Counterintuitive Spring 2023

Virginity is Society’s Funniest Joke

Female virginity is as ambiguous as the understanding of life itself. There is no “correct” or “right” answer in defining female virginity. Biologically speaking, scientists and medical doctors do propose an answer but there are often aspects of female virginity many do not consider—such as psychological interpretations, gender, and type of intercourse. The most common and popular definition of female virginity relates to the looseness of the hymen. This definition is vague yet also creates a thick boundary that often divides other considerable perspectives.   

Psychological interpretations are individualistic—only the person feeling can interpret their feelings most truthfully. Medical doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, family, friends, strangers and the internet are all secondary to an individual’s understanding of their own feelings and thoughts. These groups can help guide an individual to a clearer understanding, but in the end, it is the induvial who has to define whatever it is they are trying to understand. When it comes to intercourse, usually, the act is engaged between two people. Intercourse is different for all people and all couples; not one two people (or couple) are the same. Communication is a central role in enjoyable and consensual safe sex. What is not always understood is how each induvial interprets virginity and sexual intercourse.

Interpretation holds differently in each person. Often times, gender and psychological interpretation goes hand and hand. The cliché “boys will be boys” and “girls will be girls” is true in some respects, though it is not a definite metaphor to be followed and ultimately, it is narrow in its saying. Those who identify as male or female (and of course gender does not end there), will always have a slightly different point of view concerning the world they live in. Even those of the same sex or gender identity, will have different perspectives. The psychology of an induvial is fluid and not concrete. Interpretations will always differ between people. Therefore, the interpretation of virginity will never be concrete.  

Gender theory is quite expansive and is not limited to one or two categories. Differences in gender and gender identity affect the definition of virginity. This essay specifically focuses on those who identify as female. In the patriarchal society, those who identify as female, often face oppression and objectification. Both oppression and objectification blurry a woman’s own psychological interpretation of virginity which ultimately affects society’s understanding of female virginity. Barbara L. Fredrickson and Tomi-Ann Roberts, in their proposal essay, “Objectification Theory, ” claim that “at a psychological level, perhaps the most profound effect of objectifying treatment is that it coaxes girls and women to adopt a peculiar view of self.” The idea of virginity is an aspect that applies to all persons. Virginity is and can be part of an individual’s identity or view of self. For countless generations, women have lived in a society that has deemed their virginity to be “pure.”—something worth “holding onto.” The reasons for “holding onto” female virginity as long as possible vary, but what can be clearly depicted is that the reiteration of this idea of virginity being something “pure” has branded women, historically. Having a “romanticized” idea of virginity led many women defining their virginity as something almost “sacred.” Come forth to modern times, women and feminists began to question this idea of “virginity” and what it meant to society.

As noted, psychological interpretations differ throughout the different genders. Those who identify as a female will interpret virginity differently than, say for example, individuals who identify as male. Laura M. Carpenter, in her proposal essay, “Gender and the Meaning and Experience of Virginity Loss in the Contemporary United States,” claims “… scholarly and popular writers concerned with virginity loss have almost invariably defined it as the first time a man or woman engages in vaginal-penile intercourse…” The terms “virginity loss” and “virginial-penile intercourse” are most significant in this quote. Scholars and most individuals view virginity as something to be “lost” and historically that only applied to women. These misogynistic opinions, as stated earlier, have affected those of the female gender.

The second word most significant to the quote is “virginial-penile intercourse.” The last hurdle in defining female virginity, is the type of intercourse one chooses to engage in. “Virginial-penile intercourse” is a problematic term because it is limited to only one group of people and is connected to one singular concept. There are many different types of intercourse people engage in, including vaginal, oral, and anal. Going back to the common definition of virginity loss, most scholars, scientists, medical doctors, and everyday people define virginity loss as engaging in vaginal intercourse, thus loosening the hymen. This discriminative definition excludes the other ways people engage in sexual intercourse and ultimately creates a “social norm” or “aspiration” for society to follow. Most scholars and scientists also define intercourse as the penetration of the anus and or mouth— in lay terms, being dubbed “anal sex” and “oral sex.” Though, the same academics often times exempt virginity loss when discussing in either or both alternate ways people engage in sexual intercourse.

