|
|
The news articles and features presented below are simply an indication of how topical, controversial, and all-encompassing the issues surrounding marriage are throughout our society—and the world—today. Some of the views and opinions expressed, and their respective web sites, do NOT reflect the views or opinions of The Real Proposal™ magazine. Many are highlighted largely to reiterate that the alarming statistical trends on the chaotic state of "Marriage" and "Family"—outlined in"A Mere Glimpse"—will continue unabated without a fundamental grasp and purposeful dissemination of TRUTH on the issues.
|
|
|
 |
- Same-sex marriage got free ads
Time Warner Cable gave $70G in airtime during Cuomo push for bill Times Union, By Jimmy Vielkind, August 16, 2011
Time Warner Cable gave advocates of same-sex marriage $70,846 of free airtime this spring, lobbying records show. The communications giant aired ads produced by the Human Rights Campaign as part of its "New Yorkers for Marriage Equality" series during March and May, as Gov. Andrew Cuomo pushed for same-sex marriage in a statewide tour. The ads featured actors such as Whoopi Goldberg and Cynthia Nixon, athletes like Sean Avery and Michael Strahan, and politicians including Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tom DiNapoli and Michael Bloomberg talking about their support of same-sex marriage, and urging viewers to do the same. "Join us in ending this outdated policy; come to the table for marriage equality," celebrity chef Mario Batali says in one video. But initially, Time Warner considered the ads to be public service announcements, according to Susan Leepson, a regional vice president for communications at the company. "Then, with the upcoming vote, we took a hard look and realized that HRC decided to declare them as lobbying," she explained. Time Warner Cable has "not taken any position on that issue," Leepson said, and both she and spokesman Bobby Amirshahi suggested they were classified as public service announcements by mistake. PSAs are run free of charge by broadcast networks and promote a variety of non-controversial social causes such as child abuse prevention. Leepson and Amirshahi also said TWC initially sought money from HRC to cover the fair market value of the airtime, but HRC was disinclined to pay. "One option was for HRC to pay Time Warner for the airtime. The second option was that both organizations report their respective cost," said Kevin Nix, an HRC spokesman. "HRC and Time Warner agreed to the second, and both have reported their associated costs as lobbying expenses. We greatly appreciate our partnership with Time Warner and look forward to working with them again in the future." Added Leepson: "We enjoy a great partnership with HRC." In addition to its role as a cable company servicing New York City and most of upstate New York (rival Cablevision dominates the market on Long Island), Time Warner in recent years has nurtured a robust news division, with 24-hour dedicated news channels YNN and NY1. Both covered the campaign for same-sex marriage extensively. It's unclear exactly how much airtime was in play, but PSAs generally don't run in prime ad slots. Amirshahi said the HRC ads ran on NY1 and CNN in the New York City market. Advocates of same-sex marriage spent $1.37 million on airtime in May and June, ahead of the June 24 state Senate vote that approved same-sex marriage, according to disclosure reports filed with the Commission on Public Integrity. The money was spent by New Yorkers United for Marriage, an umbrella coalition of several established gay-rights groups including HRC. The lobbying records show the National Organization for Marriage, which opposed that bill, spent $300,000 to air its own TV campaign (plus $203,762 for radio ads), including a sizable chunk to Time Warner. The company received negative feedback for their decision to air NOM's ads, which insinuated that if same-sex marriage was legalized, it would lead to curricular changes in public schools. Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, an openly gay Democrat from Manhattan, wrote a formal complaint to NY1's managers, and one gay activist called for a boycott of the company. . .
|
|
|
RELATED ARTICLE: Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy Leadership
U, By Charles W. Socarides, M.D., (Source: Collected Papers from the
NARTH Annual Conference, Saturday, 29 July 1995.)
Those who
wished to retain homosexuality as a valid diagnosis had been
essentially silenced at meetings, lectures, and publications--a
silencing that originates both from within our organizations and from
other sources. Political parties and religious leaders have been
utilized to reinforce this silence. The press was thoroughly influenced;
the electronic media, television, and movies began to promote
homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle and censored all information
that might show homosexuality as a disorder. Movies have been routinely
censored by a gay Hollywood review board for the last 7 to 8 years;
other films critical of homosexuality have been boycotted at the
box-office; books which portray homosexuality in any unfavorable way
have not been published, and many books have been removed from library
shelves in universities and public libraries. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: How America Went Gay Leadership U, by Charles W. Socarides, M.D.
.
. . Gays said they could "reinvent human nature, reinvent themselves."
