Ladies & Gentleman Essay Example for Free

Ladies Gentleman Essay The point was about the term â€Å"ladies and gentlemen. † It would be easy to think of upper class women in flashy dresses and extravagant hats and men in tailcoats and top hats when talking about ladies and gentlemen. However, one of my goals when using the terms is to make their definitions much more than mere appearance, if appearance at all. This modernization of the terms helps bring the definition into the current century and throw away the traditional and very close-minded definition. It is for this reason that I believe being a lady or gentleman is based on personality, how a person treats others, I speak for most people who use the term â€Å"ladies and gentlemen† in reference to a person’s conduct, not a person’s class, social standing, race, sexuality. Some, when faced with the terms â€Å"ladies and gentlemen,† will immediately assume the worst by using the outdated definitions. Some will also dig for reasons to label those who use â€Å"ladies and gentlemen†. In labeling us this way, these people do not facilitate any sort of progress for the terms or for any sort of unity for women, or men, ladies or gentleman. We live where we ought to not judge people by the color of their skin, their class, gender, or sexuality, with all of this, there are still groups who refuse to take off their blinders. Ladies and Gentleman, now there is a saying that has been with us for a long time, but what does it really mean and where did it come from? Let’s start with the ladies as we all have been known to do in the century we live in today to always allow ladies to be first. The term ladies could mean many different things to many different cultures so let’s get the one that is primarily recognized by all. There are numerous definitions of a lady and I am sure that we all have varied opinions of what a lady is, but here is a few from the dictionary. â€Å"Chiefly British A general feminine title of nobility and other rank, specifically, Used as the title for the wife or widow of a knight or baronet. Used as a form of address for a marchioness, countess, viscounts, baroness, or baronets’. Used as a form of address for the wife or widow of a baron. Used as a courtesy title for the daughter of a duke, a marquis, or an Earl. Used as a courtesy title for the wife of a younger son of a duke or marquis† (Ladies, n. . ). To discuss gentleman, as in reference to ladies is an entirely different topic but closely related . However to separate them is almost UN heard of in this society we live in today. The writer here feels it of necessity to come up with a definition of what is a gentleman where did this term come from. The definition of what the dictionary states is :, A man of gentle or noble birth or superior social position: Hes too much a gentleman to be a scholar†, Used as a form of address for a group of men (gentleman, n. . ). Now we have a general idea of what a Ladies and a gentleman Are, let’s put them together to get a better understanding of â€Å"Ladies and Gentleman†. To take a look at them individually is one aspect to consider but let’s look at what a well rounded person is first and foremost prior to becoming a Lady or a gentleman. IUomo Universal Literally, â€Å"universal Man† a self reliant, multitalented, freethinking individual â€Å"(Sayre H 2008-2012). From the art work to the poetry of art and even the given philosophy that was all just a cultural part of growing with the ages was known to make Ladies and gentleman and primarily a humanist in all forms of the century. It was certain beliefs and attitudes to help make people what is universally known as well rounded . However the importance from education to cultural practices from philosophy made them who they were and their practice of becoming ladies and gentleman. In a survey conducted I was able to poll ten people and from vary ages and backgrounds. Although they all had varies opinions on what a lady and what a gentleman is. It was a little redundant on what the ladies had to say concerning their definitions, and what the men had in their responses. The simple fact from the ladies side was mostly about the dress of a lady and how they carried themselves in public. However on the men’s side of the scenario it was mostly about them being of a maternal instinct, and mannerisms of a lady one being polite, sincere and genially whole. However when it came to the Gentleman part of this survey it was all about having decent employment and being a good provider, and once again a good father figure. Funny as it seems this was from both the male and the female’s opinion. My age bracket was from one, my son who is twenty one, to my neighbor who is in their sixties. The ladies were a woman in their mid twenties to my mother in her late seventies. Their vocations were that of manufacturing to one of a professional woman a teacher. However it was an interesting fact when I asked these questions to my girl who was brought up well as she calls it blue blood, or if you will high society and her idea’s and experiences being brought up to be a lady. The fact that she was taught to courtesy in her early years and to have proper mannerisms of that type of upbringing to be able to be presented to other able blue blooded men at eighteen for a possible mate to ensure of proper breeding from their bloodline was somewhat a crazy response to my questions on being a lady or a gentleman. Therefore to some things up and to suggest whether or not I agree with Castiglione and his descriptions of a woman and that of a man or should we say a lady and a gentleman? To be or not to be the real question, a woman, lady or man or gentleman. Therefore I will share my opinions on the positives, I see fit and the negatives that I believe could be harmful to ones general character. To be born out of nobility would be an awesome deal but when and where we were born and the freedom of choice in our upbringing is one I am a little half and half on if that makes sense, in other words I do believe it is wonderful to be born with your parents and having them part of your life to help guide you, and to prevent errors in their culture to help make you a well rounded person. However to feel that a judgment is made upon you from whose family you were born into and how you were to dress and what reactions one would have towards you because of your nobility at birth and being told you believe this way or that way I feel is wrong. Therefore to be judgmental of the skin the dress and down to the language and how it is spoken to others and to deem their worthiness by a person’s size is a little farfetched but perhaps in that century the judgment rang true of a person’s actions be it male or female. To be a lady who plucks eyebrows or powders their face, or to be a wanton women to honest men or I believe the proper term here is harlot. Men of good posture and build for fighting wars or one whom is of a cowardice nature, but what of those men who flatly just did not measure up to the standards of a fighter for wars. In our society today we are somewhat powerless of what our physical stature is to become and therefore almost impossible to say what we will become and surely plays an important role in the attitude towards that.