The concept of female virginity is already vague in its understanding and definition. By defining female virginity one way and not being considerate of other methods of sexual intercourse, the notion of virginity being singular is ultimately incorrect. Anal and oral penetration is considered intercourse in most scholarly textbooks, as noted earlier. Because scientists exclude virginity loss in both anal and oral intercourse, that would ultimately make a woman a  who engages in anal or oral intercourse a “virgin”—if that is her first time (following a traditional definition).

Ultimately virginity is a paradox. There are a multitude of factors to be included and considered when defining female virginity. Factors include psychological interpretation, gender, and type of intercourse. Considering all these factors, an individual is entitled to define what female virginity means to them. Life and virginity, two terms most people don’t understand and will continue to question. Virginity will always be as ambiguous as life, therefore, there is no one “true” definition of female virginity.  

References

Carpenter, Laura M. “Gender and the Meaning and Experience of Virginity Loss in the Contemporary United States.” Gender & Society, vol. 16, no. 3, 2002, pp. 345–365., https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243202016003005.

Eyre, Linda. The Objectification of Women in Mass Media: Female Self-Image in Misogynist Culture. The New York Sociologist, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.694.8981&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

Fredrickson, Barbara L., and Tomi-Ann Roberts. “Objectification Theory: Toward Understanding Women’s Lived Experiences and Mental Health Risks.” Psychology of Women Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 2, 1997, pp. 173–206., https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x.

Music of Our Lives

Music has lived with people since they were born. When thinking of music, your mind goes to a song that comes on the radio, or going to watch a symphony perform. As a society, we have had music around for a long time, using it as a source of entertainment. In The Role of Music in Everyday Life: Current Directions in the Social Psychology of Music, Peter J. Rentfrow claims, “Music is a crucial element of everyday life. People spend hours listening to it and billions of dollars buying it.” Music has a major influence on people’s daily lives, but how deep into the music world have people really gotten to explore.

Mainstream music, the definition of music for almost everyone in the world. Instruments combine in harmony to create a beautiful tune, adding in the voice that creates the lyrics to a song. You scream to music, cry to music, laugh to music. You can do anything imaginable and have a song simply playing in the background. Musicians will create songs that have undertones of a specific mood or two, such as happiness or sadness. This mood transmits to the listener, causing them to inherit that mood. A “happy” song is going to be more upbeat, with playful tunes and lyrics, while a “sad” song is more somber and slow with lyrics that you may be able to relate to. Music preferences have a pattern of who listens to what, concluding in creativity, imagination and openness are traits of those who listen to sophisticated music, traits including impulsivity and athletic ability possess listeners of heavy metal and punk, and finally traits of high extraversion, the value of social recognition and appreciation of one’s physical appearance is found in those who listen to contemporary music. The mood of a person as well as their work ethic can change based on if they like the music or hate it, even if a song is meant to set a certain mood.

As a whole, music is many different things combined into one word. Music is a multitude of activities, written scores and objects. Music is usually treated as an object, being moved through time and morphed to fit out current times. Take Beethoven, who’s pieces are performed all of the time, even after being written so many years ago. Something like Bach’s B Minor Mass, which’s original purpose was for religious use but now is performed in a more secular setting. The amalgamation of fundamental building blocks that most pieces use now consists of repeated notes. Its system of tonality creates the space for music to be an object. There is also the act of buying and selling music, which has been occurring for many centuries. Translating into current times, publishers treat music pieces like such objects when they claim them, gaining profit when others want to use the piece for whatever their reason may be. In What is Sociological about Music?, William Roy and Timothy Dowd claim that “music’s object-ness, its embeddedness in institutions, its pervasiveness in everyday life, its popularity as an avocation, and its affirmation in a discourse of transcendent sanctification.” Music was pulled into this object state, and it created this commodity that people are drawn to.

Treating music as an object with very fixed qualities puts it into a some sort of set box, but music is also a verb. The act of “making” or “performing” music, doesn’t make it completely an object but an activity. Even the term “musicking” was coined by musicologist Christopher Small because of his belief. It seems clear that the activity aspect of music is the performance part. I’m sure most people have gotten up on a stage to say a speech or get an award. Many people get up on a stage to perform music for a living or for fun. People who live to perform classical or orchestral music know that many things must come together to put on a performance. The expectations set, dynamics, conductor competency and legitimacy merge together, creating a wonderful show for the audience. Jazz music creates a completely different way of “musicking,” with the development of improvisational skills. This brings another level of musicality, the cognitive skills needed to understand relationships between chords and individual notes becoming another thing to master. The mastery that the performers have to possess of improvisation creates a world of support, connections, experience and opportunities. The process of musicking can approach the intertwining of music and interaction, including people who were only supported and didn’t have actual contribution to the making of music itself. Music is all around us, and you may even be a part of the collaboration, even if you aren’t fully aware. 