To do this, these reinventors had to clear away one major obstacle. No,
they didn't go after the nation's clergy. They targeted the members of a
worldly priesthood, the psychiatric community, and neutralized them
with a radical redefinition of homosexuality itself. In 1972 and 1973
they co-opted the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association
and, through a series of political maneuvers, lies and outright
flim-flams, they "cured" homosexuality overnight-by fiat. They got the
A.P.A. to say that same-sex sex was "not a disorder." It was merely "a
condition"-as neutral as lefthandedness. This amounted to a full
approval of homosexuality. Those of us who did not go along with the
political redefinition were soon silenced at our own professional
meetings. Our lectures were canceled inside academe and our research
papers turned down in the learned journals. Worse things followed in the
culture at large. Television and movie producers began to do stories
promoting homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. A gay review board
told Hollywood how it should deal or not deal with homosexuality.
Mainstream publishers turned down books that objected to the gay
revolution. Gays and lesbians influenced sex education in our nation's
schools, and gay and lesbian libbers seized wide control of faculty
committees in our nations' colleges. State legislatures nullified laws
against sodomy. If the print media paid any attention at all, they
tended to hail the gay revolution, possibly because many of the
reporters on gay issues were themselves gay and open advocates for the
movement. And those reporters who were not gay seemed too intimidated by
groupthink to expose what was going on in their own newsrooms. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Selling Homosexuality to America Regent University Law Review, By Paul E. Rondeau
This
article explores how gay rights activists use rhetoric, psychology,
social psychology, and the media--all the elements of modern
marketing--to position homosexuality in order to frame what is discussed
in the public arena and how it is discussed. . . . The economics and
education of homosexuals makes them prime players in a capitalistic
society. Money means power, and education means the knowledge to use
that power to gain more. Homosexuals have demonstrated they have access
to the leadership in media, government, education, business and other
centers of influence as well as access to capital. These are hardly
traits of an oppressed minority. . . |
|
RELATED ARTICLE: SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: Answering the Toughest Questions National Organization for Marriage,
Strong
majorities of Americans oppose gay marriage. Supporters of SSM
therefore seek to change the subject to just about anything:
discrimination, benefits, homosexuality, gay rights, federalism, our
sacred constitution. Our goal is simple: Shift the conversation rapidly
back to marriage. Don’t get sidetracked. Marriage is the issue. Marriage
is what we care about. Marriage really matters. It’s just common sense.
I. THE MOST EFFECTIVE SINGLE SENTENCE:
Extensive and repeated polling agrees that the single most effective message is:
"Gays and Lesbians have a right to live as they choose, they don’t have the right to redefine marriage for all of us.". .
RELATED ARTICLE: Queer Inc.: How Corporate America fell in love with gays and lesbians. It's a movement. CNN Money (Fortune magazine), By Marc Gunther- Fortune senior writer, November 30 2006
.
. . Last June the gay rights movement quietly achieved a milestone: For
the first time, more than half of Fortune 500 companies - 263, to be
precise - offered health benefits for domestic partners, according to
the Human Rights Campaign. Ten years ago only 28 did. Along with health
benefits for their families, many workers also get bereavement leave
when their same-sex partner dies, adoption assistance or paid leave if
they have children and relocation assistance for their partners if they
are transferred. Put another way, gay marriage - an idea that has been
banned by all but one of 27 states that have voted on it - has become a
fact of life inside many big companies. . .
|
|
|
- Michele Bachmann Asked If She Is A 'Submissive Wife' At Iowa GOP Debate Huffington Post, By Jason Linkins, August 11, 2011
The crowd at the GOP primary debate in Ames, Iowa did not appreciate Byron York asking Michele Bachmann about this part of a recent Washington Post profile on Thursday night:
"He is her godly husband," said Peter Bachmann, Dr. Bachmann's oldest brother, who lives on the family dairy farm across the eastern border in Wisconsin. "The husband is to be the head of the wife, according to God." It is a philosophy that Michele Bachmann echoed to congregants of the Living Word Christian Center in 2006, when she stated that she pursued her degree in tax law only because her husband had told her to. "The Lord says: Be submissive, wives. You are to be submissive to your husbands," she said.
