America, we have a long way to go.

Really, West Virginia? REALLY?!

I know it's supposed to be funny. I know I'm supposed to be laughing... but I'm not.
I understand there are certainly plenty of people in West Virginia (and the rest of America) who don't think this way, but the fact that there are at least three that could be found and interviewed that could be that unbelievably ignorant is simply astonishing.

People wonder why I get so worked up when I hear about this underling in Hillary's campaign or that goonie in McCain's campaign referring to Obama as "Barack Hussein Obama" or accidentally referring to him as "Barack Osama", and that video is a great example.

I assure you, I understand that Hussein is, in fact, his middle name. I know that. That's not the issue. The issue is that they are saying these things the way they are, knowing full well that these very people are listening. They are doing it with the intention of stirring up the people who can't see past a name like Hussein. They are playing up his status as "the other" because they want all of the people out there who can't see past race or religion or the sound of a name to be afraid of him. Do we hear the name "John Sidney McCain III" being thrown around? Do we hear people talking about "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton"? No. Why is that? It's because Obama is different, and different is apparently scary.

To be honest, I'm just sick to death of politicians trying to use fear as a tool to manipulate the American people. They make us afraid that terrorists loom at every turn so they can attempt to further erode our civil liberties. People are stopped and detained or searched or harassed for no good reason because they look suspicious or different (anymore they may as well mean the same thing, so take your pick.) We've been fed so much nonsense that has been "for our safety" that I'm having a hard time believing this isn't just all some sort of horrible nightmare. I mean, we had the government telling us that in the event of a chemical, biological or nuclear attack on US soil, we should all have duct tape and saran wrap at the ready in order to seal off our homes. How utterly ridiculous is that?

And yet, for some reason, it's still working. People are still buying in to these fearmongering, power-hungry politicians. People are afraid to vote for Barack Obama because he looks different, he has a different sounding name, he might be a *gasp* MUSLIM (which, as we all know, is synonymous with "terrorist".) People actually believe all of this.

So that's why, even though this video should be funny, it's really hard to laugh. That's why, sometimes, I'm ashamed of the leaders of this country and the people who put them in their positions of power. A lot of people blew up at Michelle Obama for her comments which seemed to say she had been ashamed of America all her life. I wasn't exactly a fan of the comments either, but I can certainly understand feeling ashamed, very ashamed, of some of the things that go on in this country by the hand of our politicians.

Ignorance and fear are two things that we should all strive to erase. They should not become the primary weapons of the very people who are meant to lead this nation.

(For the record, the comment I am talking about begins at :15 into the video, and apparently whoever posted it decided to do a little bit of audio editing and took out the word "really" from "... for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country ...")

Beware the LESBIANS!

O'Reilly Factor warns of vast underground network of violent lesbians.
(Better than a vast public network of fanatic, rabble-rousing media-types, I guess)

O'Reilly, you glorious bastard. You make this easier every day. I don't need to say too much about this one because it's so utterly ridiculous, but there are three things I want to point out:

1: The video clips they show of the supposedly 'violent lesbian attacks' are nothing of the sort. As far as I've been able to tell from looking around at various editorials and comments about the videos, the videos are presented without the correct context and played over the statements by Fox's "expert" to make it look worse.
The video of the street attack is, I think, video of an event you can read about here and here. No doubt, the attack on the man was excessive. The women deserved to be punished, at least to some extent, but the man was by no means an innocent bystander that was attacked for no reason by a lesbian street gang.
The other video clip of the fight at the beach was, as far as I can tell, a fight between two girls over a GUY that escalated into a full on brawl. I'm not sure how a fight over a guy equates to lesbian street gang attack, but if you figure it out, let me know. The video can be found on YouTube, I'd assume by typing any combination of the words 'girl' 'fight' and 'beach'.

2: The Pink Pistols are neither a lesbian street gang nor an underground network of any kind. Their mission, as stated on their website, is promoting "the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community." Now, I am not particularly fond of guns or of many organizations that are fond of them, but that's no reason to let O'Reilly's guest's misinformed (or poorly worded, as the case may be) statement reflect on them in a negative way.

3: Fox's 'expert', according to the blog Unfit to Print, is not quite what he appears... or is that exactly what he appears, and not quite as he'd like to appear? From their site:

"after checking out this “detective’s” website — Rod007.com, no joke — his, um, credibility as a crack investigator is a little dubious. Rod only claims to have served “several years” as a homicide investigator and fraud investigator. Not five or ten or twenty, but “several” years. One of his other claims to legitimacy as a crime expert is his experience working in “corporate security and safety management” at Boston Market (a McDonalds chain), which kinda sounds like “security guard.” And his “what people are saying” page is mostly made up of praise from other Fox reporters."

I would encourage you to read the blog's full writeup on the story, as it also has interesting details about the other attack described in the O'Reilly piece, as well as more information about the supposed "GTO" lesbian violence gang.

Fun with American Bureaucracy!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/cia_leak_trial

Are you kidding me?

