http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 Most Recent Submissions from PepperSchwartzPhD on BeWell Community Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:33:10 GMT Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:33:10 GMT community@bewell.com (bewelladmin) community@bewell.com (bewelladmin) KickApps Feed Builder 2010-08-16T19:33:10Z 30 http://community.bewell.com/service/searchEverything.kickAction?as=142833&includeVideo=on&includeAudio=on&includePhoto=on&includeBlog=on&sortType=recent 0 http://community.bewell.com/_Justice-for-Marriage-Rights-Its-Not-for-the-Majority-to-Decide/BLOG/2556968/142833.html Reading the publicity on the gay marriage decision I am struck by the fact that the losing side of the argument believes that gay marriage should be decided by referendum. If people vote for it, it should happen; if people don’t, it shouldn’t. That is the way people used to feel about slavery. There were slave states and free states. And that is also the way people used to feel about interracial marriage. Let each state decide for itself. Interracial marriage was illegal in some states and legal in others. Not until the civil war did we say that our nation could not endure with slavery -- no matter what the slave-legal states wanted  -- and not until the relatively recent Supreme Court case of Loving vs. Virginia, did interracial marriage become legal throughout the United States. The judge, who decided the gay marriage case decided it in this tradition: that some things are given to all citizens as a basic right and that not giving same sex couples the ability to marry violated the 14th amendment. He was not thinking about whether or not gay marriage was popular; he was thinking about whether there was anything except tradition (assuming the separation of church and state) that mandated maintaining the status quo. A large number of experts in this trial, as in others, said there was no abiding interest that the nation had that supported blocking the right to marry. The judge agreed: and so the stage has been set for the subsequent appeal and the continued debate on same sex marriage. Personally, I think the dye is cast. I cannot tell you when the Supreme Court will affirm the lower court. It may be this round or it may be another. But powerful written opinions are accumulating (Hawaii, Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa, etc) and they support the idea of marriage as a right for all citizens in this country. These are decisions built on interpretations of constitutional law and they are resented and refused by people who believe this should be settled by a vote of the people. But while I don’t think civil rights should be decided by referendum, the fact is there will be soon be a majority of our population who believe in gay marriage. Many polls have shown that the majority of men and women under 25 approve of gay marriage -- and so people who think it should be a popular vote will eventually lose by that method of justice as well. We have changed as a nation. We have extended the entitlement of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to many classes of people that were disenfranchised for most of the history of this country.  We have become more sophisticated, tolerant and informed about race. We understand that love transcends the boundaries of religion, race -- and now gender. These issues have always been difficult for us, but over time, they become easier and easier. I think this new decision is a victory for our humanity and for justice. I think over time most Americans will agree with me. Whether or not that will be before or after a Supreme Court affirmation of same sex marriage, I do not know. But it will happen.   Reading the publicity on the gay marriage decision I am struck by the fact that the losing side of the argument believes that gay marriage should be decided by referendum. If people vote for it, it should happen; if people don’t, it shouldn’t. That is the way people used to feel about slavery. There were slave states and free states. And that is also the way people used to feel about interracial marriage. Let each state decide for itself. Interracial marriage was illegal in some states and legal in others. Not until the civil war did we say that our nation could not endure with slavery -- no matter what the slave-legal states wanted  -- and not until the relatively recent Supreme Court case of Loving vs. Virginia, did interracial marriage become legal throughout the United States. The judge, who decided the gay marriage case decided it in this tradition: that some things are given to all citizens as a basic right and that not giving same sex couples the ability to marry violated the 14th amendment. He was not thinking about whether or not gay marriage was popular; he was thinking about whether there was anything except tradition (assuming the separation of church and state) that mandated maintaining the status quo. A large number of experts in this trial, as in others, said there was no abiding interest that the nation had that supported blocking the right to marry. The judge agreed: and so the stage has been set for the subsequent appeal and the continued debate on same sex marriage. Personally, I think the dye is cast. I cannot tell you when the Supreme Court will affirm the lower court. It may be this round or it may be another. But powerful written opinions are accumulating (Hawaii, Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa, etc) and they support the idea of marriage as a right for all citizens in this country. These are decisions built on interpretations of constitutional law and they are resented and refused by people who believe this should be settled by a vote of the people. But while I don’t think civil rights should be decided by referendum, the fact is there will be soon be a majority of our population who believe in gay marriage. Many polls have shown that the majority of men and women under 25 approve of gay marriage -- and so people who think it should be a popular vote will eventually lose by that method of justice as well. We have changed as a nation. We have extended the entitlement of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to many classes of people that were disenfranchised for most of the history of this country.  We have become more sophisticated, tolerant and informed about race. We understand that love transcends the boundaries of religion, race -- and now gender. These issues have always been difficult for us, but over time, they become easier and easier. I think this new decision is a victory for our humanity and for justice. I think over time most Americans will agree with me. Whether or not that will be before or after a Supreme Court affirmation of same sex marriage, I do not know. But it will happen.   