The possibility of music being analogous to language is also present. Song lyrics are a part of lots of music creations, and researching into the meaning of these lyrics shows a lot. The structure of music has the most meaning behind it, just as elements of language have meaning. Using syntax to analyze a piece of writing can be equivalent to having music parsed into its own formal features. It has even been argued that specific music projects can have the same tension as a literacy plot, each showing an overarching storyline in their own way. Music has a structure that creates a story for the listener, and it usually follows a specific storyline (ex. Verse, chorus, verse, chorus, bridge, end) just like a piece of literature would. 

From birth, a notation of music is put into our heads. The major fact is that there is so much more complexity to music than an average lister might think. It can be anything you want it to be, a gust of wind, a waterfall, the rattle of a baby toy. Something beautifully put by William Roy and Timothy Dowd in What is Sociological about Music?, “The object of musical notation that lies at the heart of classical music is made alive by the musicking that surrounds it.” The creation, performance, collaboration and object-ness all circle around the one word we all know as music.

References

Rentfrow, P. J. (2012, May 2). The role of music in everyday life: Current directions in the social psychology of Music. Wiley Online Library. Retrieved October 20, 2021, from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00434.x?globalMessage=0. 

Roy , W. G., & Dowd, T. J. (2010). What is sociological about music? Annual Reviews. Retrieved October 20, 2021, from https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102618. 

The Dangers of Society

Fat people need loving and understanding too! Not every single fat person is obese or has an eating disorder. It is possible their dietary habits and inactivity contribute to their obesity, but it’s certain that conditions beyond their control also contribute to them storing excess body fat. Obesity is not just an appearance.  It is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to an extent that it may have a negative effect on health. Obesity is a metabolic condition—a result of the complex processes by which the body converts food into energy—it can also be influenced by chemicals in the environment (over which we have limited control) and genetics (over which we have no control). We can not blame ourselves for the things we can’t control such as the way we look and what our bodies do to us. 

In the last century, researchers have recognized a rapid increase in obesity cases. Obesity accounts for approximately 20% of all cancer cases. This doesn’t mean that the other 80% of cancer cases can’t be obese, it means other health conditions contributed to this cancer case. Evidence is showing the benefits of physical activity for breast and colon cancers. The growing epidemic of obesity provides a challenge to clinical practice and the implementation of guidelines for the management of weight. Obesity is one of the top leading causes of cancer. According to the world health organization, obesity has nearly tripled since 1975. In the U.S. 42% of adults were considered obese (2017-2018). For individuals with all cancers combined, CVD was the leading cause of competing mortality in both male and female patients with cancer. CVD can be caused by obesity. Men are more likely to be more active than women. Heart disease and weight loss are closely linked because your risk for heart disease is associated with your weight. If you are overweight or obese, you may be at higher risk for the condition. Medical experts consider obesity and being overweight to be major risk factors for both coronary heart disease and heart attack.

The term “obesity” is misrepresented by society as someone who is overweight. What isn’t recognized is the health problems that follow obesity. Obesity can cause heart problems and can lead to cancer and sometimes death. Throughout society, obesity is judgemental but it can be solved with the use of activity rather than judgments. Research is extremely important in stopping the unhealthy habits that lead to obesity. Obesity is taken more seriously by medical care. Society continues to judge and make fun of what they don’t know.

Physical activity, body size, and metabolic efficiency are related to total energy intake. It is difficult to assess the independent effect of energy intake on cancer risk. There are sufficient pieces of evidence to support the role of physical activity in preventing cancers of the colon and breast. The association is stronger in men than in women for colon cancer and in postmenopausal than in premenopausal women for breast cancer. While obesity can be looked up on the internet for an exact definition, society has its own reflection on obesity and so does the medical field. 

Many humans who are not medical care workers will define obesity as “fat people” or “overweight people” and while that may be the case, it can be argued. Overweight people can be narrowed down to people who don’t exercise, people who eat poorly, and genetics that give overweight people the unfortunate disadvantage of being prone to certain diseases. Ask anyone what obesity means and they will narrow it down to those three factors. Society is judgemental. Society’s first instinct is to judge someone who is obese. In reality, the unhealthy habits of not exercising and eating healthy needs to stop. Those are things that can stop. While society is quick to judge someone who is obese, medical care takes caution of obesity. 