I have neither the time nor the patience to write a lot about this, but the things that piss me off most are the fact that:

1) Bush even said, "...a jury of citizens weighed all the evidence and listened to all the testimony and found Mr. Libby guilty of perjury and obstructing justice. They argue, correctly, that our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth. And if a person does not tell the truth, particularly if he serves in government and holds the public trust, he must be held accountable" and then went ahead and did away with his punishment. What the hell is the point of a jury trial, a judge's sentence and the appeals system then? I thought we had a court system set up to handle these sorts of issues. Apparently not.

2) The judge who handed down the sentence is a Bush appointee and made it very clear that the sentence was handed down with the 'overwhelming' evidence against Libby clearly in mind. I just don't get it.

Bush is trying to argue that even though Libby has been freed from having to serve any time in prison, his punishment is still strong because "he will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant and private citizen will be long-lasting." Sorry, George, but a $250,000 fine doesn't mean jack to a career politician.

Maybe I'm just flying off the handle, but this seems like a big pile of grade-A bullshit.

Some Internet Comedy for You.

And, no, it's not from YouTube:

http://www.stophatecrimesnow.com/?host_id=WND

...and you thought election campaign commercials were cheesy.

I found this page through random clicking and surfing from a 2004 picture that purportedly showed Noah's Ark sticking out of the snow on Mt. Ararat. Interesting stuff, to say the least.

Where I eventually ended up, though, was WorldNetDaily.com. The site contains stories such as one that declares Google (the internet search engine site) evil, that the new hate crimes bill in Congress targets Christians and features Chuck Norris (no joke) as a columnist.

Please don't think I'm only singling this site out because it is religious in nature. Much like the events on BG's campus that I pointed out last week, I'm singling this out because of its particular message and means of delivery.

Take, for example, Chuck's latest column. Chuck begins admirably enough, praising the heroes of the Virginia Tech shooting this past week, as we all should. Unfortunately, from there, things go a bit sour. The Texas Ranger then makes the argument that the "secular agenda" is (at least partly) responsible for the shootings, as if a mentally unbalanced kid like Cho needed any help in coming to the decision to take the actions he did. What bothers me most, though, is the way Chuck dismisses "the Buddhist, Muslim and Jew" presenters at the VT convocation and insists that a "return to the God of our founders, Jesus Christ" will take America "back ... to a time when such shocking crimes didn't even exist."

Reading this, I can't help but wonder precisely what time Chuck is talking about. Is he talking about the 1920s? Or maybe he's talking about Biblical times, when the only people who were killed were those pesky groups that God condemned, like the witches (Exodus 22:18) and the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Deuteronomy, Chapters 7 and 20).

It seems to me that the last thing we need is to make a concerted effort to go back to a time when people were commanded to wipe entire races off the face of the earth and leave alive nothing that breathes (Deuteronomy 20:16).  Is Chuck serious?  I guess just about as serious as the article that argues whether or not he's tougher than Bruce Lee.

Again, it's not that I've got a problem with the Christian message, I just wish there was less ignorant, hypocritical junk like this out there.

Anyway, this wasn't meant to be offensive, just my take on a site that's too full of itself to see how ridiculous its own stories are. Carry on.

Intolerance is the New Black.

Well, the College Republicans are at it again.

Yes, the College Republicans, the same group that intended to bring Ann Coulter to our campus, but chose noted educational speaker Ted Nugent instead - and shelled out $12,000 of Student Budget Committee money for him (about 5x as much as the Organization for Women's Issues recieved total.) - has found a new way to make a mockery of themselves.

I just found out that they were involved with the "Genocide Awareness Campaign" (warning - CBR's website contains numerous disturbing photos) that I ranted and raved about earlier this week. Now, as if I should really be surprised by anything they do anymore, I am shocked to learn that, as part of "Conservative Week", they've sponsored another ridiculous and counter-productive event. This is one for the ages, folks.

The group has declared today "Illegal Immigrants, Get out of our Country Day".
Insert disgusted look here.

I was wondering what the hell the deal was when I saw a kid setting up a small circle of chicken wire in the free speech area (Union Oval), and I didn't find out until just now. Ready for this?

What I saw was apparently part of their "Catch an Illegal Immigrant" event. I don't know exactly what it is they're doing, and I'm not sure I want to know. All I know for sure is that they have proven once again why they do not deserve the funding they receive from the SBC. In an article in Monday's BG News, this year's SBC allotments were announced. The College Republicans received a recommendation of $5,250 (still 2x what OWI received last year), and they are not happy.
CR president Dan Lipian apparently sees this allotment as "insulting" and "an absolute disgrace."

No, Dan. What's insulting and disgraceful is that with last year's recommendation of $14,550, the best you could do was bring Ted Nugent to campus to rant about welfare and gun control and sponsor offensive and counter-productive displays such as those we've been graced with this week. What's insulting is that organizations which fight for the rights and recognition of underrepresented groups on campus were able to accomplish far more than yours and do it in a more responsible way with only a fraction of the financial means. OWI received $2,448. Vision - the campus LGBTQ group - only received $3,805 last year to fight for the rights of people who are regularly looked down upon or ignored. You received a gift and wasted it on trash. Shame on you.

