Psychology 277 Final Exam

PSY 277

Final Exam Essay Questions:

1. For this question I have placed two reoccurring questions/concepts side-by-side for your discussion.

1. Should prostitution be legalized? (10 Points)

2. Should teens coerced into prostitution through sex trafficking be arrested for solicitation/prostitution? (10 points)  

In my personal opinion, prostitution should be legalized, taxed, and regulated.  Many other countries have legalized prostitution, and this allows them to keep the prostitute free from STIs and abuse from clients.  Legalization will require the use of condoms, regular STI testing, and taxes to flow into the economy.  Keeping prostitution illegal and enforced only serves to keep the workers from being able to report serious crimes (like rape and abuse from clients), it doesn’t mandate STI testing which could lead to STI outbreaks among workers and johns, and it loses a large amount of money that could have gone back into the economy. Seidman seems to agree with this position stating that “I am persuaded by the argument that sex work involves skill and that selling sex is not necessarily degrading” (Seidman S. 2015. p. 260).  Though arguments have been made that sex work keeps women in a system of male dominance, I believe that legalization will transfer some of that power onto the workers, as seen in Nevada, where brothel workers state that they feel safe at work. (Rathus, S. A., Nevid, J. S., & Fichner-Rathus, L., 2018. p. 517)

                It is my personal opinion that if we legalized prostitution on a national level, we wouldn’t have to deal with arresting girls who are trafficked into brothels, negating the question altogether.  Our text states that, “If prostitution is legalized, society gains income tax revenue that would have otherwise been lost.  Granted, legalizing the profession might make it attractive for sex traffickers but the benefits outweigh this prospect” (Rathus, S. A., et. al. 2018. p. 526). I happen to agree with this position.  Women who are trafficked into prostitution would not have to fear arrest at all in a legal economy.  It is hard to pick out the girl who has been trafficked, but with legal prostitution, it would be easier to spot the girls who consented to the lifestyle instead of the girls who are trafficked, though I do not feel it would be any easier to get them out of that arrangement, mainly because the trafficker uses threats and emotional abuse to keep the girls in line.

What is the FBI’s take on Sex Trafficking?

Enter the FBI web, www.fbi.gov, then type in the search box upper right-hand corner – Sex Trafficking. Discuss these two questions individually. Do not make one large paragraph     Discuss these two concepts based or research and present laws, cite the text and other sources (Seidman), and the FBI web-page (again, www.fbi.gov).  (10 points)

The Federal Bureau of Investigation takes human trafficking very seriously, having opened more than 360 cases on trafficking in fiscal year 2012 (www.fbi.gov. p. 1). They not only look for victims of sex trafficking but also those who do not participate in sexual activities, such as housekeepers. To the FBI, human trafficking is a human civil rights issue, with victims being “bought, sold, and smuggled like modern-day slaves, often beaten, starved, and forced to work as prostitutes or take jobs as migrant, domestic, restaurant, or factory workers with little or no pay” (p.1). Though the 2000 Trafficking Victims Protection Act, it is still a challenge to aid victims of trafficking.

1.     Comment on the social concept of sexuality per the text by Seidman. Sex is a social engagement that relies on culture, language, norms, customs, and one’s identity as a sexual being. From Seidman, (1) choose one chapter that you really liked and related to; and (2) one that you did not agree with all. Be specific and cite your source per APA  (20 points)

The social concept of sexuality is a topic discussed at great length in the book “The social construct of sexuality” by Steven Seidman. After having read the book, I would say that I least agree with his chapter on BDSM (pp. 243-252). I thought it was a very negative position to take on what can be a very wonderful act between two (or more) consenting adults. I thought the book to be very sex negative and did not agree with many of his positions. Sex can be a wonderful act. He focused more on the consequences of sex than the benefits and I disagreed with him heartily. While I found him to be sex negative, I agreed with him many times. In the chapter on Heterosexuality (pp. 43-54), Seidman treats heterosexuality the same as we treat homosexuality. I greatly appreciated the tone of this chapter and the ending quote, “(M)ore and more Americans will look for a nonhomophobic ways to establish a boundary between being straight and being gay” (p. 54). He was unusually positive about the state of gay relations in this country and I appreciated the effort, even if the other chapters didn’t share that positivity.

-----------------
Grade: 100/100
Professor Comments: Very nicely done Kathleen; best wishes as you move over to ASU for your upper level classes. Great having you in class; enjoyed your CJ especially.