How to Masturbate :: essays research papers

Creative Masturbation Contraptions and Techniques: Cotton Balls Put glitter on the outside too to make it look pretty: Take a roll of toilet paper or paper towels (depending on what's more comfortable for you), put glue on the inside, then stuff it with cotton balls. You'll have yourself a nice sex toy, all you have to do is put your cock in and go for it. ------------------------------------------ Mummified Wanking Even better if you can find a nurse to help with the prep work: Stroke until you get hard then "lightly" (or as tight as you want) wrap an ace bandage around your cock. Round and round you go, until you wrap it all the way around. You now have a perfectly shaped "tube pussy". Once that is complete, gently remove your dick from the bandage, take a condom (or latex glove), anything rubber and smooth. Stick your dick into the hole where your cock was. Pull the edges out around the bandage and get a rubber band.. Put it around the edge to keep the latex item in place. After that, lube up your dick and have a blast! It's tight, just like a real cunt. For best results, put a pillow under and over the bandage; sandwich it while you fuck it. Also, it's a no-mess situation.. Fuck the shit out of it, cum in it. then just throw the condom or latex item away.. The bandage will keep it's form for future use. ------------------------------------------ Balloon magic Nice: Get about four or five balloons. Fill them with warm, not hot, water. Tie the ends so water will not squeeze out. Take a pillow; roll it up like a tube and tie a string around it or even use your belt. Push the warm water balloons into the opening of the pillow tube. Your fleshy warm vagina is almost ready. Take a small plastic kitchen trash can bag. Push it in between the balloons in the pillow. Put some lubricant of your choice inside the plastic bag that is being tightly squeezed by the balloons. Get your dick ready. Put the pillow on bed. Put your dick inside this plastic vagina. You will feel the warmth, slipperiness and tightness you only dreamed of. ------------------------------------------ Baby Bottle Liner You first might want to throw away the box with the picture of the baby on it: They make 'drop-in' baby bottle liners.. get the 8 ounce size.. comes 20 or so to a box.