Mon, 16 Aug 2010 19:33:10 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_Justice-for-Marriage-Rights-Its-Not-for-the-Majority-to-Decide/BLOG/2556968/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2010-08-16T19:33:10Z BeWell Community Reading the publicity on the gay marriage decision I am struck by the fact that the losing side of the argument believes that gay marriage should be decided by referendum. If people vote for it, it should happen; if people don’t, it shouldn’t. That is the way people used to feel about slavery. There were slave states and free states. And that is also the way people used to feel about interracial marriage. Let each state decide for itself. Interracial marriage was illegal in some states and legal in others. Not until the civil war did we say that our nation could not endure with slavery -- no matter what the slave-legal states wanted  -- and not until the relatively recent Supreme Court case of Loving vs. Virginia, did interracial marriage become legal throughout the United States. The judge, who decided the gay marriage case decided it in this tradition: that some things are given to all citizens as a basic right and that not giving same sex couples the ability to marry violated the 14th amendment. He was not thinking about whether or not gay marriage was popular; he was thinking about whether there was anything except tradition (assuming the separation of church and state) that mandated maintaining the status quo. A large number of experts in this trial, as in others, said there was no abiding interest that the nation had that supported blocking the right to marry. The judge agreed: and so the stage has been set for the subsequent appeal and the continued debate on same sex marriage. Personally, I think the dye is cast. I cannot tell you when the Supreme Court will affirm the lower court. It may be this round or it may be another. But powerful written opinions are accumulating (Hawaii, Vermont, Massachusetts, Iowa, etc) and they support the idea of marriage as a right for all citizens in this country. These are decisions built on interpretations of constitutional law and they are resented and refused by people who believe this should be settled by a vote of the people. But while I don’t think civil rights should be decided by referendum, the fact is there will be soon be a majority of our population who believe in gay marriage. Many polls have shown that the majority of men and women under 25 approve of gay marriage -- and so people who think it should be a popular vote will eventually lose by that method of justice as well. We have changed as a nation. We have extended the entitlement of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to many classes of people that were disenfranchised for most of the history of this country.  We have become more sophisticated, tolerant and informed about race. We understand that love transcends the boundaries of religion, race -- and now gender. These issues have always been difficult for us, but over time, they become easier and easier. I think this new decision is a victory for our humanity and for justice. I think over time most Americans will agree with me. Whether or not that will be before or after a Supreme Court affirmation of same sex marriage, I do not know. But it will happen.   gay, homosexuality, marital, marriage, pepper, rights, schwartz nonadult false Justice for Marriage Rights: It's Not for the Majority to Decide! text blog gay,homosexuality,marital,marriage,pepper,rights,schwartz 166 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 2556968 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_Prenuptial-Agreements-A-Blight-or-Just-Bright/BLOG/2482717/142833.html One recent study reported a rise in prenuptial agreements among Baby Boomers. So the question is why the bump up -- and whether or not that's a good or bad thing. The reasons for the increase are clear. Baby Boomers married later and so they worked for a while and accumulated their own, individual stuff. They also got divorced more, lost a lot in those divorces, retrenched economically, and subsequently don't want to endanger what they have salvaged. Perhaps most, unlike previous generations, women's successful entrance into salaried and executive work created another gender that was worried about sharing what they had earned if a divorce were to occur. So, given all that, it would be shocking if prenuptials were not on the rise! The fact is that it is impossible to predict if marriage will be for a lifetime. And the fact is that marriage is a business relationship that could end abruptly without the consent or knowledge of both partners. Oh yes, they are based on love (at least in this country), but the institution exists far beyond the feelings of the people involved. Legal Spouses (gay or heterosexual) are responsible for each other's debts, can spend money from mutual accounts and can be involved with property that they can not buy or sell without each other's knowledge and signature.  Each state has a web of laws pertaining to the economic obligations of marriage and they differ significantly from one another. Some presume a fifty-fifty split, others whatever is "equitable".  While ownership or income earned before the marriage is supposedly not considered joint ownership, ownership gets muddied. (For example, a house owned by one spouse but substantially remodeled by the other, or changed by contributions to the mortgage, taxes, etc.) What were the agreements of the two people? What did they intend?  When a couple splits up, there are almost always differences in the recall about what that arrangement was.  "Even prenups can be challenged, but at least one thing is fairly clear: they signed a document as to their intent. Sure, they can be challenged for duress (i.e. popped out right before the wedding ceremony) but when well done (represented by different lawyers) they make the outcome of a struggle a lot more certain.  In fact, they make it more likely that there won't be a struggle since -- if the two people are true to their arrangement -- everything is pretty much determined. But argue opponents: isn't a prenuptial proof of lack of commitment in the beginning. Doesn't it make it more likely there will be a divorce? Isn't it an exit strategy from the very beginning? That all sounds rational, but there is no data that indicates any truth to any of those worries. I suppose there are fortune hunters who want an assurance of some pay off; they'd rather not have a prenup but will do one assuming they will at least get something for their troubles and think maybe they can break the contract if they have a few loop holes. But most people are just making sure that they are not risking everything. And that it is an insurance policy that they hope never to have to invoke (much the same way disability insurance is hopefully a wasted expense). I don't think it spells the end of romance or a huge toehold for cynicism. I think it just reflects the social forces that have been changing for quite awhile now and an adjustment that is wise for most couples who are not just starting out in the world. Will it also be true for newly weds just starting out in the world without many worldly goods? Right now -- not so much -- but who knows about the future? Keep your eye on that divorce rate. That may predict how common prenups may become.   One recent study reported a rise in prenuptial agreements among Baby Boomers. So the question is why the bump up -- and whether or not that's a good or bad thing. The reasons for the increase are clear. Baby Boomers married later and so they worked for a while and accumulated their own, individual stuff. They also got divorced more, lost a lot in those divorces, retrenched economically, and subsequently don't want to endanger what they have salvaged. Perhaps most, unlike previous generations, women's successful entrance into salaried and executive work created another gender that was worried about sharing what they had earned if a divorce were to occur. So, given all that, it would be shocking if prenuptials were not on the rise! The fact is that it is impossible to predict if marriage will be for a lifetime. And the fact is that marriage is a business relationship that could end abruptly without the consent or knowledge of both partners. Oh yes, they are based on love (at least in this country), but the institution exists far beyond the feelings of the people involved. Legal Spouses (gay or heterosexual) are responsible for each other's debts, can spend money from mutual accounts and can be involved with property that they can not buy or sell without each other's knowledge and signature.  