Thought Exercise #12: Due 12/3/13

Marie Mason:...I was a direct action proponent from the age of five. It started for me at the age of five when a group of teenagers were throwing a kitten in the air repeatedly to see if the old adage was true that she would land on her feet every time. She was clearly frightened and exhausted, failing to land on her feet and not doing well by the time I worked up the courage to leap from the crowd of bystanders, grab the kitten, and run like hell for home. My parents explained to me that pets were other people's property and I had stolen other people's property. So, they made me go talk to the "owner," apologize for my "theft," and explain my side of the story. I managed to impress them with my sincere wish for the cat's well-being, so they gave her to me, and Misha lived with my family for twenty-two years as a cherished companion.
“What Is Good for All of Us, Is the Only True Good for Any of Us”: An Interview with Marie Mason
Matthew Ross Calarco
Pg. 127-139

Just reading about how children treat animals make me think that children can be no different from adults in their treatment to animals. When I see or hear of children mistreating animals, or saying they hate animals, it makes me wonder about their level of empathy and compassion, particularly by the time they develop into adults. In high school, one of my teachers say told the class that even though it is always said that people change over time, while there is some truth to that, people actually do not fully change their personalities throughout their entire life. At the very core of each person are some traits that do not simply alter, even as they face different events and scenarios throughout their lives. Some people may remain stubborn, or introverted, or extroverted, or weak-willed. It may simply just be because that's just how they are born to be.
Just like humans, animals all have their own unique personalities. As a dog owner, I observe this in dogs as well. One of my dogs hates swimming and is terrified of large bodies of water, but my other dog enjoys it very much. One of my dog prefers to be petted on his back, while my other dog prefers his neck and head. They shouldn't be subject to the harsh treatment only because they are different creatures from humans, one who cannot use human speech to convey their feelings or speak up for themselves.

Thought Exercise #12: Due 11/26/13

“Let them see that you trust them & let them solve their own problems, make their own decisions.Do that & they will commit their lives to you. Bully the, control them out of fear or malice or just for your own convenience, & after a while you'll have to spend all your time thinking for them, controlling them, & stifling their resentment.” 
― Octavia E. Butler, Fledgling

I think of the Golden Rule: Treat Others the Way You Want to Be Treated. There is the saying that "What goes around comes around," which also applies to the concept of karma, in which all your actions and treatment of others will in one way or another come back to you. When a one is shown kindness, trust, and support, a relationship of mutual understanding, trust, and commitment to bringing out the best in one another can truly blossom and be mutually beneficial. But when one is bullied and mistreated in any way, karma will turn things against the original perpetrator.

The quote from "Fledgling" also made me think of the quote from Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince":  “It is best to be both feared and loved; however, if one cannot be both it is better to be feared than loved....It is much safer to be feared than loved because ...love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.” After all, to run a government, or to be a leader, one has to be feared to a certain degree in order to be respected, but it is a tricky balance to be a great leader who treats others well and is loved, while being recognized as a powerful, trustworthy, dependable leader at the same time.

Thought Exercise #11: Due 11/19/13

"In Kanaka Hawai'i cosmology, Kanaka Maoli (real people, human beings) share family relationships with the entire universe. This is best understood first through the Kumulipo, which is a cosmogonic prayer as well as the genealogy of Kalakaua and Lili'uokalani....In this cosmology, humans are part of a vast family that includes celestial bodies, plants, animals, landforms, and deities....The distinction between animal and human is clearly drawn nowhere in this cosmology. Humans descend from landforms, kalo, animals, and humans."
--Jonathan Goldberg and Noenoe Silva, "Sharks and Pigs: Animating Hawaiian Soverignty Against the Anthropological Machine"

This cosmology reminds me of the ecological system of the earth. All around the earth, all creatures are interconnected in one way or another. As I learned from biology class, all life originates from the sun, since the plants gain their energy via photosynthesis, and life on earth ultimately depends on the energy source from the sun. Without the sun, life would not exist. Building upon the energy from the sun, all life on earth depend on one another for survival, even if it means hunting down each other to keep the population number in balance. Yet, as Mufasa from Walt Disney's The Lion King said tells his son:

Mufasa: Everything you see exists together in a delicate balance. As king, you need to understand that balance and respect all the creatures, from the crawling ant to the leaping antelope. 
Young Simba: But, Dad, don't we eat the antelope? Mufasa: Yes, Simba, but let me explain. When we die, our bodies become the grass, and the antelope eat the grass. And so we are all connnected in the great Circle of Life. 