When York asked about whether she was submissive, the crowd booed and hissed, loudly. Bachmann batted it aside. "I respect my husband, he's a wonderful godly man, and we respect each other." As I said at the time of the Post profile, "Bachmann's really comfortable being her own woman. She gets by in the House's "boy's club" just fine. When she wanted to issue a response to the State Of The Union address that would steal away from her party's official response, she asked for neither permission nor forgiveness. If Bachmann's been spending her career doing her husband's bidding rather than her own, it's not remarkably apparent." I'm honestly surprised this even came up as a question. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Michele Bachmann's Personal Life Goes Under The Microscope Huffington Post, By Jason Linkins, July 06, 2011
Now that Michele Bachmann is out on the stump and breaking upwards in most polls, it seems to be time to start putting her personal life through the media churn. So far, the result is mostly a litany of things you already knew, or could surmise, from her rather plainspoken Christian conservative beliefs. There's a healthy emphasis on the divisive -- and that's the rub, really. Most of what we're (re-)learning about Michele Bachmann is precisely the sort of thing both candidate and campaign don't mind being discussed. Moreover, there's plenty of muddle in the reporting, as the pieces, to varying degrees, reach for a judgment-free tone. . . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Michele Bachmann’s husband shares her strong conservative values Washington Post, By Jason Horowitz, July 5, 2011
In an interview last year with a Christian-radio talk show, Marcus Bachmann, a therapist who runs a faith-infused counseling center here, compared homosexuals to “barbarians” who “need to be educated, need to be disciplined.” Dr. Bachmann’s strong anti-gay views would hardly be noteworthy outside of the suburban towns marked with water towers in the St. Croix Valley, except that his wife, Rep. Michele Bachmann, is suddenly the hottest commodity in the Republican presidential field. She has staffed up with professional consultants, but her husband of 32 years plays a central role. Dr. Bachmann, who recently called himself his wife’s “strategist,” has acted as her media planner, traveling assistant and even personal shopper. They share a bond born of a mutual religious awakening in high school and college, a deep faith in an especially conservative form of Lutheranism, and a common abhorrence of homosexuality. . .
|
- The Shocking Truth for Thirty Percent of Divorced Women Huffington Post, By Jennifer Gauvain, August 06, 2011
It was the day she had dreamed about. Standing barefoot at sunset, "Joni" (a former client of mine whose name I have changed) stood looking at the man she was about to marry. She planned the perfect wedding--a fairytale. There was one hitch--as she looked into her future husband's eyes, she had a pretty good idea that the marriage would not last. Joni's story was not unique. After years of working with women like her I was curious about why so many women stayed in relationships that were essentially doomed from the start. As a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, I have spent more than 15 years working with women seeking guidance for relationship issues. The initial call usually involves a request to help with "communication skills" or "conflict management." More often than not, as therapy progresses, they reveal that the problems started long before they walked down the aisle. And if they're not married, they'll admit that they already know he's is not the right guy for them--yet they stay. When I had a serendipitous meeting with a former runaway bride, we decided to write a book about this phenomenon. My coauthor's story of her near-miss at the altar along with my clinical experience turned into a mission to find out why so many women walk down the aisle knowing they are making a mistake! We thought if we could help women recognize the excuses for dating--and ultimately marrying--the wrong guys, maybe we could help them find the courage to get out before it was too late. We developed a survey and sent it to divorced women, with one qualifier: "Did you know you were making a mistake as you were walking down the aisle?" We sent it to everyone we knew. Within days our inboxes were jammed. Eventually, close to 1000 women gave detailed accounts about why they knowingly dated and eventually married the wrong guys. Amid a chorus of critics who shout "hindsight bias" or "selective memory," I stand firm. If you take 10 divorced women and ask them whether they believed on their wedding day that they were marrying the right guy for the right reasons, seven of them would say yes and three will confess they had serious doubts long before walking down the aisle. That's the shocking truth for 30% of divorced women. These women have very clear, distinct memories of the doubts, issues and concerns that existed in the relationship all along. They can also tell you exactly what they were feeling before they walked down the aisle. . .
|
 |
|
|
RELATED ARTICLE: Love - it's not all about you Globe and Mail- Canada, By Sarah Hampson, October 11, 2007
Sorry,
but the love I like to contemplate and which I think sustains true
relationships is more selfless. And that's where Phil Reinders comes in.
He is a pastor at First Church, a Christian Reformed Church in Calgary.
A 44-year-old father of two children, he wrote me an e-mail recently
about lessons from his own 20-year marriage. "Marriage is about growing
us up, a context designed not only for our happiness but also for our
emotional/spiritual formation. I'm learning to see marriage, loving
another person, as a call to serve that person. I think when I got
married, I was mostly thinking, 'What am I going to get out of the
deal?' instead of, 'How am I called to give myself selflessly?' or 'How
can I serve my spouse instead of first thinking about how she can serve
me and my agenda?' I got married with some incredibly self-absorbed
notions. And in marriage, I have experienced a dead end ... but I have
found it to be the end of my self-absorbed heart." In conversation, when
I phoned him, he elaborated on his idea of marital love by calling it
"a covenantal relationship - a sense that you enter into it not for
yourself but for the other's best interests. It is very different from a
contractual relationship." The closest I have come to this kind of
powerful love is with my children. . .
|
|
|
RELATED ARTICLE: Questions Couples Should Ask (Or Wish They Had) Before Marrying The New York Times (Free Subscription), December 17, 2006
Relationship
experts report that too many couples fail to ask each other critical
questions before marrying. Here are a few key ones that couples should
consider asking:. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: The Biggest Lies About Marriage ABC News.com, May 24, 2006
There
are a lot of lies out there about marriage that prospective brides and
grooms, newlyweds, and long-married couples believe. Psychologist Robin
L. Smith debunks many of them in her best-selling book, "Lies at the
Altar: The Truth About Great Marriages." Smith's book includes 276
questions for people to ask themselves and their partner if they're
thinking about getting married, or have been married for years and are
looking for a new road map. Here are four of the biggest lies Smith says
people tell themselves -- and others -- about marriage. . .