Each state has a web of laws pertaining to the economic obligations of marriage and they differ significantly from one another. Some presume a fifty-fifty split, others whatever is "equitable".  While ownership or income earned before the marriage is supposedly not considered joint ownership, ownership gets muddied. (For example, a house owned by one spouse but substantially remodeled by the other, or changed by contributions to the mortgage, taxes, etc.) What were the agreements of the two people? What did they intend?  When a couple splits up, there are almost always differences in the recall about what that arrangement was.  "Even prenups can be challenged, but at least one thing is fairly clear: they signed a document as to their intent. Sure, they can be challenged for duress (i.e. popped out right before the wedding ceremony) but when well done (represented by different lawyers) they make the outcome of a struggle a lot more certain.  In fact, they make it more likely that there won't be a struggle since -- if the two people are true to their arrangement -- everything is pretty much determined. But argue opponents: isn't a prenuptial proof of lack of commitment in the beginning. Doesn't it make it more likely there will be a divorce? Isn't it an exit strategy from the very beginning? That all sounds rational, but there is no data that indicates any truth to any of those worries. I suppose there are fortune hunters who want an assurance of some pay off; they'd rather not have a prenup but will do one assuming they will at least get something for their troubles and think maybe they can break the contract if they have a few loop holes. But most people are just making sure that they are not risking everything. And that it is an insurance policy that they hope never to have to invoke (much the same way disability insurance is hopefully a wasted expense). I don't think it spells the end of romance or a huge toehold for cynicism. I think it just reflects the social forces that have been changing for quite awhile now and an adjustment that is wise for most couples who are not just starting out in the world. Will it also be true for newly weds just starting out in the world without many worldly goods? Right now -- not so much -- but who knows about the future? Keep your eye on that divorce rate. That may predict how common prenups may become.   Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:43:57 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_Prenuptial-Agreements-A-Blight-or-Just-Bright/BLOG/2482717/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2010-07-22T15:43:57Z BeWell Community One recent study reported a rise in prenuptial agreements among Baby Boomers. So the question is why the bump up -- and whether or not that's a good or bad thing. The reasons for the increase are clear. Baby Boomers married later and so they worked for a while and accumulated their own, individual stuff. They also got divorced more, lost a lot in those divorces, retrenched economically, and subsequently don't want to endanger what they have salvaged. Perhaps most, unlike previous generations, women's successful entrance into salaried and executive work created another gender that was worried about sharing what they had earned if a divorce were to occur. So, given all that, it would be shocking if prenuptials were not on the rise! The fact is that it is impossible to predict if marriage will be for a lifetime. And the fact is that marriage is a business relationship that could end abruptly without the consent or knowledge of both partners. Oh yes, they are based on love (at least in this country), but the institution exists far beyond the feelings of the people involved. Legal Spouses (gay or heterosexual) are responsible for each other's debts, can spend money from mutual accounts and can be involved with property that they can not buy or sell without each other's knowledge and signature.  Each state has a web of laws pertaining to the economic obligations of marriage and they differ significantly from one another. Some presume a fifty-fifty split, others whatever is "equitable".  While ownership or income earned before the marriage is supposedly not considered joint ownership, ownership gets muddied. (For example, a house owned by one spouse but substantially remodeled by the other, or changed by contributions to the mortgage, taxes, etc.) What were the agreements of the two people? What did they intend?  When a couple splits up, there are almost always differences in the recall about what that arrangement was.  "Even prenups can be challenged, but at least one thing is fairly clear: they signed a document as to their intent. Sure, they can be challenged for duress (i.e. popped out right before the wedding ceremony) but when well done (represented by different lawyers) they make the outcome of a struggle a lot more certain.  In fact, they make it more likely that there won't be a struggle since -- if the two people are true to their arrangement -- everything is pretty much determined. But argue opponents: isn't a prenuptial proof of lack of commitment in the beginning. Doesn't it make it more likely there will be a divorce? Isn't it an exit strategy from the very beginning? That all sounds rational, but there is no data that indicates any truth to any of those worries. I suppose there are fortune hunters who want an assurance of some pay off; they'd rather not have a prenup but will do one assuming they will at least get something for their troubles and think maybe they can break the contract if they have a few loop holes. But most people are just making sure that they are not risking everything. And that it is an insurance policy that they hope never to have to invoke (much the same way disability insurance is hopefully a wasted expense). I don't think it spells the end of romance or a huge toehold for cynicism. I think it just reflects the social forces that have been changing for quite awhile now and an adjustment that is wise for most couples who are not just starting out in the world. Will it also be true for newly weds just starting out in the world without many worldly goods? Right now -- not so much -- but who knows about the future? Keep your eye on that divorce rate. That may predict how common prenups may become.   