And so, life goes on and on.

Thought Exercise #10: Due 11/12/13

"How intelligible is the (or an) Asian body? "Asian American" sex and gender positions are deeply polarized; the missing Asian male phallus is countered by a female hypersexuality ranging in representation from the submissive geisha to the "dragon lady."
--Mel Chen, "Queer Animality"

The Asian body is foreign to the Western world, sometimes to the point of being seen as animals to outsiders. Asian women have a stereotype of being very meek, shy, and submissive, yet extremely hyper-sexual once behind closed doors. Meanwhile, the men in the Western media are typically shy geeks, complete omega males who cannot assert themselves in society. Growing up as a non-whitewashed Asian American, I'm proud to say that I'm quite in touch with my asian heritage, and am also proud to say that my dating/sexual preferences goes to asian men, mainly due to similar cultural values. I know that when some asian girls express interest in asian men, some people will gawk at them in awe, and ask, "Wait? What???? How do you like asian guys?" In addition, one hilarious, yet disturbing, Tumblr website titled "Creepy White Men," is a collection of screenshots of demeaning messages that asian females receive on dating websites from, you guessed it, creepy caucasian men.

In one entry, an asian girl got a message from a creepy white guy who asked her who the asian guy in one of her collection of pictures was. When she told him it was Wang LeeHom,  he told her, "What the Hell? Asian guys are so ugly. Don't you know that asian girls prefer white guys?" As if he thought he could force an opinion on her! For the record, the white guy was unattractive, and Wang LeeHom was the hot guy with the chiseled body. Of course a handsome asian man would be preferable over any ugly white guy any day, at least, based on looks.

The Creepy White Guy tumblr page can be found here for disturbing hilariousness. http://creepywhiteguys.tumblr.com/

Thought Exercise #9: Due 11/5/13

When reading "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," I thought of how the earlier androids were easier to be detected by the bounty hunters due to their limited intelligence. However, as android technology improved, bounty hunters had to administer the Voigt-Kampff empathy test in order to distinguish humans from androids. This test was done by measuring empathetic responses, or lack thereof, from questions designed to evoke an emotional response, often including animal subjects and themes. Since androids lack empathy, their responses are either absent or feigned and are measurably slower than a human's.

This made me think of serial killers, psychopaths, and hardened criminals in real life. Many of these types of people lack empathy, compassion, and sense of remorse that the larger portion of society would be able to express. There are men who would rape and kill, finding it as thrilling as if they were children going out to devour ice cream. They are like monsters living among us, among human beings, hidden in society with the exterior of humans. It makes me think of this quote from the anime "Death Note," in which the detective known simply as "L" confesses to a child that his greatest fear are monsters, and gives this explanation:

There are...many types of monsters in this world: Monsters who will not show themselves and who cause trouble; monsters who abduct children; monsters who devour dreams; monsters who suck blood, and... monsters who always tell lies. Lying monsters are a real nuisance. They are much more cunning than other monsters. They pose as humans even though they have no understanding of the human heart. They eat even though they've never experienced hunger. They study even though they have no interest in academics. They seek friendship even though they do not know how to love. If I were to encounter such a monster, I would likely be eaten by it. Because in truth, I am that monster.”

Thought Exercise #8: Due 10/29/13

"Something remarkable has been happening in the post-industrial contexts across the world since the 1990s: a shift from considering pets (especially dogs) as a species apart, to a reconsideration of pets (especially dogs) as profoundly appropriate objects of human affection and love....the prototypical Fido who slept on the floor and ate scraps from the table has been replaced by Lucy, a companion with increasing legal rights who sleeps on a bed and eats upscale foods....In many post-industrial places across the world, dogs are for the first time being formally and regularly accommodated in doggie beaches, parks, high-class hotels, cafes and restaurants; department stores and mainstream retail catalogues feature substantial selections of pet goodies; and new genres of boutiques and retail outlets for pets (many of them online) have emerged."
--"Critical Pet Studies?" by Heidi J Nast

As a dog owner, I consider dogs as more than just pets, than as just cute little fashion items to be stuffed in frilly clothes and purses to tote around so that other people can coo over them and probably even humiliate them. My dogs hate clothing, for the record. It annoys me so much when people consider little dogs as "the ultimate fashion accessories." No, stupid, dogs are not fashion accessories! They're living beings who deserve love, care, and attention from human families who raise them!