These sorts of ridiculous displays do nothing to promote positive discussion or community on our campus and only serve to make people (potential students included) feel unwanted and unwelcome on our campus.

Ethical Reform? Try Again.

Once again, an anti-abortion group (the Center for Bio-ethical Reform -warning: disturbing photos and videos) has deemed it necessary to grace our fine campus with pictures of disfigured fetuses. This time, there's a different twist. They're calling it the "Genocide Awareness Campaign." And this time, they're not driving around in a truck with the pictures on the sides, they're not flying by with a banner hanging from a plane, they've set up shop in the "Designated Free Speech" area in the Union oval. I find this offensive and insulting.

As someone who is against abortion in nearly all cases, even I find it to be in poor taste to pull such a stunt. There is no reason why people walking to class across campus should have to be faced with such images against their will. There are better, more effective ways to prove a point.

Not only are they showing pictures of the results of abortions, they are comparing it to numerous historic 'ethnic cleansing' genocide campaigns. As pedestrians approach the display they first encounter signs that read "Warning: Genocide Photos Ahead." Several of the banners bear symbols of the Nazi movement in Germany. One reads "Different motives, different methods, same results." This banner has a photo of a mass grave from an 'ethnic cleansing' catastrophe in former Yugoslavia next to a picture of the remains of an aborted fetus. I think their own caption really says it all, though, "Different motives, different methods."

Dictionary.com defines genocide as "the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group."
A woman choosing to abort a fetus - for whatever reason - can hardly be equated to the targeted, systematic and willful destruction of an entire group of people. To do so is to insult the intelligence of the average passer-by and to de-emphasize the incredibly tragic and catastrophic nature of such genocide campaigns as the Holocaust, the conflict in Kosovo and the ongoing conflicts in Africa.

Furthermore, the campaign is apparently using the term 'hate crime' to describe the act of abortion. Again, this is a blatant attempt to use a loaded word to sensationalize their demonstration and elicit an emotional response in lieu of an intelligent, informed one. To compare abortion to hate crimes is to do a disservice to those people and families effected by such tragedies as the Matthew Shepard case.

Finally, I find it offensive that the group would engage in such actions for another reason. Imagine if you were someone who had been forced to deal with the decision to abort a pregnancy because the birth would have risked the life of the mother, or if the pregnancy was the result of a rape or similar traumatic abusive experience. Now imagine walking by those images and being reminded not only of the guilt you might feel from the decision, but also the pain of the original experience. Does this seem fair? Does this seem ethical?

I think not.

I think the Center for Bio-ethical Reform needs to seriously re-evaluate its priorities and methods and think very hard about exactly what their display is doing. The goal should be to educate, not to shock and disturb. Coming from someone who falls mostly on the anti-abortion side of the issue, even I find it offensive, and I think if they continue to communicate their message by such means, they risk alienating the very people they are seeking to educate.

Warrantless Domestic Wiretapping

“Warrantless Domestic Wiretapping” -- Just the name screams, "Are you kidding me?" Unbelievably, however, there actually are people who think George Bush has done no wrong with his illegal, court-dodging wiretaps. Color me amazed that there are actually people out there oblivious and blind enough to think this is anything but a terrible breach of FEDERAL LAW and civil liberties.

Honestly, I don't have a problem with domestic wiretaps. I wouldn't have a problem with Bush using them (as long as he had sufficient evidence to prove that they were needed). I wouldn't even have a problem with Bush using them before getting a warrant from the court set up to give such a warrant... as long as he followed the law and applied for a warrant within 72 hours. "[E]mergency provisions in the current law governing such surveillance -- FISA -- ... allow the administration to apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for a search warrant up to 72 hours after the government begins monitoring suspects' phone conversations"*. Instead, the taps have gone on since just after 9/11 with no warrant and no attempt to get one.

Seriously, folks, it's not as if this system regularly denies the president's will. I've found different numbers on the court, but as far as I can tell, the denials to approvals ratio is somewhere near 3:8000. The court, from its inception up until 2003, never denied a request**. Not sure of how many requests there had been up to this point, but that seems like a sure bet to me. Admittedly, the Bush administration has run into a little slow-down from this usual pace, with 6 denials and 179 modifications to its 5,645 requests (most of these changes/denials coming in '03 and '04**), but this should not be surprising. One site that I found (published in 1997, 19 years after the inception of the court [1978***]) stated that the TOTAL number of requests to that point was just over 9,600****. That means that in his 6 years as the president of our country, George Bush has made more than half as many surveillance requests as in the first 19 years of the court. Seems to me like if there was ever a time to start actually reading these requests, this is it. In addition, please, don't tell me that they're just doing it because it's Bush, because he was in office for 3 years before they denied any requests.

Therefore, what we can see here is that Bush's NUMEROUS requests weren't going as smoothly through the stamping line as before, and he simply decided to change the rules. Except he didn't change them, he ignored them like a 6 year old on a playground. In addition, for those sites and news outlets using this as an excuse, the incidence of denials is not an excuse, because this program has been going on since before he had any requests denied (post 9/11 to 2003).