divorce, marriage, pepper, pre-nuptial, prenuptial, schwartz nonadult false Prenuptial Agreements: A Blight or Just Bright? text blog divorce,marriage,pepper,pre-nuptial,prenuptial,schwartz 231 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 2482717 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_Can-You-Afford-Not-to-Take-a-Vacation/BLOG/2436639/142833.html There is a curious American statistic. It starts with the fact that most Americans only get two weeks (or less, or none) paid vacation a year. This is bizarre in and of itself. (All French citizens, in comparison, have a guaranteed six weeks time off.) However, the weirdest part of the data is that only half of Americans who are provided time off actually take their vacation at all. This strange behavior has to be revisited. I understand that for some people the income is crucial. It's a matter of eating and having a place to sleep. That's a larger and more difficult subject. But let's talk about the people for whom the difference is not having another television set or having to get lower priced jeans. That's the greater population affected. It is to you that I speak -- and, in some ways, to all of us. Vacations are not a luxury. Our health, mental and physical, requires down time. And not just a day's unscheduled relaxation; but enough time so that your heart rate slows, your mind has time to consider the future as well as the present, and your relationship gets a firm and happy foundation upon which to grow...or heal. Since my primary professional expertise is in relationships, I am going to concentrate on that last fact, but of course the issue of your mental and physical health is not a small item. Relationship stability and happiness, however, is a big enough topic all by itself. I believe even the longest relationships need time to rediscover why they exist. The centrifugal force of every day life is enormous. It is easy to be thrown away from each other by work, children, every day tasks, and the losses and challenges of the lives of friends and family. It is easy to get into perfunctory kisses, efficient handling of daily necessities, and skimming along the surface of who you are, or could be, together. Months and months of this kind of life make it seem like the only kind of life possible -- and that isn't so. Sure, people who have gotten into a long distance relationship even while living together can go see a therapist, but sometimes that only exacerbates the situation. A relationship needs the strength earned by pleasure, play and intimacy if it is going to tackle its weak points. Often people go see a therapist when they are at their lowest point, and when they try and rebuild it is hard because it has been so long since they have had rewarding, passionate, and joyful moments together. Honestly, I think the easiest and best step to rebuilding that bond is time together that is unscripted and away from the usual activities that make life busy with everything but each other. Instead of staying home and "catching up with chores" for the holidays, a three-day hike, car trip, or an adventure of some kind can have a more romantic and emotionally enriching effect than you might think. I was just in DC, for work, and I was right across from the National Portrait Gallery, a place I had always wanted to see but had never taken the time to actually go inside. I had a few hours to myself and I was astonished to discover what a fantastic place the portrait museum was. Even someone who is not crazy about art would love the hall of the Presidents where famous and unknown portraits and photographs of all of our Presidents bring history alive in the most entertaining way. I thought to myself, "What a great long weekend it would be to come with my partner and see a few of the great places like this one that our capital offers. Summer rates on hotels are attractive and there are very reasonable flight, hotel and museum packages. What fun it would be!" But it's more than fun. It's experiencing something engaging together that makes a difference. It is having a new set of interesting topics to discuss. It is time for holding hands and making plans. I am firmly convinced that if we took more of these times for each other that the divorce rate would be lower. Even day trips would make a difference, but a few days or more are the best tonic I can think of for an affection-starved relationship or one that just needs a small shot of romance to feel reinvigorated. The best conversations happen under happy, enjoyable, and open, unstressed, unhurried time. Take a vacation this summer. It's not a matter of whether you need it or not. Believe me, you need it.     There is a curious American statistic. It starts with the fact that most Americans only get two weeks (or less, or none) paid vacation a year. This is bizarre in and of itself. (All French citizens, in comparison, have a guaranteed six weeks time off.) However, the weirdest part of the data is that only half of Americans who are provided time off actually take their vacation at all. This strange behavior has to be revisited. I understand that for some people the income is crucial. It's a matter of eating and having a place to sleep. That's a larger and more difficult subject. But let's talk about the people for whom the difference is not having another television set or having to get lower priced jeans. That's the greater population affected. It is to you that I speak -- and, in some ways, to all of us. Vacations are not a luxury. Our health, mental and physical, requires down time. And not just a day's unscheduled relaxation; but enough time so that your heart rate slows, your mind has time to consider the future as well as the present, and your relationship gets a firm and happy foundation upon which to grow...or heal. Since my primary professional expertise is in relationships, I am going to concentrate on that last fact, but of course the issue of your mental and physical health is not a small item. Relationship stability and happiness, however, is a big enough topic all by itself. I believe even the longest relationships need time to rediscover why they exist. The centrifugal force of every day life is enormous. It is easy to be thrown away from each other by work, children, every day tasks, and the losses and challenges of the lives of friends and family. It is easy to get into perfunctory kisses, efficient handling of daily necessities, and skimming along the surface of who you are, or could be, together. Months and months of this kind of life make it seem like the only kind of life possible -- and that isn't so. Sure, people who have gotten into a long distance relationship even while living together can go see a therapist, but sometimes that only exacerbates the situation. A relationship needs the strength earned by pleasure, play and intimacy if it is going to tackle its weak points. Often people go see a therapist when they are at their lowest point, and when they try and rebuild it is hard because it has been so long since they have had rewarding, passionate, and joyful moments together. Honestly, I think the easiest and best step to rebuilding that bond is time together that is unscripted and away from the usual activities that make life busy with everything but each other. Instead of staying home and "catching up with chores" for the holidays, a three-day hike, car trip, or an adventure of some kind can have a more romantic and emotionally enriching effect than you might think. I was just in DC, for work, and I was right across from the National Portrait Gallery, a place I had always wanted to see but had never taken the time to actually go inside. I had a few hours to myself and I was astonished to discover what a fantastic place the portrait museum was. Even someone who is not crazy about art would love the hall of the Presidents where famous and unknown portraits and photographs of all of our Presidents bring history alive in the most entertaining way. I thought to myself, "What a great long weekend it would be to come with my partner and see a few of the great places like this one that our capital offers. Summer rates on hotels are attractive and there are very reasonable flight, hotel and museum packages. What fun it would be!" But it's more than fun. It's experiencing something engaging together that makes a difference. It is having a new set of interesting topics to discuss. It is time for holding hands and making plans. I am firmly convinced that if we took more of these times for each other that the divorce rate would be lower. Even day trips would make a difference, but a few days or more are the best tonic I can think of for an affection-starved relationship or one that just needs a small shot of romance to feel reinvigorated. The best conversations happen under happy, enjoyable, and open, unstressed, unhurried time. Take a vacation this summer. It's not a matter of whether you need it or not. Believe me, you need it.     