Psychology 277 - Personal Sex Policy

Personal Sexual Policy

Psychology 277

December 5, 2018

Infidelity/Adultery

I am a person of honesty before I am anything else.  My husband and I have a secret pact, a contract, if you will, where we outlined the boundaries of our relationship.  On our first date, I asked him to provide me with radical honesty in all things.  Sex was one of the first topics to come up and the conversation about sex flowed freely.  In the past six years, we have had innumerable conversations about our sex life and the boundaries we observe.  One such boundary involves marital fidelity.  Having been in an open relationship prior to this one, I know for myself that sexual infidelity is something I am able to deal with and is not a “deal breaker.” The deal breaker for me is the lie, not the sex.  We agreed to be open if we choose to have sex with other people and never to hide our desires. 

Knowing the main causes of infidelity (biological drive), and that most women pursue emotional infidelity, while men pursue sexual novelty (Rathus, S. A., Nevid, J. S., & Fichner-Rathus, L., 2018. p. 370), it is less challenging to accept a small infidelity in a relationship than it is to be jealous and closed off when acknowledging that there is a biological drive to seek out new partners.  While my husband has yet to stray and, indeed, credits the ability to express crushes without fear of reprisal as the main key to keeping him monogamous, I also am aware that it is hard to remain completely monogamous for a 40+ year marriage with the biological drives to spread your seed.  I am a fan of the Seattle columnist, Dan Savage, who calls this event of a rare moment of infidelity in a long-term relationship “Monogam-ish” (Oppenheimer, M. 2011.) and refuses to condemn people in otherwise successful marriages who have a lapse in fidelity. 

Legally, infidelity may still be a taboo, if not legally punishable, topic.  In years past, it was illegal to commit adultery and was one of the few reasons for divorce prior to the no-fault divorce.  Though Rathus states that a very large percentage of marital partners remain monogamous (90% of women and 75% of men – Rathus, et. al. p. 371), the possibility of infidelity is still taboo, and it can still be illegal.  There are still adultery laws on the books for the state of Arizona. Violation of ARS 13-707 is a class 3 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail, a $500 fine, and 1 year of probation (Jackson White Attorneys at Law, 2018; and AZLeg.gov. 2018). Seidman goes on to state,

The state criminalizes certain desires, acts, and identities; it regulates which sexual selves gain entry into the nation and which are refused; it monitors media representations through  authorizing federal agencies to set standards for public talk and images; and with the force of law the state has sanctioned the exclusively heterosexual character of marriage. (Seidman, S. 2015. p. 169)

               

                In short, infidelity and adultery are considered socially inexcusable actions by monogamous people and the law.  However, as Rathus goes on to state, there are many different kinds of infidelity, some considered worse than others.  He states that there is “conventional adultery,” where the partner is unaware of the infidelity, “consensual adultery,” where the partner knows what is happening (as in the case of myself and my husband), and “swinging” or partner swapping (p.371). I only have a problem with the lie that happens when a partner enters into “conventional adultery,” not the actual act itself.  That is my personal sexual policy on infidelity.

References

Rathus, S. A., Nevid, J. S., Fichner-Rathus, L., (2018) Human Sexuality in a Changing World. New York, NY.

     Pearson

Seidman, S. (2015). The Social Construction of Sexuality. (Third Edition). New York, NY: W. W. Norton &

     Company.

Oppenheimer, M., (2011, June 30) Married, with Infidelities. Retrieved from

     https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/magazine/infidelity-will-keep-us-together.html

Jackson White Attorneys at Law (2018) Is Adultery Illegal in Arizona? Retrieved from

     https://www.jacksonwhitelaw.com/arizona-family-law/adultery-illegal-arizona/

Arizona State Legislature (2013) Misdemeanors; Sentencing. Retrieved from

     https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00707.htm

------------------
Grade: 26/30
Professor Comments: Paper was to have four heading in which Adultery or Infidelity could have been on such topic. 

Philosophy 101 - Final Term Paper

Philosophy 101

December 1, 2018

Term Paper

            Many philosophers have questioned the existence of God over the years.  Does God exist?  Is God dead? From Buddah and the Sophists to Thomas Aquinas and Friedrich Nietzsche, the topic of God’s existence has been questioned and debated since the beginnings of philosophy.  As the first humans began to orient themselves into ever larger groups that stayed in a single location for generations, they began to have societies based on deities related to earthly materials, actions, emotions, amongst other experiences that needed explaining so that humanity could thrive. Eventually, the notion God became the dominant force throughout much the modern world. While God is an entrenched force, a similar idea has continuously been parallel to God and that there is simply no God. This question has mostly been unrefuted throughout the text by various philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas and Immanual Kant. Yet some philosophers have had success in at least pushing the conversation of questioning whether God exists, like Friedrich Nietzsche. It is also wise to remember that because God has affected so much of humanity, that is important to remember the affects it has on an informed individual in today’s modern society and look at how the belief in God has affected how humanity has changed over time.