Another thing that bothers me about this issue is that I've heard numerous people and news outlets saying that because a significant number of people think domestic wiretaps are ok, the warrantless wiretaps are therefore OK. Are you serious? Since when are "wiretaps" and "warrantless wiretaps" the same thing? Hell, I'M for wiretaps -- but only if there is significant evidence for it and a warrant is issued by the court that was set up to issue it.

I guess my problem is that this administration seems to have a knack for dodging the rules. I see this going on, I see measures passing through Congress (and similar sentiments from G.W.) that permit states to ignore same-sex marriages granted in other states. Both are clear violations of long standing laws. One is a violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and the other of the CONSTITUTION! ("Full faith and credit" clause - It's the reason heterosexual marriages are universally recognized). Since when was this OK?

Where the hell did everyone's balls go? People were all for impeaching Clinton for having sex in the White House and lying about it, but when President Bush and his party/allies ignore the Constitution and federal law... they're OK with it.

Grow a pair, people (figuratively, or literally... you decide). Take off the red, white and blue headband (proudly purchased 9/12/01!), turn off the Toby Keith CD, pull the darts out of the Dixie Chicks poster and look at what the hell is going on before it's too late.

* = http://mediamatters.org/items/200512240002
** = http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/207543.htm
*** = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act
**** = http://www.refuseandresist.org/big_brother/081097caq.html

Expectancy Violation Theory and Sexual Resistance in the Face of Request Persistence: Try, Try, Try Again

Expectancy Violation Theory and Sexual Resistance in the Face of Request Persistence: Try, Try, Try Again

INTRODUCTION
"It made me feel really bad and confused, because he seemed like he wanted it and then what he wanted and what he showed he wanted were two different things" (Female, 18, personal interview, May 3, 2005). This is just one of many interesting pieces of conversation that I heard during my study. People told me about all kinds of situations in which they experienced sexual resistance in the face of their persistence. Many of the situations sounded typical--some that I could even relate to--but respondents surprised me by speaking of feelings anywhere from pain to happiness. With answers this varied, it would seem that it would be hard to draw any conclusions from them. Fortunately, Expectancy Violation Theory provides an excellent framework by which the data can be coded and analyzed. In this essay, the stories of a number of individuals will be analyzed through the EVT framework in order to understand the effects and consequences of such events more clearly.

POINT OF RESEARCH
In March of 2003, Jennifer L. Bevan’s study Expectancy Violation Theory and Sexual Resistance in Close, Cross-Sex Relationships was published in Communication Monographs. In this study, Bevan measured the effects of sexual resistance on relationships in terms of Expectancy Violation Theory. She measured violation valence, violation importance and violation expectedness. Bevan’s study was one of the first to apply EVT directly to the idea of sexual resistance. While her study did break new ground and shed light on many previously unseen aspects of relationships, Bevan admitted there were certain limitations to her study. One such limitation was that she did not take into account request persistence. In this study, I will explore this same framework specifically in relation to request persistence. I will analyze my data according to the same three categories that Bevan did.
This study is important not only as a way to continue Bevan's research, but also as a way to better understand sexual relationships in general. By using EVT in relation to sexual resistance, we can better understand and predict the effects of certain actions and learn to interact in a healthier, more effective way.

BACKGROUND
In order to understand how sexual resistance relates to Expectancy Violation Theory more clearly, I examined articles about EVT as well as articles about relationships, expectations that come with certain types of relationships, and articles specifically about sexual resistance.
Expectancy Violation Theory states that a violation occurs when behavior differs from what is expected. Sexual compliance may be expected due to heightened levels of intimacy that come with being in a close dating relationship or cross-sex friendship. However, these expectations can be altered through the experience of having previously been resisted. This previous experience of resistance can create a new model of expectations for the advancing individual, which would cause them to expect resistance to their future advances.
Because these two ideas completely refute each other, I decided to look further into the idea of sexual resistance. I explored different types of resistance as well as how members of both sexes respond to them.
Knapp and Vangelisti (1992) point out a piece of information that is of particular importance to this study. In Stages of Coming Together and Coming Apart they state, "The expectations for romantic relationships of today seem to include more physical contact and a greater expression of both positive and negative feelings than people expected fifty years ago" (p. 35). In A Prospective Study of Intraindividual and Peer Influences on Adolescents’ Heterosexual Romantic and Sexual Behavior, Melanie J. Zimmer-Gembeck, Jessica Siebenbruner and W. Andrew Collins (2003) support this statement. They state:

Romantic and sexual interests become increasing salient and common during adolescence. In Western industrialized cultures, young people typically begin heterosocial dating in early or middle adolescence and many have their first experience of sexual intercourse before finishing secondary school. (p. 381)