Wed, 07 Jul 2010 20:07:31 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_Can-You-Afford-Not-to-Take-a-Vacation/BLOG/2436639/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2010-07-07T20:07:31Z BeWell Community There is a curious American statistic. It starts with the fact that most Americans only get two weeks (or less, or none) paid vacation a year. This is bizarre in and of itself. (All French citizens, in comparison, have a guaranteed six weeks time off.) However, the weirdest part of the data is that only half of Americans who are provided time off actually take their vacation at all. This strange behavior has to be revisited. I understand that for some people the income is crucial. It's a matter of eating and having a place to sleep. That's a larger and more difficult subject. But let's talk about the people for whom the difference is not having another television set or having to get lower priced jeans. That's the greater population affected. It is to you that I speak -- and, in some ways, to all of us. Vacations are not a luxury. Our health, mental and physical, requires down time. And not just a day's unscheduled relaxation; but enough time so that your heart rate slows, your mind has time to consider the future as well as the present, and your relationship gets a firm and happy foundation upon which to grow...or heal. Since my primary professional expertise is in relationships, I am going to concentrate on that last fact, but of course the issue of your mental and physical health is not a small item. Relationship stability and happiness, however, is a big enough topic all by itself. I believe even the longest relationships need time to rediscover why they exist. The centrifugal force of every day life is enormous. It is easy to be thrown away from each other by work, children, every day tasks, and the losses and challenges of the lives of friends and family. It is easy to get into perfunctory kisses, efficient handling of daily necessities, and skimming along the surface of who you are, or could be, together. Months and months of this kind of life make it seem like the only kind of life possible -- and that isn't so. Sure, people who have gotten into a long distance relationship even while living together can go see a therapist, but sometimes that only exacerbates the situation. A relationship needs the strength earned by pleasure, play and intimacy if it is going to tackle its weak points. Often people go see a therapist when they are at their lowest point, and when they try and rebuild it is hard because it has been so long since they have had rewarding, passionate, and joyful moments together. Honestly, I think the easiest and best step to rebuilding that bond is time together that is unscripted and away from the usual activities that make life busy with everything but each other. Instead of staying home and "catching up with chores" for the holidays, a three-day hike, car trip, or an adventure of some kind can have a more romantic and emotionally enriching effect than you might think. I was just in DC, for work, and I was right across from the National Portrait Gallery, a place I had always wanted to see but had never taken the time to actually go inside. I had a few hours to myself and I was astonished to discover what a fantastic place the portrait museum was. Even someone who is not crazy about art would love the hall of the Presidents where famous and unknown portraits and photographs of all of our Presidents bring history alive in the most entertaining way. I thought to myself, "What a great long weekend it would be to come with my partner and see a few of the great places like this one that our capital offers. Summer rates on hotels are attractive and there are very reasonable flight, hotel and museum packages. What fun it would be!" But it's more than fun. It's experiencing something engaging together that makes a difference. It is having a new set of interesting topics to discuss. It is time for holding hands and making plans. I am firmly convinced that if we took more of these times for each other that the divorce rate would be lower. Even day trips would make a difference, but a few days or more are the best tonic I can think of for an affection-starved relationship or one that just needs a small shot of romance to feel reinvigorated. The best conversations happen under happy, enjoyable, and open, unstressed, unhurried time. Take a vacation this summer. It's not a matter of whether you need it or not. Believe me, you need it.     balance, family, holiday, pepper, relationships, schwartz, vacation, work nonadult false Can You Afford Not to Take a Vacation? text blog balance,family,holiday,pepper,relationships,schwartz,vacation,work 204 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 2436639 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_My-Mothers-Day-Lesson/BLOG/2333988/142833.html Sometimes its important to write when your heart is still bounding and your emotions are raw. On the morning of Mother's Day, I went out into the garden to do a little clipping with two of my dogs following, as they usually do. One of the dogs, Webster, has a particularly good nose and he seemed to go off sniffing obsessively in one corner of the garden. I didn't pay much attention. Suddenly, a blue jay came out of one of the low bushes and attacked him. He was surprised and so was I, but in a second I realized that the only thing that would make a single blue jay attack a big dog must be babies. "She must have a nest in there," I thought! Webster, a part border collie, tried to grab her with his mouth, but let her go when I yelled at him. The little blue jay hopped away, I sincerely hope not internally damaged. I got the dogs out of the garden quickly and sat there, quite unnerved, struck by the quality and fierceness of motherly love. You can call it instinct -- it is instinct to love, protect and, if necessary, swap one's own life for the life of one's children. Almost every mother has it, and my guess is that most fathers have that gene too. It takes a lot for a sociologist to say this, but we are hard wired to protect our own. How else could any species survive? I then sat down and noticed tears running down my face, and I should mention I don't cry very often. It took me a minute to hone in on what was touching me so deeply. I found it: It was newly stirred up grief at losing my own mother many years ago, stoked by the thought of those countless mothers who sacrifice, protect, and love beyond measure their babies, however old they are. I am so grateful to be a mom. I was a young, pretty angry feminist in the 1970's, and for a while, I thought of children as a burden, an end to career hopes and life dreams. I wondered if I could have children and still be a whole person -- working in the world, having a life that was not reduced to domestic duties. Thankfully, the women's movement helped make having children and having a career not an either/or choice. I did have both an active commitment to work and I did have two children. (And I was lucky that my body complied since I was in my late thirties at the time. Some of my other friends who had the same ambivalence had waited too long and were unable to conceive). At the time, I don't think I knew how extremely fortunate I was. So I sit here thinking of that mother blue jay. I am praying she is well enough to continue her job. And I think of my mom and my kids and the bond we all share. Every day is really mother's day. But it is interesting to me that this vignette happened on the holiday we set aside to honor our mothers. It made me think about how grateful I am to be a mother and how, for almost all mothers, there is no more inspired commitment -- and pleasure -- in the world.    