Saturday, June 30, 2012
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
duh
"Porn & Relationships: Men's Pornography Use Tied To Lower Self-Esteem In Female Partners"
"Young women who report that their romantic partners look at porn frequently are less happy in their relationships than women partnered with guys who more often abstain, new research finds."
"Discovering explicit material on a partner's computer 'made them feel like they were not good enough, like they could not measure up'..."
well, no fucking shit. i always think that if only i were good enough (sexy enough, hotter body enough, bigger boobs, deeper throat, blond, less inhibited...) rip wouldn't "need" porn. (cause clearly, i'm the problem. not that he just doesn't respect me).
rip tells me that it has nothing to do with me. which just makes it weirder. all my sex life involves him. why does he insist on including other people in his sex life?
rip tells me that it has nothing to do with me. which just makes it weirder. all my sex life involves him. why does he insist on including other people in his sex life?
Sunday, June 24, 2012
be nice!
"When Nice Guys Finish First"
"Psychologists define nice people as those scoring high on a personality trait called agreeableness. This trait often goes along with generosity, consideration for others, a pleasant disposition and a strong desire for social harmony. If you are nice, your overriding concern is to maintain positive relationships with others. You feel happiest when those around you are in harmony, and you go out of your way to smooth ruffled feathers."
so how nice are you anyway? take the test and find out!
i scored a 30. just barely "highly agreeable." not sure if i really agree with this. haha! i know i can be pretty damn bitchy sometimes, though yeah, i'm normally not. and while i do pretty much like everyone i meet, and try to say nice things about everything, i hate confrontation so i try to avoid that as much as possible. ...until you've pissed me off too much. :)
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Monday, June 18, 2012
mamma bear
bonnie rochman - "Should Parents Be Prosecuted for Killing Child Molesters?"
i do not fault this father at all. yet, i feel that he should be "punished." because he did kill a guy. even if he didn't really mean to. (i assume that he was so mad he wanted to hurt the molester, but actually kill him? probably not.)
i think it would be chaos if we had laws that said, yeah, sure, sometimes you are justified in killing a person, so long as they are doing something crazy to your kid.
there are just too many variables to allow for manslaughter to sometimes be legal. what if i go grab a gun first? what if i wait 1 week, 2 months, or 3 years later to kill you? what if i tortured you first? or, the scariest thing of all, what if i was just wrong but i killed you anyway because i didn't realize that you and my daughter were play fighting during sex? (this last one would, of course, not describe a situation where an adult is taking advantage of a young child. but what if my 14yo daughter is dating a 17yo boy who looks like he's 20something from behind?) and, worst of all, some deranged people would use this "loophole" and try to get away with actual murder.
so what "punishment" am i advocating? probably just probation and community service. i think jail time is a bit harsh but there must always be a legal consequence to killing someone.
Friday, June 15, 2012
sick vs really sick
siri hustvedt - a plea for eros
"[a group of anglican clergymen] wanted to know how to distinguish between an ill person who needed psychiatric help and a person who could be helped by their counseling. [the enlish pediatric and psychoanalyst d.w.] dr. winnicott didn't answer immoderately, but after some thought, he said: 'if a person comes and talks to you and, listening to him, you feel he is boring to you, then he is sick, and needs psychiatric treatment. but if he sustains your interest, no matter how grave his distress or conflict, then you can help him alright."
"[a group of anglican clergymen] wanted to know how to distinguish between an ill person who needed psychiatric help and a person who could be helped by their counseling. [the enlish pediatric and psychoanalyst d.w.] dr. winnicott didn't answer immoderately, but after some thought, he said: 'if a person comes and talks to you and, listening to him, you feel he is boring to you, then he is sick, and needs psychiatric treatment. but if he sustains your interest, no matter how grave his distress or conflict, then you can help him alright."
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Saturday, June 9, 2012
divorce envy
eleanore s. wells - divorce envy
"Divorced women are viewed more favorably than women who've never been married."
this is weird for me because one of the reasons i'm marriage-shy is because i never want to be divorced. and obviously i think that to get married for the sake of elevated status is just wrong, but i wonder if i can really fault them? it's like someone who gets married because they don't want to be lonely. it's just sad.
'"A 40-year-old woman who has never been married is scary."'
i've never thought of it that way. i do get a weird vibe from people in their mid 20s who have never been in a serious relationship. and i'd definitely caution a friend about to get into a relationship with someone like that. but i feel like more red flags would go up if my friend were dating a several times divorced 50yo than a 50yo who'd never been married.
honestly tho, i'd be a bit cautious either way. i know a few older never-been-marrieds and they're so set in their ways. being single means you probably aren't used to compromising and self-sacrificing to make another person happy. and you're probably really set in your daily patterns. putting things in a specific place, doing things in a certain way. it'd be like dating a selfish ocd person. not fun!
i think to have been divorced once is not a big deal, but to have been divorced twice or more (no matter what your age) says something about you. tho, not necessarily that you're selfish, uncaring, or a bad husband or wife. it might just mean that you're attracted to the wrong kind of person. marriage, to me anyway, is something that should be permanent, like a tattoo. sure you can get them removed, but it'll hurt like a bitch and there will always be a scar.
btw, do you think the same goes for men?