Here we can see that there is a lot of pressure and expectation that sexual activity will begin in early adolescence. Because the respondents are all college-aged, this information is very relevant. The information implies that sexual compliance would be expected, and therefore sexual resistance would be unexpected. Also, as Knapp and Vangelisti stated, people involved in close, romantic relationships expect more discussion of positive and negative feelings. This could lead one to believe that even if the resistance is expressed--which, upon first glance seems highly negative--it will not be seen as a negative thing because of the expectation of these types of communication. This would mean that in a serious dating relationship, the resistance should be seen as less negative.
One element that weighs heavily on expectations in relationships is the use of token resistance and the stereotypes about it. Token resistance is "refusing or resisting sexual activity while intending to engage in that activity" (Muehlenhard & Rogers, 1998, p. 443). Muehlenhard and Rodgers (1998) discuss this in Token Resistance to Sex: a New Take on an Old Stereotype. They state, "There is both anecdotal and laboratory evidence that some men do not believe women's refusals [to sex]" (p. 444). In addition to this, they also state "some researchers have found that significantly more men than women reported having engaged in token resistance to sexual intercourse," indicating that both men and women commonly engage in token resistance (p. 445). Not only does this second finding negate the old stereotype that only women engage in token resistance, it implies that both genders may expect a sexual advance to succeed regardless of previous refusals. This knowledge implies both that a resisted individual is likely to persist--because of the belief that the resistance is token--and that they would expect their persistent advances to succeed. In other words, upon being resisted the first time, the advancing individual might see the resistance as expected because due to token resistance, but if they believed the original instance was just that, they would most likely expect compliance upon further requests. This means the subsequent resistance would likely be less expected and very possibly more negative than the first.
Solomon and Knobloch (2004) state, "relational turbulence inherently accompanies the redefinition of a relationship as intimate" (p. 796). Given this information, it can be inferred that in a cross-sex friendship, the resistance will be more important than in a dating scenario. Knapp and Vangelisti (1992) state, "The act of sexual intercourse is commonly associated with male-female romantic couples..." (p. 37). Here we see that in a dating relationship, this redefinition is more or less expected, and therefore, less important/impactful, and probably less negative. Taking into account the first reference, it can be inferred that in a cross-sex friendship the violation valence would be more negative because of the sudden, less expected change in the dynamics of the relationship. Similarly, Hanneke de Graaf and Theo G. M. Sandfort (2004) argue that some individuals may perceive close, committed relationships as the proper place for sexual activity to take place. They state, in their article Gender Differences in Affective Responses to Sexual Rejection:

People with less permissive attitudes are more likely to believe that sexual behavior should be something that happens in a meaningful relationship. This applies especially to the more intimate forms of sexual behavior. On the basis of previous research, we expect the condition of a meaningful relationship to be a more central element in the sexual script of women than of men. (p. 396)

This information is further evidence that sexual behavior would be less expected in a cross-sex friendship, and therefore resistance to sexual advances would be more expected. It can also be logically inferred that the step to a sexual level of interaction in a cross-sex friendship would be a large one, and the person initiating the advance might feel that there is a lot at stake. If this "high risk" advance is resisted, it could have disastrous results for the individual's feelings and the relationship overall, therefore the relational importance would be higher and violation valence should be more negative.
de Graaf and Sandfort (2004) continue, stating, "One of the norms of current sexual scripts is mutuality. In situations of sexual rejection this mutuality within intimate encounters is violated. Although sexual rejection is expected to be a negative experience for both men and women, the encounter could elicit positive emotions as well" (p. 395). While they do admit the possibility of positive reactions to sexual resistance, de Graaf and Sandfort argue that a negative response is expected. One partner expects that what they are feeling is mutual, and when they find out different, they react negatively. It can be assumed from this that persistent resistance would only illicit an even more negative response.

HYPOTHESIS
Taking into account this background information, and the fact that we are only looking at request persistence, a few hypotheses can be made:
H1: If sexual advances persist in the face of resistance, the resistance will be seen as a) less expected, b) more negative and c) more important than the first instance.
Because the individuals being asked are in their (late) teenage years, sexual compliance is expected as argued by Zimmer-Gembeck et. al. (2003), the resistance should be seen as unexpected, especially because this resistance occurs more than once. Also, as stated by de Graaf and Sandfort, reactions to sexual resistance are expected to be negative. Considering that we are looking at request persistence, it can be predicted that the second event of resistance would be more negative. Given that the resistance would be more negative and unexpected, it follows that it would be more relationally important.
H2: In the friendship scenario, the resistance (second instance) will be seen as a) more expected, b) more negative and c) more important overall than in the dating scenario.
When involved in a dating relationship, individuals may expect sexual compliance more than in a friendship, as previously referenced. This means that if a sexual advance is resisted in a dating relationship or "romantic couple", it will be more of an expectancy violation than in a cross-sex friendship. However, because sexual behavior is more expected (and accepted) in a dating relationship, an individual being advanced upon in a cross-sex friendship may not expect it, and it may completely change the dynamics of the friendship. Therefore, the violation valence should be more negative and the violation importance should be higher in a cross-sex friendship situation.