Sometimes its important to write when your heart is still bounding and your emotions are raw. On the morning of Mother's Day, I went out into the garden to do a little clipping with two of my dogs following, as they usually do. One of the dogs, Webster, has a particularly good nose and he seemed to go off sniffing obsessively in one corner of the garden. I didn't pay much attention. Suddenly, a blue jay came out of one of the low bushes and attacked him. He was surprised and so was I, but in a second I realized that the only thing that would make a single blue jay attack a big dog must be babies. "She must have a nest in there," I thought! Webster, a part border collie, tried to grab her with his mouth, but let her go when I yelled at him. The little blue jay hopped away, I sincerely hope not internally damaged. I got the dogs out of the garden quickly and sat there, quite unnerved, struck by the quality and fierceness of motherly love. You can call it instinct -- it is instinct to love, protect and, if necessary, swap one's own life for the life of one's children. Almost every mother has it, and my guess is that most fathers have that gene too. It takes a lot for a sociologist to say this, but we are hard wired to protect our own. How else could any species survive? I then sat down and noticed tears running down my face, and I should mention I don't cry very often. It took me a minute to hone in on what was touching me so deeply. I found it: It was newly stirred up grief at losing my own mother many years ago, stoked by the thought of those countless mothers who sacrifice, protect, and love beyond measure their babies, however old they are. I am so grateful to be a mom. I was a young, pretty angry feminist in the 1970's, and for a while, I thought of children as a burden, an end to career hopes and life dreams. I wondered if I could have children and still be a whole person -- working in the world, having a life that was not reduced to domestic duties. Thankfully, the women's movement helped make having children and having a career not an either/or choice. I did have both an active commitment to work and I did have two children. (And I was lucky that my body complied since I was in my late thirties at the time. Some of my other friends who had the same ambivalence had waited too long and were unable to conceive). At the time, I don't think I knew how extremely fortunate I was. So I sit here thinking of that mother blue jay. I am praying she is well enough to continue her job. And I think of my mom and my kids and the bond we all share. Every day is really mother's day. But it is interesting to me that this vignette happened on the holiday we set aside to honor our mothers. It made me think about how grateful I am to be a mother and how, for almost all mothers, there is no more inspired commitment -- and pleasure -- in the world.    Tue, 11 May 2010 16:11:14 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_My-Mothers-Day-Lesson/BLOG/2333988/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2010-05-11T16:11:14Z BeWell Community Sometimes its important to write when your heart is still bounding and your emotions are raw. On the morning of Mother's Day, I went out into the garden to do a little clipping with two of my dogs following, as they usually do. One of the dogs, Webster, has a particularly good nose and he seemed to go off sniffing obsessively in one corner of the garden. I didn't pay much attention. Suddenly, a blue jay came out of one of the low bushes and attacked him. He was surprised and so was I, but in a second I realized that the only thing that would make a single blue jay attack a big dog must be babies. "She must have a nest in there," I thought! Webster, a part border collie, tried to grab her with his mouth, but let her go when I yelled at him. The little blue jay hopped away, I sincerely hope not internally damaged. I got the dogs out of the garden quickly and sat there, quite unnerved, struck by the quality and fierceness of motherly love. You can call it instinct -- it is instinct to love, protect and, if necessary, swap one's own life for the life of one's children. Almost every mother has it, and my guess is that most fathers have that gene too. It takes a lot for a sociologist to say this, but we are hard wired to protect our own. How else could any species survive? I then sat down and noticed tears running down my face, and I should mention I don't cry very often. It took me a minute to hone in on what was touching me so deeply. I found it: It was newly stirred up grief at losing my own mother many years ago, stoked by the thought of those countless mothers who sacrifice, protect, and love beyond measure their babies, however old they are. I am so grateful to be a mom. I was a young, pretty angry feminist in the 1970's, and for a while, I thought of children as a burden, an end to career hopes and life dreams. I wondered if I could have children and still be a whole person -- working in the world, having a life that was not reduced to domestic duties. Thankfully, the women's movement helped make having children and having a career not an either/or choice. I did have both an active commitment to work and I did have two children. (And I was lucky that my body complied since I was in my late thirties at the time. Some of my other friends who had the same ambivalence had waited too long and were unable to conceive). At the time, I don't think I knew how extremely fortunate I was. So I sit here thinking of that mother blue jay. I am praying she is well enough to continue her job. And I think of my mom and my kids and the bond we all share. Every day is really mother's day. But it is interesting to me that this vignette happened on the holiday we set aside to honor our mothers. It made me think about how grateful I am to be a mother and how, for almost all mothers, there is no more inspired commitment -- and pleasure -- in the world.    motherhood, pepper, schwartz nonadult false My Mother's Day Lesson text blog motherhood,pepper,schwartz 295 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 2333988 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_10-Things-You-Thought-Were-Abnormal-in-Your-RelationshipBut-Really-Arent/BLOG/2305393/142833.html We are all obsessed with being normal. In fact, that's quite, er, normal. When I say normal, I just mean you are doing something that won't make you sick, sadistic, or arrested. It doesn't have to be average -- just within a range of human behavior that doesn't doom all living things -- including yourself. So, it's normal for example to lose your temper. It's not normal to torch your neighborhood (even though the thought may have entered your mind occasionally...). So that begs the question: What's normal in a relationship?   