John Locke: Property Rights Essay

Perhaps one of, if not the, most historically influential political thinkers of the western world was John Locke. John Locke, the man who initiated what is now known as British Empiricism, is also considered highly influential in establishing grounds, theoretically at least, for the constitution of the United States of America. The basis for understanding Locke is that he sees all people as having natural God given rights. As God’s creations, this denotes a certain equality, at least in an abstract sense. This religious back drop acts as a the foundation for all of Locke’s theories, including his theories of individuality, private property, and the state. The reader will be shown how and why people have a natural right to property and the impact this has on the sovereign, as well as the extent of this impact. Locke was a micro based ideologist. He believed that humans were autonomous individuals who, although lived in a social setting, could not be articulated as a herd or social animal. Locke believed person to stand for, â€Å"†¦a thinking, intelligent being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider itself as itself, the same thinking thing in different times and places, which it only does by that consciousness which is inseparable from thinking. † This ability to reflect, think, and reason intelligibly is one of the many gifts from God and is that gift which separates us from the realm of the beast. The ability to reason and reflect, although universal, acts as an explanation for individuality. All reason and reflection is based on personal experience and reference. Personal experience must be completely individual as no one can experience anything quite the same as another. This leads to determining why Locke theorized that all humans, speaking patriarchially with respect to the time â€Å"why all men,† have a natural right to property. Every man is a creation of God’s, and as such is endowed with certain individual abilities and characteristics as gifts from God. Not being able to know God’s exact wishes for man, Locke believed that all men have an obligation to develop and caress these gifts. In essence, each man was in charge of his own body and what was done with his body. Of course, for Locke, each man would do the reasonable thing and develop his natural skills and potentials to the best of his abilities, in the service of God. The belief in God given abilities and the obligations that follow are not totally deterministic. Man, endowed with reason, could choose not to develop these abilities. Having the ability to choose the development of his potential, each man is responsible for that potential and consequently is responsible for his own body. The development, or lack therein, is a consequence of individual motivation and is manifested through labor. In keeping with the theory of one’s body is one’s own, a man’s property can be explained in terms of the quantifying forces of his labors. Physical labor or exercisation of his mind, to produce fruits for this person’s labor, is then his own property. Locke believed that one did not need the consent of a sovereign, as far as property was concerned, because it is the melding of labor and nature that makes anything owned. Yolton articulates this when he states, â€Å"(b)y mixing my work, my energy with some object, (nature), I particulise that object, it’s commonness becomes particular† Locke believed that as long as there was plenty for others, consent was pointless, irrelevant and would merely be an overzealous exercision of power. Pointless because as long as there was more for others in the common store, one was not infringing on another’s natural rights. Irrelevant because property production or the use of labor was completely individualistic and one should not be able to control another’s labor as it is an infringement on their natural rights. There are however limits, as far as property and labor are concerned. One limit is that of non destruction. God did not create anything for man to destroy. The amount produced by any man should be kept in check by his level of destruction. For example, there is a big difference between the cutting of one or a few trees and the harvesting of an entire forest. Yolton explicates this by stating that, â€Å"†¦ specific rights comes in conjunction with this restriction. Since ? Nothing was made by God for Man to spoil or destroy,’ the property making function of man’s activities ought to be curbed at the point of spoilage. If my acquisition spoils, I offend against the law of nature, since I have, in the beginning, ? no Right, further than’ my use. What is useful and is used has value and the person who uses them a right to them. The same rules are cited for land as for the produce of land. † The making of currency as an unspoilable property and medium for exchange seems to have by-passed this limit all together. Inequality becomes rampant and as such an authority is needed to protect a man’s property and the social peace. With the advent of money as unspoilable property, certain inequalities amongst men would develop. Those with less start to feel cheated and used. This is very dangerous for those with more, because with these inequalities, comes the danger of theft, or injury to property or body. It is for this reason that people enter into a social contract and appoint a soveriegn. The sovereign has the ability to protect those whose property is in danger, and will do so through the passing and enforcing of laws. In this way not only is a man’s property protected, but a state of peace is maintained as well. Locke not only believed in one individual’s right to property, but every individual’s right to property. Since every person is a creation of God’s, and it must be God’s wish that we serve him through the abilities that he’s given us, to interfere with a man and his labor, or the consequence of his labor, that is, his property, would be to interfere with God’s wishes. It is here that we begin to see the limits of men as well as the limits of the soveriegn. After all, how anyone interfere with the wishes of God? Locke believed that the power for social control must come from the sovereign. This sovereign is responsible to the will of the people, but has a protective authority, governing both over land and people. Locke believed that if a body of people, that is a community of people, chose to live and interrelate amongst each other, they must choose to live by a greater force, that is they must enter into a social contract. This force was the power of the majority manifested through the creation of a sovereign. Problems can arise, when individuals cannot agree. For this reason there must be a ruler and government to decide disagreements, make and enforce laws, and govern man. The enforcement of rules is not as absolute as it may sound. Even with the existence of a limited monarchy, man retains his individual and God given rights. As such, the sovereign, had no right to acquire or take away the property of another. If he did so he would be going against, God, the people, and all that is natural. The extent of the services of the existing sovereign is to govern over, protect, and enforce the laws of the people. Locke believed that the role of the sovereign and his authority is in serving the people and that there must not be parental, that is absolute authority. Yolton explains this like so, â€Å"If royal authority is derived from parental authority †¦ there would be as many kings as fathers†¦ from parental power it necessarily follows either that that all fathers have royal authority – in which case a contradiction arises – no one has royal authority. † In this way Locke is seen as a man who wants to limit the power of the sovereign over the individual. Locke believed that the sovereign, created out of the need for the protection of individual rights, that is, out of the need for protection of the privacy of property, could not manifest itself publicly through excessive social control. Perhaps Locke’s idea is better explained this way. â€Å"From privacy of possession, publicity of sovereignty does not follow†¦ `no Man could ever have a just Power over the life of another, by Right of property in Land or possessions'† This, of course, would include the man of sovereignty and the men of government. Property sets the limit of sovereignty, in that no man has just power over another or another’s property. This right comes directly from God, because it is a God given right that a man should gain property through labor. This also sets the tone of the role of government, that of servitude instead of command. Locke believed that civil society existed to free individuals from the insecurity of the state of nature. He thought that men united voluntarily in a concerted effort of preserving and protecting life, liberty, and estate. Here again we see the importance of property. Government within limits can work beneficially for all of man kind. This means that a sovereign would be necessary for the preservation of lives, the promotion of freedom, and the protection of estate. Locke is quite adamant about the preservation of individual freedom which Aaron describes as â€Å"need(ing) to be jealously preserved. † This right to the property produced through labor is an inalienable right that each and every individual has. Even the soveriegn has no right to interfere with or take away a man’s property. This is the true limit of any man or governing body. Locke favored a limited monarchy. This is an elected legislative assembly and a monarch that have the power to direct the commonwealth to preserve the community and it’s members and their rights. Locke believed that people were the absolute sovereign, and that if the appointed sovereign abused his authority the people would have the right to dissolve the government. This right of the people reinforces the limitations of the sovereign, while enforcing the accountability of the sovereign. It is in this sense that the community or the aggregation of individuality, retains power over the sovereign and in essence limits it’s power. This is the extent of the limitation of authority of the sovereign. The sovereign is a servant of the people, that has limited power only as long as the majority allows it to have power. It was Locke’s intent that the state was made for the individual and that the sovereign be used as a protective instrument for the good of the individual. Locke’s ideas of property are based on God given rights. Each person has been given a body, with certain abilities and potentials, to use by God. The use of this body is called labor and its product is called property. Since everyone has a body and a level of potential everyone is capable of producing property. The purpose of the sovereign is to protect the individuals right to property and their property. The sovereign is limited in it’s power and authority and does not have the right to take or interfere with any man’s property, since to do so would be an interference with the right’s of man as given by God. It was Locke’s hope that with such an ideology behind a people and their government that they might attain and retain Locke’s version of the good life, that is life, liberty, and most importantly estate. Bibliography: Aaron, Richard, John Locke, Oxford University Press, Toronto, 1963. Bowie, James, Twenty Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy, MacMillan Publishing, New York, 1964. Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Oxford University Press, London, 1975. Magill, Frank, Masterpieces of World Philosophy, Harper and Row, New York, 1961. O’Connor, D. J. , John Locke, Pelican Books, London, 1952. Squadrito, Kathleen, Locke’s Theory of Sensitive Knowledge, University Press of America, Washington, 1978. Yolton, J. W. , Locke and the Compass of Human Understanding, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1970.