METHODOLOGY
Participants
There were five respondents questioned in all. Two of their stories involved dating situations and three involved cross-sex friendship situations. All respondents were either 18 or 19 years of age. The respondents consisted of two males and three females. The respondents were all students at a university in northwestern Ohio. As mentioned in the previously, all respondents stated that they had either had sexual intercourse or were 'sexually active' in some way.

General Procedures
After reading over Muehlenhard and Rodgers (1998) study, in which narrative criticism was selected in order to avoid confusing survey questions, I decided to use it as well. Because it gives the subjects the chance to tell the story in their own words with minimal restrictions, it helped me get a better feel for the emotional significance of the events.
Narrative, as defined by Sonja K. Foss (1989) in Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice, is "the representation of at least two events or situations in a time sequence ... a way of ordering and presenting a view of the world through a description of a situation involving characters, actions and settings that changes over time" (p. 229). In order to practice narrative criticism, Foss states, one must analyze substance and form, and ultimately evaluate the narrative itself. For the purposes of this study, however, the overall analysis of the narrative was not necessary, and was therefore bypassed in order to save time.

Research Design
In keeping with these definitions and practices, I asked all of the subjects to tell me, in narrative form, about a time when they were sexually resisted and they persisted. In order to accurately measure the differences between both instances, I required than the second instance also be one of resistance. Once I had each of their stories, I analyzed the order of events, who was involved, what the overall setting of the narrative was, how the elements of the story related, and what themes were presented, as instructed by Foss. Following that, I analyzed the events described, determining what were important elements--or "kernels"--and what were unimportant--"satellites" (Foss, 1989, p. 233). The "kernels" were then coded according to the three categories laid out in Bevan's (2003) study. Each one was analyzed for elements of violation expectedness, violation valence and violation importance.
First, the age and gender of all subjects were recorded. Then, each of the subjects was asked if they had ever had sexual intercourse. The respondents who had not were asked no further questions. This was done because, as Bevan (2003) explained, they "may not have had the capacity or experience to place themselves into ... sexual resistance scenarios" (p. 80). Subjects were instructed to describe a situation in which they were resisted upon making a sexual advance and then persisted. They were to describe how they felt about the initial resistance and then describe their feelings about the reaction to their next request. The second instance was required to be a situation in which they were denied as well, in order to facilitate connections between the data. Their description was to be given in story format. Some additional questions were asked in order to clarify the data.
Notes were taken about each story and then analyzed in accordance with Jennifer Bevan's original study. Each story was interpreted in terms of violation valence, violation expectedness and violation importance. The original instance of resistance was interpreted first and then the second attempt was analyzed.

DATA
In terms of violation expectedness, first episodes of resistance were described as at least somewhat unexpected, and in three of the cases they were described as "very unexpected". For the second (or more) instance(s) of resistance, three of the five cases were reported as being less expected than the first. The other two, while still unexpected, were more expected than the first time. In the cross-sex friendships, resistance was described as "somewhat expected" in two of three cases for the initial instance, and "less expected" in two of three cases for the second instance. In dating relationships, the first resistance was described as unexpected in both cases. As for the second (or more) instance(s), they were described as more expected in one case and less expected in the other.
In terms of violation valence, four of five cases were described as negative the first time, and three of those four reported that the following instances were more negative. Specifically speaking of cross-sex friendships, all of the initial instances were described as negative and the following instances were described as being more negative than the first. In dating relationships, the first instance was described as positive by one respondent and negative by the other. In both cases, however, the degree to which they were seen as positive or negative decreased with each subsequent instance.
In terms of violation importance, all but one respondent described the original resistance as being substantially important to the relationship. Three of five respondents described the following instances as being more important than the first. In cross-sex friendships, two of three respondents described the resistance as being substantially important, while one said it was not very important. Nevertheless, in all three cases the later instances were seen as being more important than the first. For dating relationships, the first instances were seen as more important to the relationship and the second (or more) instances were seen as less important.
Many respondents said that the resistance caused an "awkward" feeling in the relationship. In one of the situations described, the cross-sex friendship ended, while in the others it continued, but became slightly more distant.
One interesting phenomenon was that in the case of dating relationships, both subjects reported multiple attempts, rather than just two as was reported in all three friendship scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS
Hypothesis One
Hypothesis 1 predicted that if sexual advances persist in the face of resistance, the resistance would be seen as a) less expected, b) more negative and c) more important than the first instance.
The analyzed and coded narratives indicated that indeed in the majority of cases, the second instance was more of an expectancy violation than the first. The data also shows that in the majority (three of five) cases, the second instances were described as being more negative than the first. Finally, the same results were found for violation importance. Three of five respondents described the second instances as being more relationally important than the first instance. This data is consistent with all parts of H1.

Hypothesis Two
Hypothesis 2 predicted that in the friendship scenario the resistance (second instance) would be seen as a) more expected, b) less negative and c) less important overall than in the dating scenario.
As stated in the previous paragraph, respondents who reported persistent resistance in dating relationships qualified the resistance as being unexpected more often than did the respondents resisted in cross-sex friendships. In terms of violation valence, however, all instances that occurred in cross-sex friendships were described as being more negative, whereas only one instance in a dating relationship was, and the following instance was less negative than the first. Finally, in dating relationships the second instances were all (three of three) seen as more important than the first, whereas in dating relationships, both were seen as less important than the first. This data is consistent with all parts of H2.