I also have heard of, and know of, people who simply abandon or give away their dogs when they can no longer care for them. Some young couples will adopt dogs as practice for raising a child. Once a baby arrives, the couple will abandon the dog. I just think, "WTF? How in the world could you do that to a dog? The dog loves you and needs you, and you get rid of it just because it isn't human?" I also know of someone who has raised several dogs when he was young, but had to give them away. One of the dogs he raised was when he moved out of his parents' home at age 16, but when he had to leave for UCLA for college, he had to give his dog away. I just think, "You know you going to college. Why the Hell did you raise a dog then?"

It makes me sad that many apartment buildings prohibit dogs from living there. When I was in Canada, my mother and I were surprised to see people walking their dogs into stores at malls. These were incredibly well-behaved dogs as well.

When I think of dogs, one dog that comes to mind is the dog Wishbone, the titular character of the PBS Kids' show from the 90's about a Jack Russell Terrier who loves classic literature and retells them to the audience. It was so cute to see a live-action dog star in his own TV show and watch him interact with other humans as if he was one of them. It makes me wish dogs all over the world could be loved by humans that much.

Thought Exercise #7: Due 10/22/13

"When we say that all human beings, whatever their race, creed, or sex, are equal, what is it that we are asserting?....[I]t is simply not true that all humans are equal. Like it or not, we must face the fact that humans come in different shapes and sizes; they come with differing moral capacities, differing intellectual abilities, differing amounts of benevolent feeling and sensitivity to the needs of others, differing abilities to communicate effectively, and differing capacities to experience pleasure and pain. In short, if the demand of equality were based on the actual equality of all human beings, we would have to stop demanding equality. It would be an unjustifiable demand."
--"All Animals Are Equal," by Peter Singer

It is true that it is fallible to say that every person is equal to one another. It's an idealistic statement, much like Communist society, in which everyone is ideally seen as equal in terms of socioeconomic classes and monetary prospects. In our diverse species, there are people of all different races, heights, intelligence quotients, skin color, looks, and skills. For instance, one cannot expect an art history major to run a program that a trained computer engineer could do under one minute, nor can one expect a fifteen-year-old girl to mother a child the way a more financially-capable thirty-year-old woman could do.

But what of animals? It is ridiculous to say that all animals are the same, as there are thousands of species adapted to different environments and behaviors. But what can one say when trying to compare humans to animals? The socially-ingrained immediate response most people will perhaps say on this matter is that "Humans are superior to animals." But how can they justify that? Just because animals do not have the IQ of humans? Because animals cannot industrialize and build cities and weapons of mass destruction? They, in their own ways, can be considered vastly superior to humans. For instance, dogs have better sense of smell than humans do, and bears are much more massive and powerful than humans are, and fishes can breathe in water. In addition, when humans die, they don't contribute to the ecosystem. In short, humans are not equal amongst each other, and humans cannot be considered superior to animals.

Thought Exercise #6: Due 10/15/13

"Taxidermy was made into the servant of the "real." Artifactual children, better than life, were birthed from dead matter....Taxidermy was about the single story, about nature's unity, the unblemished type of specimen. Taxidermy became the art most suited to the epistemological and aesthetic stance of realism. The power of this stance is in its magical effects: what is so painfully constructed appears effortlessly, spontaneously found, discovered, simply there if one will only look....Small wonder that artistic realism and biological science were twin brothers in the founding of the civic order of nature at the American Museum of Natural History. It is also natural that taxidermy and biology depend fundamentally upon vision in a hierarchy of the senses; they are tools for the construction, discovery of form."
--"Teddy Bear Patriarchy Taxidermy in the Garden of Eden."

I find it strange to think of taxidermy as the servant of the "real." It's like saying that death serves life. But as I ponder upon what it means to serve the "real," the author seems to mean that objects, devoid of what constitutes living beings as alive, exist to serve and be subjected to whatever living beings wish to do with them. By nature, all living beings seek out for the best for themselves, as it is the law of Darwinism and the survival of the fittest. Sometimes, some of us will even seek out perfection, even if perfection never truly exists. To taxidermize a living being is to appreciate its aesthetic beauty, its decorative usage, but never entering the realm of substance. It's as if the desired parts of the living being is picked out, and the rest, its proclivities, are simply discarded.