RELATED BOOK EXCERPT: 'Lies At The Altar' By Dr. Robin L. Smith (Courtesy Good Morning America- ABC News.com)
Dr.
Robin L. Smith is perhaps best-known for her appearances on "The Oprah
Winfrey Show." She specializes in relationships and stresses how
important it is for people to enter marriage only after looking at
oneself honestly. Truth, Smith says, is the most important ingredient in
marriage, and her book, "Lies at the Altar: The Truth About Great
Marriages," teaches people how to find it within themselves and their
partner. . . |
RELATED ARTICLE: If You're Thinking of Marrying Part I Townhall.com, By Dennis Prager, December 06, 2005
Decades of radio counseling, personal experience, and public and private discussions about marriage prompt me to write this list of questions for anyone contemplating marriage.
1. Is the person your best friend or at least becoming so?
It is easy to find a lover. It is easy to get excited about a new person. But if you cannot say that the person you are considering marrying has become or is becoming your best friend, you need to figure out why before you decide to marry. This is probably the single most overlooked question among couples, especially young ones. And for good reason. Many people cannot not answer this in the affirmative. But you have to answer it. Over time, friendship is the greatest bond between a couple. If the person you marry does not become your best friend, you will either seek someone who will be or simply drift apart. What is a best friend? Someone you can and do tell just about everything to. Someone you want to be with as much as possible. And someone you need. One of the most devastating ideas of the last generation was that needing or depending upon another person is a sign of weakness. The opposite is true. The inability to need is a sign of weakness -- you are afraid to relinquish power or afraid to be hurt. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: If You're Thinking of Marrying- Part II Townhall.com, By Dennis Prager, December 13, 2005
It is exceptionally difficult to find the right person to marry. This is especially true for first marriages. That is why it is so important to think through your decision by asking and answering critical questions. In Part I, I offered five. Here are seven more:
6. What problems do the two of you now have? And what inner voice of doubt, if any, are you suppressing?
Here is a rule that is rarely broken: Whatever problems you have before the wedding day, you will have during your marriage. Do not think that marrying will solve any problem you have with the person. You therefore have three choices: Make peace with the problem, see if it can be solved before deciding to marry, or don't marry the person. It is imperative that you be ruthlessly honest with yourself. And that is very hard. Nothing in life is easier than denying problems when you are in love. That is why it is important to pay attention to inner doubts. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: 10 Steps for Avoiding Divorce Divorce Busting, By Michele Weiner-Davis, March 23, 2010
Although
relationships often seem daunting, by following these ten simple steps,
you can build the foundation for a strong, happy marriage.
1) Spend
time together: The number one cause for the breakdown in marriage today
is that couples aren’t spending enough time together or making the
relationship a priority. Everything else seems to take precedence- work,
children, hobbies, relatives, community commitments. And when include
children on this list, most people say, “But Michele, we both work, so
on weekends or evenings, we don’t want to be away from our children.”
To that I say, “The best thing you can do for your kids is to put your
marriage first.” Marriages that are time-starved are at risk of divorce
because partners stop being friends. This leads to a lack of
connection which leads to a multitude of problems. Avoid this by
planning time together…alone!
2) Have sex: Sex is one of the most
important connections in marriage. Do whatever it takes to keep passion
alive. Desire is a decision. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: How To Prevent a Divorce – The Last Resort Technique Divorce Busting, By Michelle Weiner-Davis, April 19, 2010
If
your spouse told you it’s over, it doesn’t necessarily nail the marital
coffin shut. There are still things you can do to revive your
flat-lined relationship. One thing you should consider is The Last
Resort Technique. The Last resort Technique is exactly what it says it
is. You use it as a last resort. In theory, this technique is
identical to doing a 180, but you put it to use when your situation is
extreme. What do I mean by extreme? It’s imperative that you begin
doing the last-resort technique immediately if:
* Your spouse
has said to you in no uncertain terms that s/he wants to get a divorce
and it appears as if s/he really means it. It wasn’t just said in the
heat of battle.
* You and your spouse are separated physically.
* You and your spouse still live together but have very little to do
with each other. You may be sleeping in separate rooms, have virtually
no communication, and little or no sexual contact.
* Your spouse has filed for divorce
Although
it’s true that many marriages do end in divorce, just because your
marriage is really fragile right now doesn’t mean you have to become a
statistic. There are many people who beat the odds. Don’t feel
hopeless. I will give you specific instructions about what you should
do to try to get things back on track. Although the last-resort
technique doesn’t always work, it works often enough for you to be eager
to give it a shot. I have worked with many clients and have received
many letters, phone calls, and e-mails from people whose relationships
were on the their marital death beds but were successful at turning
things around by using the last-resort technique.