DISCUSSION
Taking into account the findings of this study, it is clear that both members in a cross-sex friendship need to make their expectations about sexual behavior very clear, otherwise, the results could be devastating to the friendship. One partner could end up thinking their feelings are mutual, only to find out (at the worst possible time), they are mistaken. This does not mean that dating relationships are free from danger. If boundaries are not set and expectations are not discussed, multiple instances of rejection may alienate one member of the relationship and cause an irreversible rift between relationship partners. However, as evidenced by one respondent's description, in cases where relationship expectations are set and resistance is explained, the resistance can actually have a positive effect. The respondent in question stated, "I think it made our relationship stronger because we respected each other more than another couple would" (Female, 18, personal interview, May 4, 2005). Here we can see the importance and positive effect that communication of expectations and desires can have on a relationship. This element is the reason why this study is important. If more people understand the possibility for this positive outcome, then they might be able to have much healthier relationships.

LIMITATIONS
One important limitation was the size of the sample group. Far more subjects would be needed in order to make concrete conclusions, but such a large sample size would have been difficult if not impossible due to the nature of the study and the time available. In the future, a much larger group should be sampled and the method should be revised so that it can be conducted in a timelier manner. I do believe that narrative criticism is a good method for this study because it enables the respondent to be much more specific about their emotions. The problem lies in its time consuming nature.
Another limitation is that the pool of possible respondents is narrowed by the nature of the study. Because only people who have had sufficient sexual experience and have experience recurring resistance qualified, the number of available subjects was greatly limited. Another factor that contributed to this problem was that I had limited access to subjects. Due to time constraints, I was only able to pull from a small section of the population, in fact, only residents of one hall on the campus. In future studies, a wider area should be surveyed to ensure a representative sample.
One very interesting limitation is that some potential respondents stated that they had never experienced sexual resistance of any kind. While unlikely, a surprising number of people responded in this manner, thus disqualifying them from the study.

References
Bevan, J. L. (2003). Expectancy Violation Theory and Sexual Resistance in Close, Cross-Sex Relationships. Communication Monographs, 70(1), 68.

de Graaf, H., & Sandfort, G. (2004). Gender Differences in Affective Responses to Sexual Rejection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33(4), 395.

Foss, S. (1989). Rhetorical criticism: exploration & practice. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Knapp, M., & Vangelisti, A. (2004). Interpersonal communication and human relationships. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Muehlenhard, C. L., & Rodgers, S. (1998). Tokean Resistance to Sex. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(3), 443.

Solomon, D. H., & Knobloch, K. (2004). A model of relational turbulence: The role of intimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners in appraisals of irritations. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 21(6), 795.

Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Siebenbruner, J., & Collins, W. A. (2004). A Prospective Study of Intraindividial and Peer Influences on Adolescents' Heterosexual Romantic and Sexual Behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 33(4), 381.

