaller scale today. The existence of God is being challenged more and more these days, with outspoken atheists such as Stephen Hawking gaining prominence. However, many Christians are reacting by uniting and strengthening. They argue that no facts or science can disprove how their religion has made them feel. Belief in God extends beyond rational thought. It fulfills a fundamental human need.

I believe negativity exists towards Muslims because we have wrongfully come to associate them with terrorism and hatred towards America. This relationship in large part stems from the events of 9/11. Our natural reaction, in trying to make sense of what happened, was to find a cause, someone to blame. Our answer was found in the Muslims, as they were grouped with Osama bin Laden’s cause. However, Islam is a pacifist religion that would never advocate the murder of innocent civilians, while Osama bin Laden was a radical who distorted the truths of this religion. Despite this difference, it was almost inevitable that we made this association because of all the media attention that was put on this religion. Next, we came to associate terrorism with individuals who shared a set of physical similarities, such as dark skin, hair coverings, and even unruly facial hair. Even if these individuals were not even Muslim or Middle Eastern, their physical appearance caused us to group them with a certain race and religion. This is understandable because the media bombarded the public with images of suspected terrorists, knowing how sensational and frightening they would be, rather than focusing on the true story- the distorted beliefs of the true attackers.
With time and advocates from the Muslim American community, I believe we have progressed in our ability to separate terrorism from the broad religious community. However, the connection is still in some ways ingrained in our mentalities, as they were taught to us since elementary school. Although we can mentally acknowledge that they are not our enemies, their appearance can still ignite a visceral reaction due to the messages deeply ingrained in us. Furthermore, I found it difficult for me to even wish to change my view of Muslims, as my present-worldview allowed me to make sense of the events of 9/11. Without a larger group to blame, 9/11 seemed like an even greater, even more senseless, tragedy.
In Sam’s article, Shadowboxing with Race, he wrote that changing our views of others would not be easy, but could be slowly accomplished through research and open-mindedness. I believe that is the case with the negativity towards Muslims today. Since 9/11, much of this negativity has been dispelled. However, much negativity remains because Islam is such a mysterious religion to most Americans. We do not understand what the values they truly profess or what kind of God they really worship. All these unknowns create fear, and we fill in the blanks with information taught to us as children. I believe that much more progress can be made in our relations with Muslims if we took the time to really understand what their religion is all about. Finding this information for ourselves will allow us to sever the connections made for us.

I definitely admire her for standing up and voicing her beliefs. It takes extraordinary bravery to publicly confront the issues that most of us are too uncomfortable to even acknowledge. Firstly, I appreciate her bringing up the issue of sanctions, as I had never considered that sanctions might have more of an impact on civilians than on the government. It goes to show firstly how little I know of foreign policy, and secondly the value in hearing from the “others” we are dealing with. Often times, we choose policies we think are best for other countries, without first asking the people of these countries the impact of our policies, and what they actually need. Her words show how we cannot decide policies without first getting to know the people we are influencing.
It was furthermore interesting to see her question the words of a former Navy Seals and members of NATO. In America these individuals are so highly respected because they represent the essence of America. We see them as fighters who preserve the fundamental value of liberty that defines America. We often take their words as truth, and stand behind whatever they promote. Therefore, seeing someone confront such admired and respected individuals opened my eyes to the reverence with which we typically treat them. It got me to question whether such reverence is good, or whether it just closes the opportunities for dialogue and for more voices to be heard. This girl showed us that we have the right to think for ourselves and state our opinions, even if they are “un-American”, because that is the only we way we will build a future that includes everyone.
However, what I found most interesting was her comment that Americans dislike or even hate her because she is Iranian. I thought it was such a strong example of how a lack of communication can lead to assumptions and accusations between people who do not necessarily understand each other. I disagree that most students at Penn State would dislike her because of her nationality, but I can understand why she would think so, as many of us are uncomfortable and thus silent on the subject. We are naturally inclined to avoid topics that could lead to conflict or worse, make us seem ignorant or racist. Thus, we mostly tend to silence our questions and opinions, as we fear coming off the wrong way. I myself would say I am uninformed but open and eager to know more about Iran, and I would bet that many students at Penn State would have nothing against Iran. However, this subject is almost never brought to life for a variety of reasons, most of them involving discomfort. For the Iranian girl, she even covers up her nationality because she does not want to automatically disliked. Both sides are fearful of being judged. However, the silence that ensues just increases tension and causes wrongful assumptions to be made. As soon as we start openly talking about the subjects that make us uncomfortable, we can break down the conflicts that result from miscommunication.