Step 1 – Stop the Chase:. . .
|
 |
- She found her Prince Charming: Ashley Herbert accepts proposal from J.P on The Bachelorette season finale The Daily Mail, Augut 02, 2011
After a season of laughter, fights, tears and drama The Bachelorette's Ashley Herbert managed to whittle down 25 men to one on last night's season finale. And the lucky man set to become her Prince Charming is J.P Rosenbaum. The 34-year-old construction manager from Rozlyn, New York won Ashley’s heart in the end, getting down on one knee for a successful proposal - but not before a tough grilling from her family in Fiji. J.P was the first to meet Ashley’s family and had a hard time convincing her sister Chrystie that he was the right man. 'I think he’s a great guy but no, I don't see it,' Chrystie said. 'What worries me is that I think you are too much for him. I saw how you are together and I am missing something.' Chrystie – who called herself the more ‘rational’ sister – brought Ashley to tears. 'You’re being such a b**ch,' Ashley sobbed. 'Why cant you feel for me for a second? You’re not being my sister and feeling for me and I feel so alone.' Chrystie replied: 'I am trying to protect you from yourself.' JP was also none too happy that Chrystie attacked him after knowing him ‘for just 15 minutes.’ 'It wasn’t fair, there was just nothing I could do about it,' he complained. But Ashley refused to disregard her sister’s concerns. 'I’m not going to lie,' she said. 'I need the approval of other people. My family’s opinions weigh heavily in my life – and its left me more confused than ever.' Ben Flajnik, a 28-year-old winemaker from Sonoma, CA had his marriage proposal rebuffed, despite being favoured by her parents and sister. Waters were muddied further after Ben Flajnik’s meeting with Ashley’s family appeared to go perfectly followed by a sexy date and mudbath. Chrystie immediately warmed to Ben who in turn told her that he’s in love with Ashley. Ben and Ashley then went walking on the beach before lathering each other with mud 'When you are lubing each other up in mud it is really quite erotic,' Ben said. Ashley added: 'I love this date, the mud bath is really sexy and it's a great place to have romance. All I wanted to do was rub that mud all over his body like 10 times. I wish I could reach lower! I had so much fun.' Following the date Ben called Ashley to his room to break the news that he was in love with her. . .
RELATED BLOG: Chris Harrison blogs 'The Bachelorette' season finale Entertainment Weekly, By Chris Harrison, August 02, 2011
Spanning
two days and five hours of television, this is the biggest, most
dramatic blog ever. I hope you enjoyed the way ABC programmed the Men
Tell All on Sunday and rolled right into Monday’s dramatic season
finale, which led us right into After the Final Rose. The Men Tell All
special was a fun show to host. This is a very good group of guys that I
enjoyed hanging around with this season so there really weren’t a lot
of fireworks. I was very disappointed Bentley didn’t show up for the
taping. As I mentioned we extended an invitation to him but he opted not
to come. I would very much like to sit down and interview him. I have a
standing invitation out to him that I will interview him anywhere and
anytime he wants. As anybody that’s ever been on this show will tell
you, I will give him a very fair interview. I’m really not looking to
bury the guy. What’s done is done! I just want to find out his
motivation and what he thinks about his actions now and how they’ve
affected his life. Does he regret what he did and would he like to
apologize to anybody? I found it very interesting to see the guys’
reactions to Bentley, as they didn’t really see or hear anything just
like Ashley while he was actually on the show. They found out like
everybody else while they watched it unfold week after week on TV. . .
RELATED ARTICLE & VIDEOS: The Bachelorette Finale: Did Ashley Really Manage to Find Love?! E! Online, By Natalie Finn, August 01, 2011
The Bachelorette had to sign off for the season with Ashley Hebert wearing a ring, right?! Right off the bat, we saw that it wasn't going to be easy, what with Ashley's sister Chrystie immediately determining that J.P. Rosenbaum wasn't the right guy for her and Ashley actually telling J.P. that her sister's half-cocked opinion mattered to her. Maybe we're so used to the Bachelor/Bachelorette's family being initially wary and then coming around in a neat 15 minutes to the idea of their offspring getting engaged to whoever, that we were just taken aback by Chrystie's honesty and it's Ashley who couldn't handle the non-sugarcoated version of what was happening. Or was her big sis being a major be-yotch?. . .