Anyone in the medical field can say that when an obese person comes in, they are ready for work. Obesity is one of the top causes for cancers in men and women. However, it is more likely in women. Obesity is a complex disease that cannot be minimized to the “calories in/calories out” mantra that has become commonplace. Factors that can contribute to weight might include biological issues such as genetics and hormonal changes that come with aging; developmental issues such as parental obesity; psychological issues including depression or history of trauma; or environmental factors, such as large portion sizes. These are just a few of the many possible contributors.

Obesity is taken more seriously by medical care and is unfairly judged by society. Obesity can cause cancer. There is no way of denying that it can. It is perfectly understood that cancer is dangerous. There are over 100 types of cancer. Any part of the body can be affected by cancer. Cancer is a group of diseases characterized by uncontrolled growth and spread of abnormal cells. Tobacco use is the single largest preventable cause of cancer in the world causing 22% of cancer deaths. Obesity is dangerous. The risk of cancer increases with the more excess weight a person gains and the longer a person is overweight. 

Many people will agree that most of the time, being overweight is all the person’s fault, which in some cases is true. Society is so judgemental on people’s weight that there are stigmas and set opinions. Society has an obesity stigma which is: “The stigmatization of people with obesity is widespread and causes harm. Weight stigma is often propagated and tolerated in society because of beliefs that stigma and shame will motivate people to lose weight.”  This stigma contributes to behaviors such as binge eating, social isolation, avoidance of health care services, decreased physical activity, and increased weight gain, which worsen obesity and create additional barriers to healthy behavior change. So while the medical field is influencing obesity to stop and giving tips, society is ruining those chances of demolishing obesity. 

Overall, obesity can be argued. Society will make it seem like it is just a little bit of weight while the medical field will take control. The stigma needs to stop. Obesity can cause more than change in appearance. It can cause more health issues than people imagine. Obesity needs to be treated and the person needs to be  helped. Obesity is taken more seriously by medical professionals and dieticians and is judged more by society. The quicker that society realizes the health crisis of obesity and they take it seriously, the faster we drop the percentage of obese people. Obesity can cause cancer if it is not taken care of in due time.

References

Obesity and Cancer | CDC. (2021, March 10). http://Www.cdc.gov. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/obesity/index.htm

Pan, S. Y., & DesMeules, M. (2009). Energy intake, physical activity, energy balance, and cancer: epidemiologic evidence. Methods in Molecular Biology (Clifton, N.J.), 472, 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-60327-492-0_8

Pont, S. J., Puhl, R., Cook, S. R., & Slusser, W. (2017). Stigma Experienced by Children and Adolescents With Obesity. Pediatrics, 140(6), e20173034. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-3034

Tsang, N. M., Pai, P. C., Chuang, C. C., Chuang, W. C., Tseng, C. K., Chang, K. P., Yen, T. C., Lin, J. D., & Chang, J. T. C. (2016). Overweight and obesity predict better overall survival rates in cancer patients with distant metastases. Cancer Medicine, 5(4), 665–675. https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.634

Privilege or excuse?

the State Secret Privilege is an evidentiary rule, when it’s applied to a case it calls for an exclusion of evidence on the grounds that said evidence may expose or harm US security.
First, the government must provide an affidavit, which is usually easily obtainable, they then present the court with the affidavit and state that this official condones these actions (dismissal of evidence) and highly advises the courts to drop the evidence. When this motion is granted any evidence pertaining to the privilege is completely removed from the litigation. Although, when an affidavit is presented in this situation it is almost always passed, weather the prosecutors or judges believe in it or not.

The creation of the state secret privilege was sad and peculiar. In 1948, a secret test flight was conducted over Waycross, Georgia, the aircraft was a B-29 military bomber that was upgraded with classified electronic equipment. Onboard were nine crew members and four civilian observers, six of the nine crewman and three of the four civilian observers were killed when a fire occurred in one of the engines. After the incident, widows of the fallen service men and civilians filed a suit with the government for answers and compensation. The lawsuit lead nowhere however, the US government stated that sensitive information was at stake and the disclosure of evidence was inherently dangerous. I don’t believe this for a second, I don’t believe that informing the distraught widows compromises military secrets.
If the government held this test flight with civilian observers on board, then how classified was the information on the aircraft? It seems absurd that they would let civilians on board but then act like the information is so secretive that their direct cause of death and other key evidence shouldn’t be acknowledged.