An interesting excuse it is, to say that the bodies of living beings are taxidermized for the purpose of biological sciences, the better it is to study what was once living flesh. It is also an interesting dichotomy to state that artistic realism and biological science were twin brothers at the American Museum of Natural History, and that taxidermy and biology depend fundamentally upon vision in a hierarchy of the senses. It could be said that taxidermy serves as a gateway to the study of biological life, leading to the study of beings in their natural habitats and in zoos, and lab experiments honing in on life on a molecular level. Thus, taxidermy is a state of being, paralyzed in limbo between life and death, opening gates to questions of the state of living.

Thought Exercise #5: Due 10/8/13

"Looking through old medical textbooks and dictionaries, I see that the comparisons have existed within medical discourse as well--elephantitis, ape-hand syndrome, lobster-claw syndrome, pigeon chest, goosebumps, chickenpox, and phocomelia) seal-like limbs....These animal comparisons exist in...medical discourse...through which disability is still perceived today."
--"Beasts of Burden: Disability Studies and Animal Rights," by Sunaura Taylor

To us humans, it seems that these terms for medical conditions are labelled as such simply because these symptoms are not natural in humans. If something is not deemed natural and human-like, it is judged as an animalistic quality. Is it really so derogatory and insulting to animals to compare what we consider freaks of nature to them? Do we humans really mean it as an insult to animals? It is true that most humans consider themselves above animals. Therefore, perhaps the association of animals in our medical terms does more than just indicate that these medical conditions are not natural in humans. Perhaps, to people, the association of these terms with animals act as red alarms that their very beings, heir sick bodies, are deteriorating and descending down from the pedestal of humanity, crumbling into the abyss of animality.

 The more I think about it, the more similar I think humans are to animals. It is silly that humans pigeonhole ourselves into the category of humans, and then the rest of living beings are collectively referred to as animals. After all, animals do not think of themselves as a collective single species. There are many species, just as how there are many different races and ethnicities among humans. I still remember Sunaura asking the class the question of whether it is possible for animals to know when a peer among their kind is disabled. She told us about how one chimpanzee was treated differently by his fellow chimps because of his disability, and also of a Japanese monkey who was able to live a long life and be seen as a caretaker despite her disability. Our state of being boils down to the fact that all living beings are walking sacks of chemical reactions, with the goal of surviving every single day of our lives. Surviving involves interacting with other beings. It's simply Darwinism, plain and simple, a dog-eat-dog world in which humans like to think of themselves as the superior being.

Thought Exercise #4: Due 10/1/13

"Animal signs function fetishistically...they serve as powerful substitutes or "partial objects" filling in for a lost object of desire or originary wholeness that never did or can exist, save phantasmically."
--"New Life Forms and Functions of Animal Fetishism

I took this quote to mean that, at the very core of human existence and interactions, all humans exhibit animalistic qualities that are biologically ingrained as an ultimate means of finding and seducing mates for reproduction. If it is stated that animal signs function fetishistically, then I would take it that this statement is one of a sexual nature.

To clarify, all living beings are wired to reproduce. Living beings are more likely to reproduce if their sexual mates are physically attractive. Think about it--male peacocks are grow ostentatious feathers to attract peahens, male lions have distinctive manes, and human women supposedly more in touch with sensuality than men are. Physical attraction and flirtatious body language sends off fetishistic signs that stimulate sexual excitement in living beings, and satisfy sexual fantasies.

I think that's what it means to fill "in for a lost object of desire...that never did or can exist, save phantasmically." Everyone is stamped with a sexual orientation and a sex drive in order to trigger our function as vessels and machines of reproduction. We all have fantasies and fetishes, and when we find mates, we project our desires onto them. We have expectations for significant others, and project those expectations on them as well. We look for what we like and sometimes overlook flaws, even when we are blinded by infatuation. This is to conclude that love and attraction can be considered a mere illusion, a back-stabbing mechanism that tricks living beings into reproducing.

Thought Exercise #3: Due 9/24/13

"The Surrealists were fascinated by what they perceived as the dual nature of the little girl, her propensity for innocence and evil."

"The view of the female child as particularly close to the non-material world of fantasy and the imagination was central to the beliefs of the Surrealists."

"Baby Bitches From Hell: Monstrous Little Women in Film," by Barbara Creed

I couldn't help but to choose so many quotes from Creed's article. Her words left a deep impression on me. First of all, I consider myself a child at heart. One of the biggest reasons for why I feel that way is that my extensive experience with bullying, ranging from preschool all the way to high school. It really affected who I am as a person. I like to think that because I have been bullied as a child, I have learned to not conform to what society wants of me, and to have my own beliefs and stand up for them. I have retained these opinions ever since childhood, including:

• Saving my virginity for marriage
• Living a straight-edge lifestyle. I have never taken drugs, never smoked, nor have I ever been flat-out drunk. 
• To find magic in my life, to never give up on my dreams, to be my individual self even when other people don't share my views.