Finding Solutions

All around the world people are participating in a practice called peer-to-peer filesharing. They are trading music, videos and files freely amongst each other. Who would’ve thought something like this would cause such uproar? In its relatively short life in the spotlight, file-sharing has caused jubilation among rebelling music consumers, anger among top record executives and a flurry of proposed solutions from all sides. So how do we choose a solution? Is there a solution that will work, or will music downloaders keep sharing regardless of the industry’s efforts? Whatever happens, we need to actively seek out plausible, user-friendly solutions in order to make file-sharing work for everyone.
"File-sharing", in its most basic definition, would be described as the sharing of electronic data over computer connections. The more specific definition which is the topic of this paper is peer-to-peer music sharing. Peer-to-peer is different from traditional file-sharing in that there is no central network; users connect directly to one another and swap files freely. These will both be referred to as file sharing in this paper, for the sake of convenience. "Intellectual property" is defined on Dictionary.com as "a product of the intellect that has commercial value..." This is a large part of the record industry's argument against file-sharing, as will be explained later. "Pay-for-play services" are those that charge a subscription fee or a small surcharge for users to download music. Some charge per song, some per album, and some just the subscription rate. This is another solution that will be explained later. iTunes is a program/service combination from Apple that allows the legal downloading of music files. The files can be downloaded for 99 cents apiece and then can be played on Apple’s iPod player.
One solution that has been proposed- and already tried by the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) -is suing the music sharers for copyright infringement. The record industry argues that file-sharing violates the intellectual property rights of the artists who produce the music, because no royalty is paid and the artist receives no compensation for the acquisition of the song. The industry seems to think that attacking the people that listen to music is the way to win them back. Seems like a confusing strategy.
Gitlin (2004) states, “On April 28th, the Recording Industry Association of America sued 477 more people for illegally downloading music, bringing the total number of lawsuits filed to more than 2,000.” (p. 16) The purpose of this barrage of lawsuits is to scare people into wanting to buy music instead of facing the risk of downloading. This is a shaky argument at best. Scare tactics are not a very consumer friendly approach.
This may end up being the worst possible move the industry could have made. Instead of forcing downloaders back to purchasing music, it may just force them to be more covert about it. The people who run the downloading services and the sharers themselves are turning to 128 bit encryption to protect themselves. Salkever (2004) states, "The RIAA's newest legal assault on file swappers is pushing them to encrypted networks, where the damage could become catastrophic." This could be catastrophic because once encrypted, it will be nearly impossible for the RIAA to find the users in order to prosecute them. If the RIAA is not careful, they may end up digging a hole they can’t get out of.
Setting up legitimate pay-for-play services as an alternative to illegal peer-to-peer sites is another solution that has been worked on. Many companies see this as the way to go because it gives an alternative to illegal downloading without threatening or hurting their customers. This looks like a great way to get people to stop downloading and start buying.
Olson (2003) quotes Matt Kleinschmit, the director of a major research firm as saying, "For the longest time, the industry has questioned whether there was a way to make money selling music online, especially in light of P2P [peer-to-peer services]. (p. 43)" Many people agree with Kleinschmit, wondering if people will want to download legally with free downloads still available. Taylor (2003) believes this will not be a problem. He states that even though free options exist, in just the first week after Apple’s iTunes was made available for PC users, they alone had "downloaded a million copies of the software and paid for a million songs (adding to the 14 million music downloads already made by Mac users)"(p. 66). Apple’s “iTunes” service could be just the solution labels and consumers alike are looking for, Taylor (2003) states. With lower prices than buying CDs and less danger than downloading, everyone could find a safe haven in this service.
My idea is to package CDs with other materials in order to make them a more attractive option to consumers. It may drive up costs of production a little, but I think in the long run it would encourage CD sales even among those who previously downloaded for free. People who really like music tend to want merchandise such as t-shirts, posters, stickers or DVDs as well. If music retailers began packaging CDs with things like this there would be more reason for people to spend the money (maybe even pay more) to get CDs rather than just downloading the songs. It's not possible to download a shirt, and nobody wants a cheap home-made poster.
One example of this idea that has already been tried many times with quite a bit of success is releasing special editions of CDs that come with live DVDs or DVDs featuring videos. This is definitely a step in the right direction. When the CD is released and then a special edition is released with DVD content, some people even buy both versions. The record industry needs to take notice of this.
Another thing that could help with this idea is a new technology in the works called DualDisc. Walsh (2004) states, “DualDisc is a standard audio CD on one side. Flip it over, and it's a DVD that allows high-resolution, surround sound audio; video; ROM capability; and such additional content as lyrics, still photos, biographies and discographies. Special playback equipment is not required to access the discs' content." Many bands and labels have already released albums in this format, some included are bands like Linkin Park, AC/DC, AudioSlave and Good Charlotte (Goddard, 2004). People always want the newest technology and CDs packaged with DVD content have been a big draw since the practice of releasing them first started. If the record industry takes full advantage of this new technology they may be able to salvage their sales somewhat.
While there are many choices for solutions to combat the problem of illegal file-sharing, the most successful so far seems to be pay-for-play services such as Apple's "iTunes". It has already been proven that people are willing to pay at least 99 cents per download for music, and the system's few bugs are already in the process of being worked out. Everyone is searching for the vessel that will carry us into the future of music distribution and listening, and the easy to use technology of iTunes and other legitimate downloading services seem to be the best solution.
The argument will probably still go on that people will continue illegal downloading because it is free, but a million downloads by PC users in their first week of iTunes use cannot be ignored, and will not be. The record industry, computer technology companies and consumers are all taking notice of this new factor in the music world, and they'd better all be ready to adapt to it, because it isn't going anywhere.
Regardless of what solution is chosen, file-sharing is now a large part of our culture, and there is no turning back. The record industry would have been smart to adapt to the new technology while it was still up-and-coming, but they missed that boat, and now it's all about playing catch up. These ideas are some of the main solutions, but in the end, the changing face of technology may end up presenting a completely different idea to fix the problem. Whatever happens, we all need to keep our eyes peeled. At the rate technology is going, we may miss something important, just like the record companies did.


Works Cited

Gitlin, L., McDonell-Parry A., Smith K. L, and Telling, G. (2004). In the news. Rolling Stone, (949), 16.

Goddard, B. (2004). Dualdisc - the hybrid cd/dvd disc high fidelity review feature story (part one). retrieved Nov. 19, 2004, from High Fidelity Review Web site: http://www.highfidelityreview.com/features/dualdisc.asp.

Olson, C. A.A. (2003). If you sell it, they will buy. Billboard, 115(23), 43.

Salkever, A. (2004). Big music's worst move yet. Business Week Online, . Retrieved Oct 07, 2004, from http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=cookie,ip,url,uid&db=aph&an=12103155

Taylor, C. (2003). The 99¢ solution. Time, 162(20), 66-70.

Walsh, C., Newman, M., & Christman E. (2004). Dual disc arrives in fall. Billboard, 116(36), 7-8.