In recent times the state secret privilege has been used numerous times, one case is that of Notra Trulock. Trulock was an official of the department of energy (DOE) in the early 2000’s, in 2002 he launched a defamation suit against Wen Ho Lee, who also worked for the DOE, for allegedly stealing “sensitive nuclear weapons documents” (-Trulock V. Lee and the United States of America, opinion section/per curiam, page 2) from the United States government. The president at the time, George bush, stated that national security was at risk if Trulock continued the case with Lee, leading to the dismissal of the case. Later, the FBI director of the time, Louis Freeh, was the center of a new case that claimed he falsely invoked the state secrets privilege, and effectively interfered with the previous case. The sheer lunacy that surrounds these two cases truly boggles the mind, the fact that these cases touch upon overt treason and lead nowhere is horrifying to say the least. to think that our government, the protectors of freedom, would turn a blind eye to someone who steals the planets most funded military secrets used to be that of fairy tail and conspiracy, but is now a little known fact.

Another instance of the state secret privilege is that of Sibel Edmonds, where the privilege was used twice. The case is started by achknologing I. factual background, which states,

“Although much of the information concerning the plaintiff’s employment history with the FBI is classified and therefore will not be referenced in this opinion, 3 the plaintiff contends that between December 2001 and March 2002, while employed by the FBI, she reported a number of alleged acts of misconduct to the FBI. 4 Compl. [69] P 15. On February 7, 2002, the plaintiff states that she wrote a letter to the Acting Assistant Supervisory Agent in Charge (“ASAC”) detailing her “concerns about security and management problems in the language department and requesting that prompt corrective action be taken.” [*4] Id. P 17. During the following week on February 13, 2002, the plaintiff states that she wrote a letter to an Executive Assistant Director for the FBI, “notifying him of [her] serious security concerns which potentially put Plaintiff’s personal safety and the safety of her family at risk.” Id. P 20. The plaintiff then met with a Deputy Assistant Director for the FBI on March 7, 2002, to discuss her reports of misconduct. Id. P 22. That same day, the plaintiff filed complaints with the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”) and the Department of Justice’s Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) detailing her “allegations of serious security breaches and misconduct.” Id. P 23. The plaintiff’s employment with the FBI was terminated on March 22, 2002, id. P 24, and a letter was sent to the plaintiff on April 2, 2002, explaining that her contract was ‘terminated completely for the Government’s convenience.’ Id. P 25.”.

-I. Factual Background, Sibel Edmonds V. United States Department of Justice, july 6th, 2004

This is sickening (let alone the rest of the document), a member of the FBI who feared for her and her families lives was fired because she saw issues with the FBI’s security, But trust me it gets even worse. The first privilege was invoked to prevent Edmonds from testifying that the united states had foreknown that Al-Qaeda planned to use airliners to attack the US trade center in September 11th, 2001. This invokement of the privilege undermined the efforts of six hundred 9/11 victims’ families who sought to sew the Saudi government. The second time the privilege was used in relation to Sibel Edmonds was in her personal lawsuit against the government for firing her. They used the privilege, dropped any pretaining evidence, labled her a whistle blower, and ended the case.

It is sad to see patriots being pushed aside, especially in cases like Edmonds where she worked for the government and truly believed that her and her department (the FBI) were serving for the greater good, only to realize that as soon as an issue arised she was the first to get the metaphorical shaft. When I was young there wasn’t anything more important to me than my country, I wanted to grow up and become a member of the police or the military and help the world; but sadly dreams such as those are shadows of the past. In current days the government no longer looks like a becon of hope, but a bastion of dogs; where you are greeted with open arms but thrown to the hounds as soon as your fears come to fruition.

References

Sibel Edmonds V. The Department of Justice (July 6th, 2004)
https://markszaidpc.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/ddc-opinion-7-6-04-edmonds.pdf

Notra Truelock III V. Wen Ho Lee and United States of America (feb 28th, 2003)
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Unpublished/021476.U.pdf

United States V. Reynolds ET AL. (oct 21st, 1952)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/345/1