Summaries-toastedflatbread

Summary #1

It seems counterintuitive that throughout history, men have defined rape and determined its severity, when women understand rape to its fullest extent. The past is full of examples of rape cases where males determine whether it was legitimate. In 1290, it was determined that if a woman is impregnated during unconsentual sex, it is rape however if a woman does not get pregnant, it is not rape. Another guideline states if a woman orgasms, it is not considered rape but if she doesn’t, it is rape. Pregnancy and orgasms should never determine the legitimacy of sexual assault. Unconsentual sex is wrong, no matter the results of it. For years, men have also determined which women are or are not protected under rape laws. In the 15th century, it was determined that married women cannot be raped by their husband because they are property to that man. This idea dates back as far as 1780 BC when rape of a married woman was considered taboo, however rape of an unmarried woman makes her an adultress. This by itself is problematic because marital status does not determine whether consent is required-it should be a universal law that consent applies to anyone. Additionally, it was ruled that women of color are not protected if they are raped. It should be common knowledge that race does not change the severity of the case. Sexual assault is traumatizing and horrific to everyone and the fact that some men believe they can decide what counts as rape is laughable, considering men are nearly half as likely to experience sexual assult.

Summary #2 

It seems counterintuitive that a mirror-the thing that is supposed to show our truest selves-does not provide an accurate visual of our physicality. When looking in a mirror, human’s eyes reverse our view, resulting in a skewed image in the glass. This knowledge has grown from John Walter’s Hair Part Theory, which states that humans act certain ways depending on how their hair is parted (“womanly” for right parts and “manly” for left parts). Walter believes that humans have never had the opportunity to see what part suits them best, which alters the ways in which they act and are thus received in public. All of this is to say that now a True Mirror has been developed to provide an accurate reflection. Who knew that a mirror could have such an impact on the social behavior of humans! This is not to say that mirrors are unhelpful to society-they just are surprisingly counterintuitive. One could go so far as to say that humans have been lied to by these objects for centuries. Mirrors make people question their truth when they have always been believed to be a stable source of reality.

Summary #3

It seems counterintuitive that the pursuit of happiness often leaves humans feeling little joy. As explained by Viktor Frankl, one must find meaning or purpose in their life before they can begin to find happiness. Happiness, as vital as it may seem, only consists of surface thoughts and immediate gratitude. Meaning digs deeper into the soul and gives reason for existence. This is difficult for humans to comprehend because happiness is believed to be the ultimate goal in life. Isn’t happiness important for survival? Apparently not. More important than anything is a strong motive in life.  Happiness is often associated with kindness and fulfillment, however, it proves to provide the opposite effect, instead promoting greed and apathy. Humans need to pursue what they feel their true purpose is-not just what gives them gratification, but what feeds their passion and not only benefits them, but others as well. It may be shocking to hear, but life would have so much more purpose if humans released that happiness it does not help them in the long run, instead, pursuing a deeper purpose provides the gratification that joy cannot.

This entry was posted in Purposeful Summary, toastedflatbread. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Summaries-toastedflatbread

  1. davidbdale says:

    It seems counterintuitive that throughout history, men have defined rape and determined its severity, when women understand rape to its fullest extent.

    —The way to demonstrate counterintuitivity, Flatbread, is to establish the ground situation first, then plant your leaning tower. Feel the difference here:

    It seems counterintuitive that, while women suffer the full impact of most rapes, men have placed themselves in charge of defining rape and deciding when or whether to prosecute it.

    —How does that sound?

    The past is full of examples of rape cases where males determine whether it was legitimate.

    —Not legitimate, surely. Not the rapes, that is. You must mean whether prosecution was justifiable. In other words, whether the alleged behavior met the statutory definition.

    In 1290, it was determined that if a woman is impregnated during unconsentual sex, it is rape however if a woman does not get pregnant, it is not rape.

    —Watch your tenses, spelling, and punctuation. And you got the claims backwards.

    In 1290, it was determined that if a woman was impregnated during non-consensual sex, it was not rape; however, if a woman did get pregnant, she might have been raped.

    Or:

    In 1290, it was determined that an act of non-consensual sex that resulted in pregnancy could not have been rape, but that if no pregnancy occurred, she might have been raped.

    Or:

    In 1290, it was determined that even if she claimed the sex was non-consensual, if a woman got pregnant, she could not claim to have been raped.

    —The transition from your historical reporting to the declaration of your point-of-view is not clear. Needs a transition to: Pregnancy and orgasms should never determine the legitimacy of sexual assault.
    —Watch your tenses again:

    For years, men have also determined which women are or are not protected under rape laws. In the 15th century, it was determined that, because they are property to their husbands, married women could not be raped by their husbands

    —And here:

    1780 BC, when rape of a married woman was considered taboo; however, rape of an unmarried woman made her an adulteress.

    —This transition to your point-of-view is better:

    This by itself is problematic because marital status CANNOT determine whether consent is required. It should be a universal law that LACK OF CONSENT always indicates rape.

    —There’s a problem of sequencing in your paragraph, Flatbread. You name an idiotic rule and then editorialize. Name more idiocy, editorialize. Name another. This last transition to “women of color” feels tacked on. You might need an “introduction” that previews the many bizarre excuses men have come up with for forcing women, so that when the examples arrive, we were anticipating them.
    —One last note about citing statistics. “Nearly half as likely” builds UP from ZERO. It sounds like the ideal would be “just as likely,” but that your subject group got only halfway there. What you really want to emphasize here is that women are “more than five times as likely” to be raped, or whatever the number is.
    Obviously, I can’t spend this kind of time on all three of your examples. I hope what I’ve offered here will apply generally to your writing and will be helpful universally. By all means, if you want additional feedback, you may have it upon any specific request. This is a conversation, though. Don’t just drop this back into Feedback Please. Thanks!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s