It's more varied than you might think. Here's a list of my favorite myths about relationship-based issues and behaviors that some experts will tell you are abnormal (but I won't). Long silences.  Over time there is less that you have to say. You know your partner's response! The need for space.  Only puppies want to be on top of each other, and they get tired of it too. Thinking about something else during sex. Is there anyone who hasn't, at least once, remembered they left the car windows open when the rain, and sex, started at the same time? Thinking about 'the one who got away.'  Almost everyone has had a fantasy lover -- either a real one that didn't work out or a movie star whom you dream about. There is that "what if" thought that comes now and then. Wanting to run away yourself. Hey, life is sometimes just hellish or boring, or both. Or you feel underappreciated and over-worked. Sometimes you just want to chuck it all. Being seriously annoyed at a partner's habit. You are lucky if it's just one habit. Most people have at least one thing about their partner they really can't stand, like snoring, poor hygiene, sloppiness, foot-in-the-mouth problems, and so on. Giving out bad vibes to a friend of your partner whom you wish would go away. Most good friendships are made, not inherited. There is usually at least one friend of your partner you hope will disappear. Faking more sexual arousal than you are experiencing. Sometimes the mojo isn't working, but you don't want to hurt his feelings. Good partners tend to be kind about this sort of thing; angry partners telegraph that, on the whole, they'd rather be quilting. Not taking care of yourself. Everyone knows it's important to stay fit and attractive, but it's so much work. Lying. Maybe there are some long term couples that have never told a lie to each other about anything -- conscious omissions count -- but I wouldn't make a money bet on that. Feel better knowing that you're normal?!   We are all obsessed with being normal. In fact, that's quite, er, normal. When I say normal, I just mean you are doing something that won't make you sick, sadistic, or arrested. It doesn't have to be average -- just within a range of human behavior that doesn't doom all living things -- including yourself. So, it's normal for example to lose your temper. It's not normal to torch your neighborhood (even though the thought may have entered your mind occasionally...). So that begs the question: What's normal in a relationship?   It's more varied than you might think. Here's a list of my favorite myths about relationship-based issues and behaviors that some experts will tell you are abnormal (but I won't). Long silences.  Over time there is less that you have to say. You know your partner's response! The need for space.  Only puppies want to be on top of each other, and they get tired of it too. Thinking about something else during sex. Is there anyone who hasn't, at least once, remembered they left the car windows open when the rain, and sex, started at the same time? Thinking about 'the one who got away.'  Almost everyone has had a fantasy lover -- either a real one that didn't work out or a movie star whom you dream about. There is that "what if" thought that comes now and then. Wanting to run away yourself. Hey, life is sometimes just hellish or boring, or both. Or you feel underappreciated and over-worked. Sometimes you just want to chuck it all. Being seriously annoyed at a partner's habit. You are lucky if it's just one habit. Most people have at least one thing about their partner they really can't stand, like snoring, poor hygiene, sloppiness, foot-in-the-mouth problems, and so on. Giving out bad vibes to a friend of your partner whom you wish would go away. Most good friendships are made, not inherited. There is usually at least one friend of your partner you hope will disappear. Faking more sexual arousal than you are experiencing. Sometimes the mojo isn't working, but you don't want to hurt his feelings. Good partners tend to be kind about this sort of thing; angry partners telegraph that, on the whole, they'd rather be quilting. Not taking care of yourself. Everyone knows it's important to stay fit and attractive, but it's so much work. Lying. Maybe there are some long term couples that have never told a lie to each other about anything -- conscious omissions count -- but I wouldn't make a money bet on that. Feel better knowing that you're normal?!   Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:04:50 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_10-Things-You-Thought-Were-Abnormal-in-Your-RelationshipBut-Really-Arent/BLOG/2305393/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2010-04-19T16:04:50Z BeWell Community We are all obsessed with being normal. In fact, that's quite, er, normal. When I say normal, I just mean you are doing something that won't make you sick, sadistic, or arrested. It doesn't have to be average -- just within a range of human behavior that doesn't doom all living things -- including yourself. So, it's normal for example to lose your temper. It's not normal to torch your neighborhood (even though the thought may have entered your mind occasionally...). So that begs the question: What's normal in a relationship?   It's more varied than you might think. Here's a list of my favorite myths about relationship-based issues and behaviors that some experts will tell you are abnormal (but I won't). Long silences.  Over time there is less that you have to say. You know your partner's response! The need for space.  Only puppies want to be on top of each other, and they get tired of it too. Thinking about something else during sex. Is there anyone who hasn't, at least once, remembered they left the car windows open when the rain, and sex, started at the same time? Thinking about 'the one who got away.'  Almost everyone has had a fantasy lover -- either a real one that didn't work out or a movie star whom you dream about. There is that "what if" thought that comes now and then. Wanting to run away yourself. Hey, life is sometimes just hellish or boring, or both. Or you feel underappreciated and over-worked. Sometimes you just want to chuck it all. Being seriously annoyed at a partner's habit. You are lucky if it's just one habit. Most people have at least one thing about their partner they really can't stand, like snoring, poor hygiene, sloppiness, foot-in-the-mouth problems, and so on. Giving out bad vibes to a friend of your partner whom you wish would go away. Most good friendships are made, not inherited. There is usually at least one friend of your partner you hope will disappear. Faking more sexual arousal than you are experiencing. Sometimes the mojo isn't working, but you don't want to hurt his feelings. Good partners tend to be kind about this sort of thing; angry partners telegraph that, on the whole, they'd rather be quilting. Not taking care of yourself. Everyone knows it's important to stay fit and attractive, but it's so much work. Lying. Maybe there are some long term couples that have never told a lie to each other about anything -- conscious omissions count -- but I wouldn't make a money bet on that. Feel better knowing that you're normal?!   