            

          Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225-1274) believed that he could prove the existence of God using his infamous Five Ways.  The first Way is Motion, which states that an object is put into motion only by something else that is already moving (p. 225). The second Way is Cause, which states that “in order to cause itself, a thing would have to precede itself.” (p. 226) The third Way is Necessity, which can be summed up as, “Our existence is contingent, dependent on something else.” (p. 227) These arguments don’t prove or disprove God as a loving and compassionate deity, but merely restate Aristotle’s ideas on nature, which also failed to describe a God.  The fourth Way is Degree.  Degree is a metaphysical argument about “the hierarchy of souls,” (p. 228) meaning that everything that is living belongs in a linear progression from smallest to largest, from the smallest life form through the angels and up to God (p. 228). The final Way, the fifth Way, can be described as the “Intelligent Design” argument that we already know from conservatives in the United States.  This Way discusses how humanity is so complex and unknown that we needed to be created from something with a higher intelligence (p. 230).

Rene Descartes (1596-1650) argued that because there is a belief in God, a God must exist (p. 262-263).  One cannot think up a higher power without an actual higher power giving them the thought.  He goes on to say, “(A)lthough it may be the case that one idea gives birth to another idea, that cannot continue to do so indefinitely.” (p. 262) Descartes rejected the Five Ways provided by Thomas Aquinas because he felt like one cannot simplify God into a series of arguments about how the physical realm can prove (or disprove) God’s existence.  Indeed, Descartes argues that we cannot quantify God into anything other than thought.  The mere fact that we can think about a higher power means that a higher power must exist, according to him. 

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) believed himself to be the first person to know that God is dead.  What he meant by this is that faith should be replaced with scientific knowledge, because “authentic faith in God is not possible in the modern world.” (p. 468-469) Nietzsche believed that religion was dying out and eventually would be replaced with science. He believed Darwin’s theory of evolution and spoke of Copernicus and Galileo as having changed the path of religion towards scientific discovery.  Nietzsche argued that “the universe lacks objective meaning and purpose.” (p. 470)

Rabbi Chana Johnson believes in God and believes that there is no way to empirically prove that God exists or doesn’t exist. “God is in everything,” she stated. While she believes that the scholars were attempting to quantify a metaphysical reality, she believes that God can only be felt within, not quantified with science. “Science and religion could exist peacefully if they’d both realize that there are gaps in each that can only be answered by the other.”

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy published an article by C. Stephen Evans listing the five most common arguments for morality or worth in their article.  Evans referenced philosophers throughout history who argued that morality cannot exist without a higher power, such as Imannuel Kant, Robert Adams, and Richard Swinberg. The last philosopher stated that if a deity exists at all, “(God has) significant reason to bring about conscious beings with moral awareness.” (p. 7) Indeed “If God exists, God is the reason why there is a natural world and the reason for the existence of the causal processed of the natural world.” (p. 8)

I personally do not think that God can be quantified, and I am not a fan of “Intelligent Design” as an argument. I think that Thomas Aquinas and Rene Descartes were trying to scientifically prove a theological argument that has no scientific proof.  While I agree with Aquinas, Descartes, and Rabbi Johnson that God is real, and disagree with Nietzsche that God is dead, my only proof cannot be pulled out and empirically evaluated. It exists in a realm that science cannot define or sense.  That is how I approached the scholarly article. For me, I personally agree with the scholarly article when it says, “If God exists at all, God is not an entity within the natural world but the creator of that natural world, with all of its causal processes.” (p. 8) That sums up my own view.  

In Conclusion, there is more than one way to approach the idea of whether God exists. Some philosophers, like Rene Descartes and Thomas Aquinas, who proclaimed that God does exist without a shadow of a doubt. While others, such as Friedrich Nietzsche would argue against the idea of the existence of God. Others around them are also important to helping understand of whether God exists. Philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas, Rene Descartes, and modern philosophers like Robert Adams and Erik Wielenberg all want to empirically prove the existence of a being we cannot see, hear, taste, or touch using scientific thought.  Still others, such as Friedrich Nietzsche will claim God does not exist. I personally prefer to believe in God, no matter the consequences.

Word Count: 1,083

References

Soccio, Douglas J. Archetypes of Wisdom (9^th edition). Cengage Learning. 2016

Johnson, Chana. Personal Interview. 21 November 2018

Evans, C. Stephen, "Moral Arguments for the Existence of God", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/moral-arguments-god/>.

-----------------

Grade: 35/35

Professor Comments: Good summation on the chosen theme.