RELATED SITE: The Bachelorette ABC.com
|
RELATED ARTICLE: 'Stayover Relationship' is the New Marriage International Business Times, July 31, 2011
Today's generation are opting for "stayover relationships" that let them enjoy relationships without living together, a trend that appears to be slowing down the road to marriage. Research from the University of Missouri-Columbia found that instead of cohabitating, young people in relationships are spending three or more nights together per week. They maintain their own homes in the process, which may explain recent data that shows U.S. youth are pushing marriage out further and further. "This seems to be a pretty stable and convenient middle ground between casual dating and more formal commitments like living together and getting married," says Tyler Jamison, a University of Missouri doctoral candidate and in the department of human development and family studies. The "convenient" relationship allows for an arrangement that facilitates couples who are not sure they want to end up in a permanent relationship and do not want to end up living together if things go awry. Jamison believes stayover relationships represent a general trend in which young people want to delay permanent relationships because they ostensibly want to finish their education or pursue other goals. "Instead of following a clear path from courtship to marriage, individuals are choosing to engage in romantic ties on their own terms -- without the guidance of social norms," said Jamison to Reuters. "There is a gap between the teen years and adulthood during which we don't know much about the dating behaviors of young adults. Stayovers are the unique answer to what emerging adults are doing in their relationships." The findings, published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, are based on interviews with college-educated adults in committed relationships. Jamison describes the phenomenon as one that has a number of benefits but not many consequences, but some experts feel it's a reflection of the general degradation of U.S. society. "We don't want anyone hindering us from doing our thing," Aaron Turpeau, a licensed professional counselor and relationship expert in Atlanta. "You hear people say it all the time: 'You do you, and I'll do me.' Unfortunately, this obsession with independence leads to unhealthy human relationships." He adds that what results is a large segment of young people living on the fence, never committing one way or the other. "We don't value what we don't need, and we don't love what we don't value," he says. "I can say I want a relationship, but I don't need a relationship. I want a man, but I don't need a man. So we play house; we play marriage and as soon as we get tired, we go back to our own places." Jamison will expand the research to examine unmarried parents, and suspects that people of all ages enjoy stayover relationships. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: The Bad Bachelor: A Cautionary Tale for Today's Young Adults Townhall.com, By Janice Shaw-Crouse, January 04, 2011
The
Bachelor is a cautionary tale for today’s young adults. Thirty
physically-attractive women display in prime-time television the result
of lifestyles that, in an earlier era, would have been characterized as
“loose” or worse. With few exceptions, these are not happy women. These
girls have a large void in their lives which they are hoping to fill
with glitz, romance, love, and life-time marriage. But, they have taken a
path that has left them emotionally wounded, lacking in social grace,
and desperate to find a “Prince Charming” who will be all that they
dreamed of as young girls. Sadly, the bachelor is typical of today’s
young men, as well. As he approaches his fourth decade, he finally wants
a wife and children. But, even with his bulked up, six-pack physique,
he comes with a lot of psychological “baggage” and, with each new
revelation, seems less and less of a “Prince Charming.” . . .
|
 |
- SMOGs: The rise of the mums who think girls rule and only want daughters The Daily Mail- UK, By Vanessa Allen, August 02, 2011
In a different era, expectant mothers were always supposed to be desperate for a son. But now internet bloggers have reported a rise in the number of mothers who only want daughters: the Smug Mother Of Girls, or SMOG. The tongue-in-cheek nickname applies to mothers who adore their daughters, and appear horrified by the prospect of raising boys. And it appears to be borne out by some fertility doctors, who have reported seeing a rise in the number of pregnant women who want a girl. Some prospective parents travel abroad to be implanted with a selected embryo so they can guarantee the sex of their child, a procedure which is illegal in Britain. The term has become a familiar phrase on the internet site Mums-net since last year. One user wrote: ‘There’s an expression smogs – Smug Mums of Girls! I find that some mums who only have girls find boys annoying and are alarmed and judgmental about their behaviour. ‘They tut when boys chase pigeons in the park or shout nearby.’ Another blogged: ‘I know too many mothers of girls (or SMOGs) who truly believe that boys are unpleasant, noisy, smelly creatures who just take the look off the place and generally get in the way.’ Some Mumsnet users joked the phenomenon had become so widespread that mothers with boys had invented their own term for themselves – DMOBs, or Defensive Mothers of Boys. One said: ‘I think it’s time to wheel out another abbreviation, DMOB – “defensive mums of boys” – for the mums who just know that in any given crowd of children it may well be a boy, possibly her boy, who appears to be causing the riot. ‘When DS#1 [Darling Son number one] was little you always seemed to find him in the centre of a whirlwind of chaos – SMOGs would draw their little girls away from him in horror.’ Unhappiness with a child’s gender is now so common it has been recognised as a psychological condition, known as ‘gender disappointment’. The condition, which is also discussed widely on internet support forums, is often treated similarly to post natal depression. Psychologist Graham W Price said both parents could feel the disappointment, but whereas women generally want to have girls, men’s preferences can go either way. He said: ‘Gender disappointment can affect fathers just as much as mothers. In fact, it often takes men longer than women to get over their regret, as there is a biological imperative for women to bond with their children.’. . .