I would look at old photos of myself as a child. I feel overwhelmed with the fact that though she may no longer physically exist, she's inside me. She's in my skin, in my blood, in my organs, in my breath, and in my mind. I see her as an embodiment of my beliefs and values, and because of that, I have this overwhelming desire to remain pure at heart, even as I grow jaded as the years pass by.

"By virtue of her purity, she is able to make contact with the marvelous and enter the world of the surreal."

When I stay connected with my inner child, I feel that my imagination, my thoughts, my beliefs, and my motivations are all the more vivid. It's hard to describe, but I feel alive by sticking to the values I've held since childhood. It fuels me as a creative person. I love the feeling of being able to write stories, create paintings and images, and enter worlds that other people can't visit along with me. And this is all without the use of drugs! (I believe that people who say they need drugs to be creative are full of bull****, and that they're just using their "justification" as an excuse.)

"Innocence invites corruption--the more pure and irreproachable, the greater will be the child's fall from grace."

When people discover that I intend to stay a virgin until marriage, they typically respect my decision, and a few have actually confessed that they wish they could have done what I'm doing, such as saying, "I once saved myself for marriage, but the temptation was so great, I gave in. I only wish you could succeed where I failed." Their words make me all the more determined to save myself. However, I have encountered someone who told me these very words: "You know what turns me on about you? It turns me on so much that you've never been touched by a man, and that you've never held a real, living penis. And that means I could be the first one."

"...innocence and evil are interconnected; it is as if the girl's innocence opens the way for the entrance of evil, one feeding off the other in a complex relationship of interdependence."

I think that statement, the one personally told to me, will haunt me forever. It's been about 3 months since I've been told that, and I can still hear his deep voice, dripping with temptation and lust, reverberating in my head. It's as if my attempts to remain innocence has invited his evil desires to prey on me, trying to break down my resolve bit by bit. As cliched as this sounds, there is indeed a darker side of me, a Mr. Hyde inside of me, that wants to throw caution to the wind. Sometimes I wish I could split myself in two, one version to retain my innocence, and the other a carbon copy to commit whatever she wishes. But no, both versions are interconnected inside me, the only body I have in this life. I realize that I cannot exist without the evil and impulsive side of me, because it renders me into a three-dimensional person, one who can make choices. The choices I make define who I am as a person, and even though part of me is tainted and corrupt, and even though there are people who will always try to break me down and destroy my values, I hold the ultimate power to shape who I am as a person. I choose to be as innocent as I can, and I make that choice because the evil in me motivates me to do so. I have to thank evils for giving me the choice to turn my back on them and not give me in. By doing so, my choices preserve my innocence and commemorate the little girl inside me.

"Rose," by painter Mark Ryden

Thought Exercise #2: Due 9/17/13

"...the distinction between Chinese people and animals becomes blurred, sustaining and elaborating in new ways the racialization of Chinese as inferior to fully human whites in U.S. racial paradigms."
--"Chinese Chickens, Ducks, Pigs, and Humans, and the Technoscientific Discourses of Global U.S. Empire," by Gwen D'Arcangelis

Apparently, when diseases and epidemics spread within the U.S. or Western countries in general, the first suspect to have fingers pointed at are animals. However, if not animals, then the other suspect would be a population of a foreign culture, such as the Chinese. This is to suggest that humans like to label the unfamiliar as something savage and dangerous out of sheer ignorance.

On a tangent, that reminds me of the song "Savages" from Disney's Pocahontas. Here, the English settlers are singing about killing the Native Americans

These two Powhatan warriors have their face painted in preparation to fight the settlers, the Caucasian foreigners, and sing aloud, "I wonder if they even bleed!"

So, my thoughts have gone from Westerners finger-pointing animals and another culture as culprits for diseases, to the logical conclusion that it is natural for humans to slap blame on what they fear and don't understand, to the realization that Caucasians have an over-inflated superiority complex. Is this some sort of power play for them? I recall my history professor (who was a white man in his forties, just so you know) in high school informing my class that while ancient civilizations such as the Egyptians and the Chinese were flourishing, Europeans were shivering and scrounging in mud huts. Centuries later, when Europeans began exploring and conquering the "New World" (new for them, because they were the foreigners, the aliens!), not only did they kill off massive numbers of indigenous people via weapons of mass destruction, they also brought with them diseases that infected and killed off the native people.