Compare and Contrast Between Shakesperean Tragic Heroes

Compare and Contrast Essay Shakespeare Tragic Heroes: Macbeth and Brutus Kyla Yu English 11 August 4th, 2008 William Shakespeare is a world renowned English poet and playwright famous for many tragic plays such as Macbeth and Julius Caesar. These two plays both contain tragic heroes with Marcus Brutus from Julius Caesar, and Macbeth from Macbeth. A tragic hero is defined as a protagonist of high standing with heroic or potential heroic abilities who must oppose some external or internal force. A tragic hero needs to have a â€Å"tragic flaw† where a character has too much or too little of one of Aristotle’s twelve virtues. Macbeth and Brutus are both considered tragic heroes but have many similarities as well as differences.†¦show more content†¦Macbeth wouldn’t accept his feelings about murdering Banquo and was almost driven to madness by it while Brutus acknowledged Caesar’s ghost because he knew that he had done a dishonorable act and would be haunted. There is also the possibility that Macbeth and Brutus were faced with real ghosts since many of Sh akespeare’s plays revolved around the idea of the supernatural; therefore, they might have been haunted by real ghosts from their murders. Fourthly, Macbeth and Brutus had extreme influence and manipulation from outside sources that caused the degeneration of these characters from noble men to tragic heroes. Before the death of King Duncan, Macbeth was a true hero, fresh from a victory on the battlefield and not harboring any desires to gain the throne. At first, when faced with the witches’ predictions, he responds the way a loyal subject would, not like man who aspires to take over Scotland; ...to be King stands not within the prospect of belief, no more than to be Cawdor... (Macbeth, Act I, Scene iii, Lines 73-5). Also, Brutus was an honorable man with promise, ability, and was loyal to Rome. Both Macbeth and Brutus were good men until they had influence from the outside that caused the start of their degeneration into darkness. Macbeth had influence from his wife, Lady Macbeth, who was the one that urged him to kill Duncan and seize the