|
|
|
RELATED ARTICLE: What would the world be like without men? The Daily Mail- UK, By A.N. Wilson, May 24, 2008
Human hybrids by the million. Clones bred in the lab. And men exterminated. In the week MPs voted to change what it means to be human, A.N. WILSON imagines a truly terrifying future. . . . Fifty years in the future, will there still be a human race, or simply a laboratory-bred race of disease-free hybrids? Will there even be different sexes, since fathers have become redundant? Will there be sex, as evidently it is perfectly possible to continue the species (or mixed species) in the much more hygienic conditions of the test-tube and the laboratory? These are strange questions, but the faster science advances, and the more arrogant scientists become, the more necessary it is to examine this so-called progress. In light of the debates this week in Parliament and elsewhere about embryology, about the very nature of life itself, it seems all too possible that by the time today's children are middle-aged they will be living in a Brave New World more horrible than Aldous Huxley imagined in 1932. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Homo erectus extinctus The Times Online, By Lois Rogers, December 16, 2007
Is nature determined to make men extinct? Senior scientists believe that women may evolve as humanity’s sole representatives — and social and political trends are lending weight to their theories. By the extrovert standards of our parliament, it is a surprisingly quiet debate, but one that will have all manner of implications. The Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, which is expected to become law next summer, says controversially that the fathers of artificially conceived children need not necessarily be recognised by the state. Are fathers destined to become redundant? The bill is a reflection of much wider scientific and social changes. The technology to produce artificial sperm, or even create offspring from two females, is already in the pipeline; in addition, genetic evidence has shown that the Y chromosome, the only one that confers maleness, is in a long-term evolutionary decline. And if that were not humiliating enough for men, in sizable communities across the country lesbians are not only forming partnerships, but they are openly bearing and raising children together, secure in the knowledge that British society now accepts such a lifestyle choice. Do men have a future at all?. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: The prospect of all-female conception The Independent- UK, By Steve Connor, Science Editor, April 12, 2007
Women might soon be able to produce sperm in a development that could allow lesbian couples to have their own biological daughters, according to a pioneering study published today. Scientists are seeking ethical permission to produce synthetic sperm cells from a woman's bone marrow tissue after showing that it possible to produce rudimentary sperm cells from male bone-marrow tissue. The researchers said they had already produced early sperm cells from bone-marrow tissue taken from men. They believe the findings show that it may be possible to restore fertility to men who cannot naturally produce their own sperm. But the results also raise the prospect of being able to take bone-marrow tissue from women and coaxing the stem cells within the female tissue to develop into sperm cells, said Professor Karim Nayernia of the University of Newcastle upon Tyne. Creating sperm from women would mean they would only be able to produce daughters because the Y chromosome of male sperm would still be needed to produce sons. The latest research brings the prospect of female-only conception a step closer. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: 'Embryo Bank' Stirs Ethics Fears: Firm Lets Clients Pick Among Fertilized Eggs The Washington Post, By Rob Stein, January 6, 2007
A
Texas company has started producing batches of ready-made embryos that
single women and infertile couples can order after reviewing detailed
information about the race, education, appearance, personality and other
characteristics of the egg and sperm donors.
RELATED ARTICLE: A Revolution Without a Man to Love Townhall.com, By Suzanne Fields, December 8, 2005
Women have come a long way from merely challenging "The Feminine Mystique," which Betty Friedan identified as a little voice within that cried: "I want something more than my husband and my children and my home." More is a relative term, of course, and sometimes more is less, and a house is not a home. The cruelest irony of the revolution that changed the relationships of the sexes is the shortage of eligible men. It's not that there are fewer men statistically, but there are fewer desirable men statistically. A headline in The Washington Post complains: "Disappearing Act: Where Have the Men Gone? No Place Good.". . . . . . One of the depressing consequences is that increasing numbers of women find their children at sperm banks. Some are women whose husbands are unable to procreate, but many (and they're not all lesbians) simply don't want to bother with a man in their lives. They think they can do it better alone. By some estimates, the number of single women seeking donor sperm has doubled in a decade. A customer with money confronts no social stigma. The celebrity magazines are awash with stories of women who are "single mothers by choice." But these designer children suffer just like children without fathers have always suffered. . .
