Research Blog II: Prospectus

Statutory rape is a common case in many U.S district and State courts. Jurisdiction concerning statutory rape varies from court to court and even from region to region. Even Internet credible sources develop different meanings and parameters for this common crime. For example, Webster’s dictionary defines statutory rape as “sexual intercourse with a person who is below the legal age of consent”. While according to dictionary.com, statutory rape designates to be “sexual intercourse with a girl who is under the age of legal consent”.  Why the discrepancy? Perhaps the hysteria that revolves around these types of cases. Most of these rapes are committed by male adults toward minor aged girls. Hence, why the United States and even other nations are geared toward patronizing girls while discriminating boys. For instance, there have been court examples where the criminal, who happens to be the women, is charged with no penalty. Citing this type of sex was just for the male’s sexual initiation.

These types of cases are the ones where the discrimination issue is often brought up by society. Why give more lenience toward adult woman than adult men. The separation of gender roles is evident in these types of cases. Why are women patronized while men are discriminated? For instance, why are the registered sex offenders always men rather than woman? Many questions can be considered when it comes to the role of gender roles in our society and even in politics. Even the “types” of sex are considered.

Sexual intercourse is defined as the criminal act in statutory rape. However, many people believe that all type of sexual contact such as fellatio, cunninglus, and mutual masturbation are considered. On the other side of the argument, people believe that oral sex should not count sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse or coitus is defined to be penetration of male and female genitalia. However, for this paper I will consider all types of sexual contact, including oral and anal sex, in order to reveal my points.

Still, many people will deny that anything besides sexual intercourse is not part of a statutory rape jurisdiction. However, recent updates in the law system have come to include these sexual acts. In addition, several cases serve as examples as to what sexual acts and their degree of severity constitute as statutory rape.

Researching and gathering information from books and cases can help clarify the main argument that statutory laws favor women over men. After gathering information, I hope to discover a set of universal conventions in which statutory rape laws are equal for men and women. To add to that, I also want to see why oral sex and anal sex, on some instances, where not considered to be regarded as statutory rape. I also want of examples in which discrimination is revealed in same-sex rape, where lesbian women are given more freedom and protection than homosexual men engaging in same-sex sexual acts.

I mentioned previously about female exemption from current rape laws.  In Jailbait : the politics of statutory rape laws in the United States; I will reveal how a United States survey serves as an example of by argument. Another source Survey of state statutory and case law on the marital rape exemption serves as an example of marital rape exemption that is quite interesting to pose a possible sub topic to my argument. Nonetheless in Taking sides Clashing views in gender, I will supply evidence as why gender roles are critical in my analysis and their importance in politics. Giving information as to why woman are given priority over men in sexual offenses

With his paper I hope to reveal to society that gender discrimination is not the only characteristic of a male dominated society. People overlook how women receive less criminal penalties in just about any crime, not only rape than men. Could this just be a cover-up to diminish the gap in discrimination? Or are women’s sexuality so objectified in the United States and other parts in the world that they are partly exempted from Rape?

               

Durantula!!!!

The most skilled big man in the NBA... The Spider Himself Kevin Durant !!!!!!!!!!!!

Contemplative Learning vs. Memorization; Richard Rodriguez's dilemma

Rodriguez’s Achievement of Desire essay reminds all of us about the importance of family unification. In his essay Rodriguez characterizes the scholarship boy- the student who disregards all of his family values and heritage for the sole focus of acquiring knowledge for his desire. Rodriguez being one of this scholarship boy’s, reminisces about his life when he sees the qualities that he once had in one of his students. Rodriguez claims that this lifestyle separated him from his Latino parents. Rodriguez education grew and was altering his life. He could connect more with the American patriarchal society than his Latin heritage.  Rodriguez wanted to be diverse. He wanted to achieve his desire for learning. However, “at the end of his education” Rodriguez regrets having spent so much time on scholarly books and journals. The more one learns the less one finds out they know. As he achieves what he desired for so long, he contemplated what’s next? It was this void feeling that drove Rodriguez into regret. All of these years he had been missing out on family because of his purse of a good education. Nonetheless, after achieving his endeavor, he soon deciphers that his parents where just like him. All these years he had memorized every text and definition for examinations. None of it was critical thinking. The end of education is marked by the ability to think, to desire the past that had once secluded his life. Rodriguez sees all this in this one girl. Now will he try to change her?

Better than Lebron? You decide

Zero = God ----> Faith?

The Pain Scale by Eula Biss is an essay of contemplative topics. The subject of Biss’ essay revolves around the pain scale that doctors often ask you to use to measuring your pain. The scale she argues, quantifies pain that is relatively different to each person. However, medical practitioners insist that the scale is a universal parameter. What one might consider 0 the other might consider 10. Biss believes that 0 should be the fixed point that serves as a way to quantify other degrees of pain relative to it.  Notwithstanding, the number zero is also an inaccurate number. It is a number that behaves different than the other numbers. It cannot be reliable because its behavior cannot be predicted. Furthermore, Biss compares the number zero to Christ. Thus, probably starting up a conversation about the possibility of questioning faith?

                Biss makes the argument that scales are useless. A combination of abstract concepts with quantifying measures renders scales as useless parameters.  For instance, a number (measure) plus an imaginary number (pain) do not add up (a+bi). They are merely separate principles that do not conjugate well. In addition, I hypothesize that Biss also argues how science sometimes tries to study religion.  Just like zero and pain don’t add up mathematically, neither do science nor religion. Knowledge and religion both give rise to the synchrony of the mind/body. Just as your mind tells you a different measure of pain than your body, religion to your mind might be different disregarding the knowledge that you possess of it.

Michael Pollan Why Bother

Environmental issues seem to be a thought stored in the sub consciousness of societies all over the world. Societies contemplate the complication and the risks but yet, take no action to resolve the problem. In Michael Pollan’s article Why Bother, he discusses the negligence that people have toward this issue. Pollan being one of those people that was ignorant, realized after Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth that he didn't want to change his light bulb. Pollan discusses the pros in changing your lifestyle to "green", can behoove society. While he also lists the cons of how one individual cannot subordinate their "evil twin, some carbon footprint doppelganger in Shanghai or Chongqing" (89) to do the same, you have to sometimes act as if acting will make a difference, even when you can’t prove that it will. (90). Pollan claims that small gradual goals that include support from pinnacle hierarchical representation and money can lead to a better future and change the way we live.

Pollan main argument discusses the “disease of the modern character”-technology. Technology, because of its ability to adapt to new forms of cheaper energy, has each assigned us each a specialization or a role. It has divided us and made us more “individualistic” in a sense. Technology voids the whole idea of labor and makes people’s lives less laborious. The very thing that gave civilization its blessing, will be the one that utterly destroys it. The reasons not to bother are many and compelling, at least to the cheap-energy mind. (91) Pollan ends his argument by declaring that one person can make a difference and trigger a viral social change" (93). It only takes one movement, to create a domino effect on the block, then community, then city, and so forth up until life on Earth will change for the better.

Work Cited: Pollan, Michael. "Why Bother?" New York Times Magazine 20 Apr 2008: 19+. Rpt. in The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing. John D. Ramage, John C. Bean, and June Johnson. 6th ed. New York: Pearson, 2012. 88-94. Print.