That's right, the Europeans were the ones who infected the non-Caucasian people who were behind them in technological advances, not the other way around.

To make matters worse, the European settlers wouldn't stop killing, and proclaimed the land as theirs and saw themselves as the rightful citizens of the land and would shoot glares and pejoratives to immigrants of non-European descent, even though the Caucasians of European descent do not even originate from America. So Caucasians can discriminate others because they feel that they are superior? Because they are in power and are big bullies on the playground?

Scapegoats are always needed. Seeing that diseases such as SARS came from outside the U.S., the blame can be shoved upon infected animals and the unhygienic "traditional" practices of Chinese vermin. However, if the disease were to hypothetically originate in the U.S., no certain racial groups would be to blame because that would be politically incorrect. Instead, some B.S. story of gene mutations may be spoon-fed to the public by the media to appease the public's demands for knowing the origins of the disease.

Throwing blame is pretty much like playing the game of throwing around a hot potato.

Thought Exercise #1, Due 9/10/13, REPOST

REPOSTED FROM HERE

For the Fall 2013 semester, I have signed up for Gender Woman Studies 133AC at UC Berkeley. The title of the course is Women, Men, and Other Animals: Human Animality in American Cultures. The class focuses on the relationship between humans and animals, "with a particular focus on gender, race, ability, and sexuality as the definitional foils for human engagement with animality."

I saw this class on the Fall 2013 American Cultures class catalog before I even got the idea for my novel, but now that I'm enrolled in this class, it's perfect for my research into the novel, especially since I'm exploring human-animal and sexuality themes in my Little Red Riding Hood-inspired BDSM New Adult novel (I think I need to find a way to abbreviate that...). Since our weekly assignment consists of writing blog posts in response to what we think of an assigned piece we have read or a class discussion. I thought that, since the theme of animality and sexuality and power play aligns quite nicely with my novel (currently on chapter 9...it's kind of a crappy first draft right now), I'll just write my posts in a way that correlates with my novel.

I don't listen to that BS when people say, "Oh, virginity doesn't matter." Lies. I've witnessed responses that betray intrigue and lust. Artwork is by Nanfe

Out of the readings from last week, I was most stricken by Kate Soper's essay "Naturalized Woman and Feminized Nature." It is no surprise to read about the objectification of woman, since women can be deemed as sex objects or arm candies by horny men. But it was interesting to read about Soper's correlation of the objectification of women with man's dominance of nature. Nature procreates and reproduces in order to nurture living beings. Women are biologically designed to procreate and nurture life as well. Throughout history, perhaps the male ego drives males in all of their attempts to conquer what they set out to take, and taking it further to incite wars after wars. Explorers set out to sail and explore other continents, and kill in order to appropriate the lands they believe they are entitled to. Women are in a similar scenario. Men hunt sexually attractive women to try and "sow their seeds," as it may be termed. I would hope humanity is above this, but many men will persist in cajoling a woman, or even resort to taking her by force.

Soper mentions Wordsworth's poem "Nutting," and cites it as "one of the most powerfully voluptuous descriptions of the 'virgin scene' of nature, and one of the most disturbed accounts of the ravishment it provokes," and goes on to state that nature is "a 'virgin' terrain ripe for penetration, that the metaphor of the land as female is most insistent...it is one thing to cajole - or force - a virgin to surrender to her lover (rapist)" (142). I keep thinking about my main character in my novel, Scarlett, who is determined to remain a virgin until marriage. The professor, Jude Tanner, is intrigued by her virginity and the novel revolves around a sort of game or persistence vs. resistance for them. He wants to see how long it'll take for her no's to turn into yes, and she is determined to never give in, despite all the temptation he gives her. By no means is this story meant to be romantic at all. It's terrifying to be in pursuit and hunted down, even if it is by a handsome predator. To be thought of as an untouched terrain ripe for penetration is terrifying. It's somewhat dehumanizing to be devalued to the level of the grass and plants that spreads all across the earth, to take in a fact that I, a young woman, am something that can be taken by force if necessary. Scarlett feels the same, and she knows she is more than a virgin to be subjected to the lust of a man who wants to be the first one to penetrate and claim her. The dominance of men vs. virginity and resistance is a theme that I'm heavily exploring, and will hopefully be fleshed out further as the semester progresses.