|
- Jennifer Lopez Gives Vanity Fair Her First Interview Since Announcing Her Divorce from Marc Anthony Vanity Fair, August 02, 2011 - September 2011 Issue
“That was my biggest dream, and I really worked hard at it. We both did,” Jennifer Lopez tells Vanity Fair in her first interview since announcing that she and Marc Anthony are divorcing. “Sometimes it doesn’t work—and that’s sad. But I remain an eternal optimist about love. I believe in love,” Lopez says. “It’s still my biggest dream. I am positive—determined to move forward with my life, bring up my babies, and do the best job I can as a mother, entertainer, and person. I now look forward to new challenges. I feel strong.” Lopez opens up to contributing editor Lisa Robinson about her life with Anthony and the example she hopes to set for her children; she talks about her relationship with P. Diddy and breaking off her engagement to Ben Affleck; she’s honest about the diva rumors that surround her, and shares her attitudes toward money, fame, and especially love. “I’m a hopeless romantic and passionate person when it comes to love,” Lopez explains, describing the passage that has brought her to her current state of mind. “It’s not that I didn’t love myself before. Sometimes we don’t realize that we are compromising ourselves. To understand that a person is not good for you, or that that person is not treating you in the right way, or that he is not doing the right thing for himself—if I stay, then I am not doing the right thing for me. I love myself enough to walk away from that now.” “I will always respect Marc as a singer and performer,” Lopez tells Vanity Fair. “We actually work great together, and he was always very supportive. Together we could make magic—and we did. He will always be in our lives. He will always hold a special place in my heart as the father of my children.”. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: A blow for J.Lo: American Idol judge's ex-husband wins legal fight to release 'intimate' home video The Daily Mail- UK, May 27, 2011
Jennifer
Lopez's legal battle to keep embarrassing home video from her first
marriage under wraps has failed. The singer's ex-husband Ojani Noa has
won the fight, that has been ongoing for years, to release footage from
their short lived marriage. Noa managed to find a loophole in the law
that allowed the release of the tape. He apparently sold the footage to
his girlfriend Claudia Vazquez for her to release, according to
RadarOnline. The American Idol judge had successfully managed to block
the release, saying that Noa making the footage public violated the
confidentiality agreement that he signed after he divorced the star. In a
ruling issued by a Los Angeles judge this morning, Vasquez is now
allowed to release the footage that JLo has been battling so hard to
keep under lock and key. Ed Meyer who is Noa's agent and the executive
producer of the project said the release of the tape is now imminent. . .
|
 |
|
|
RELATED ARTICLE: Marc Anthony 'hated the fact J-Lo was a sex symbol' and tried to 'control her wardrobe' The Daily Mail- UK, July 20, 2011
Jennifer
Lopez has a reputation as one of the most desirable women on the
planet, but it seems her estranged husband Marc Anthony wasn't so keen
on her sexy image. According to reports, the 42-year-old Latin singer
wanted his wife to look a little more demure when it came to her
wardrobe. He would make her feel terrible about herself if she wanted to
wear something sexy,' a source told Us Weekly. 'He likes her to dress
in a demure, "wife'"style. He hated the fact that she was a sex symbol.'
Another source recalled that Anthony tried to make the star's fashion
choices for her when she took part in a photo shoot last year. Anthony
is said to have objected to a particular photograph that he found 'too
sexy and unbecoming for a 40-year-old mother of two,' the insider says.
The couple announced they were separating after seven years of marriage
last week, insisting it was an amicable decision. Since then, many
commentators have speculated on the reasons behind the split, with some
pointing to Anthony's 'controlling' ways. 'Marc has always been a very
dominating husband,' another source said. 'He wants to control
everything Jennifer does.' 'This is not a surprise,’ J-Lo’s stylist
Phillip Bloch said in an exclusive interview with Mail on Sunday. ‘Marc
is very controlling. In the beginning she liked that because he stood up
to her, and in the early days he was very much in love with her and she
was with him.’. . .
|
RELATED ARTICLE: And, baby, I love you The Observer, UK - By Barbara Ellen, May 21, 200
As
if to help us make sense of it all, the couple released the now
obligatory 'meaningfully-meaningless' post-split statement. 'It is with
sadness that we have decided to go our separate ways', it reads, going
on to claim that 'both of us still care about each other very much'. If
true, it makes you wonder why they are bothering to split at all. When
normal couples part, they usually have a reason. But when famous couples
split there is, according to their press statements anyway, no reason
at all. No hint whatsoever they've been doing anything so declassé as
rowing or doing sarcastic impersonations of the way each other speaks. .
. .hen again, the post-split 'meaningfully-meaningless' statement may
be an evolution of the denial-of-split statement. Those statements,
let's call them PAAs (Public Announcements of Affection), whereupon a
famous couple take out space in a newspaper to declare their love for
each other ... and then start divorce proceedings a week later. . .
RELATED ARTICLE: Stars split up very carefully USA TODAY, By Donna Freydkin, November 1, 2006
When
a celebrity couple goes bust, the handling of the high-profile
announcement is as meticulously choreographed as a movie premiere. Take
the case of Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Phillippe, who revealed their
split on Monday after seven years of marriage that produced daughter
Ava, 7, and son Deacon, 3. Their statement, released to celebrity news
site TMZ.com, was typically courteous, asking the media to respect the
couple's privacy. Here's the anatomy of a breakup, Hollywood-style.
Timing of the announcement:. . .
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