"Divorced women are viewed more favorably than women who've never been married."
this is weird for me because one of the reasons i'm marriage-shy is because i never want to be divorced. and obviously i think that to get married for the sake of elevated status is just wrong, but i wonder if i can really fault them? it's like someone who gets married because they don't want to be lonely. it's just sad.
'"A 40-year-old woman who has never been married is scary."'
i've never thought of it that way. i do get a weird vibe from people in their mid 20s who have never been in a serious relationship. and i'd definitely caution a friend about to get into a relationship with someone like that. but i feel like more red flags would go up if my friend were dating a several times divorced 50yo than a 50yo who'd never been married.
honestly tho, i'd be a bit cautious either way. i know a few older never-been-marrieds and they're so set in their ways. being single means you probably aren't used to compromising and self-sacrificing to make another person happy. and you're probably really set in your daily patterns. putting things in a specific place, doing things in a certain way. it'd be like dating a selfish ocd person. not fun!
i think to have been divorced once is not a big deal, but to have been divorced twice or more (no matter what your age) says something about you. tho, not necessarily that you're selfish, uncaring, or a bad husband or wife. it might just mean that you're attracted to the wrong kind of person. marriage, to me anyway, is something that should be permanent, like a tattoo. sure you can get them removed, but it'll hurt like a bitch and there will always be a scar.
btw, do you think the same goes for men?
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
flavor
eric schlosser & charles wilson - chew on this: everything you don't want to know about fast food
"Consumers prefer to see natural flavors on a label, our of a belief that they are healthier. But the difference between artificial flavors and natural flavors is much less simple than it sounds. Both kinds are manufactured at the same factories. The differences between them is based more on how the flavor additive has been made than on what it actually contains. Natural flavors and artificial flavors sometimes contain exactly the same chemicals, produced through difference methods. Amyl acetate, for example, sullies the strong aroma of banana flavor. When you make amyl acetate from bananas, it is a natural flavor. When you make amyl acetate by mixing vinegar with amyl alcohol and sulfuric acid, it is n artificial flavor. Either way, it smells jut like a banana." (115-116)
"McDonald's didn't use any beef flavoring in [the french fries sold in] India. Nor did it add beef to the fries in Great Britain, a country with a large Hindu population. Without telling anyone, McDonald's was quietly using difference French fry recipes in different countries. In India and Great Britain, it didn't use any beef. In the United Sates, it used beef flavoring. And in Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Australia, McDonald's still made French fries the old-fashioned way, cooking them in beef fat.
"McDonald's apologized to the vegetarians in the United States... The apology led other restaurants chains to admit that they were also using animal products to make their French fries taste better. At Denny's and Church's Chicken, the fries were flavored with beef. At Burger King the fries were flavored with chicken. Fries that taste like chicken may sound gross, but they're not as gross as some of the fries mad in France. At restaurants over there, in the nation that invented French fries, they're sometimes cooked with horse fat."(127)
"Consumers prefer to see natural flavors on a label, our of a belief that they are healthier. But the difference between artificial flavors and natural flavors is much less simple than it sounds. Both kinds are manufactured at the same factories. The differences between them is based more on how the flavor additive has been made than on what it actually contains. Natural flavors and artificial flavors sometimes contain exactly the same chemicals, produced through difference methods. Amyl acetate, for example, sullies the strong aroma of banana flavor. When you make amyl acetate from bananas, it is a natural flavor. When you make amyl acetate by mixing vinegar with amyl alcohol and sulfuric acid, it is n artificial flavor. Either way, it smells jut like a banana." (115-116)
"McDonald's didn't use any beef flavoring in [the french fries sold in] India. Nor did it add beef to the fries in Great Britain, a country with a large Hindu population. Without telling anyone, McDonald's was quietly using difference French fry recipes in different countries. In India and Great Britain, it didn't use any beef. In the United Sates, it used beef flavoring. And in Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Australia, McDonald's still made French fries the old-fashioned way, cooking them in beef fat.
"McDonald's apologized to the vegetarians in the United States... The apology led other restaurants chains to admit that they were also using animal products to make their French fries taste better. At Denny's and Church's Chicken, the fries were flavored with beef. At Burger King the fries were flavored with chicken. Fries that taste like chicken may sound gross, but they're not as gross as some of the fries mad in France. At restaurants over there, in the nation that invented French fries, they're sometimes cooked with horse fat."(127)
Sunday, June 3, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)