marriage, pepper, relationships, schwartz nonadult false 10 Things You Thought Were Abnormal in Your Relationship...But Really Aren't text blog marriage,pepper,relationships,schwartz 410 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 1 0 2305393 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_The-Latest-Low-Using-Sex-for-Fame/BLOG/1927705/142833.html Let's talk about the western world's mental health. Here is the situation that has me going: I was called the other day by a reporter who asked me if a certain woman's reaction to being caught in a sex scandal was: "normal." The facts I have been told are these: a staff member in a Seattle City Councilman's office was introduced to a famous English soccer star at a meeting in a hotel downtown. She was beautiful, and he was taken with her. He propositioned her, at some point she signed on for the program, and they spent a night having sex. Somewhere along the line, someone tipped off the press, and the soccer star (married of course) panicked and called the young woman, begging her not to divulge the secrets of their night together because of what it would do to his marriage. (I gather he had had other extra marital affairs, which had been previously exposed in the press, and he had reason to believe his wife's tolerance might be exhausted). Evidently, according to her, the surprising news that he was married enraged her (she said he was so tender and taken with her it did not occur to her that he might be married...). So, not only did she admit to the affair, the interview she gave the English tabloid press is so sexy it could be published as a page out of a soft porn pot boiler. She gives a move by move description of the seduction, detailed color commentary about their love making and includes her not always flattering impressions of him out of bed. (She did compliment him as a lover). The description would hardly have been more detailed if we had been there to watch it happen. Furthermore, when the reporter called to find out more from the woman, she was referred, by the woman, to her publicist in England! (Most Seattleite office assistants do not have a publicity agent much less a European "handler.") So back to the original question: was this woman's conduct normal? My answer is I hope not, but I fear it is becoming more normal all the time.  There seems to be a new standard: it is that you can, and perhaps should, do anything for fame, or money or any combination thereof. This means having sex with someone -- much less an intimate conversation -- is at your own peril. There is no contract of conduct between the two of you. Celebrities be warned: these days you are just grist for the mill. Or put another way, this might be a good time to rethink your policy on non-monogamy. I find this unfettered worship of fame, money and notoriety both odd and sad. Did the newest "Monica Lewinsky" not notice what happed to the actual Monica?  Did she have to become a character in a soap opera or could she just say "no comment" to the press? It seems she was more interested in her day of fame, easy money (if it is true, as reported, that she was paid handsomely for her description of their evening together) and perhaps the possibility of parlaying this one night stand into a dubious kind of Paris Hilton celebrity. Whatever her motivations, we should resist seeing this kind of gross kiss and tell media expose as anything but pulp porn even if it tries to pass for news. If we refuse to 'normalize' this kind of conduct, life does not have to resemble the lowest rung of reality television.   Let's talk about the western world's mental health. Here is the situation that has me going: I was called the other day by a reporter who asked me if a certain woman's reaction to being caught in a sex scandal was: "normal." The facts I have been told are these: a staff member in a Seattle City Councilman's office was introduced to a famous English soccer star at a meeting in a hotel downtown. She was beautiful, and he was taken with her. He propositioned her, at some point she signed on for the program, and they spent a night having sex. Somewhere along the line, someone tipped off the press, and the soccer star (married of course) panicked and called the young woman, begging her not to divulge the secrets of their night together because of what it would do to his marriage. (I gather he had had other extra marital affairs, which had been previously exposed in the press, and he had reason to believe his wife's tolerance might be exhausted). Evidently, according to her, the surprising news that he was married enraged her (she said he was so tender and taken with her it did not occur to her that he might be married...). So, not only did she admit to the affair, the interview she gave the English tabloid press is so sexy it could be published as a page out of a soft porn pot boiler. She gives a move by move description of the seduction, detailed color commentary about their love making and includes her not always flattering impressions of him out of bed. (She did compliment him as a lover). The description would hardly have been more detailed if we had been there to watch it happen. Furthermore, when the reporter called to find out more from the woman, she was referred, by the woman, to her publicist in England! (Most Seattleite office assistants do not have a publicity agent much less a European "handler.") So back to the original question: was this woman's conduct normal? My answer is I hope not, but I fear it is becoming more normal all the time.  There seems to be a new standard: it is that you can, and perhaps should, do anything for fame, or money or any combination thereof. This means having sex with someone -- much less an intimate conversation -- is at your own peril. There is no contract of conduct between the two of you. Celebrities be warned: these days you are just grist for the mill. Or put another way, this might be a good time to rethink your policy on non-monogamy. I find this unfettered worship of fame, money and notoriety both odd and sad. Did the newest "Monica Lewinsky" not notice what happed to the actual Monica?  Did she have to become a character in a soap opera or could she just say "no comment" to the press? It seems she was more interested in her day of fame, easy money (if it is true, as reported, that she was paid handsomely for her description of their evening together) and perhaps the possibility of parlaying this one night stand into a dubious kind of Paris Hilton celebrity. Whatever her motivations, we should resist seeing this kind of gross kiss and tell media expose as anything but pulp porn even if it tries to pass for news. If we refuse to 'normalize' this kind of conduct, life does not have to resemble the lowest rung of reality television.   Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:57:44 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_The-Latest-Low-Using-Sex-for-Fame/BLOG/1927705/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2010-03-02T18:57:44Z BeWell Community Let's talk about the western world's mental health. Here is the situation that has me going: I was called the other day by a reporter who asked me if a certain woman's reaction to being caught in a sex scandal was: "normal." The facts I have been told are these: a staff member in a Seattle City Councilman's office was introduced to a famous English soccer star at a meeting in a hotel downtown. She was beautiful, and he was taken with her. He propositioned her, at some point she signed on for the program, and they spent a night having sex. Somewhere along the line, someone tipped off the press, and the soccer star (married of course) panicked and called the young woman, begging her not to divulge the secrets of their night together because of what it would do to his marriage. (I gather he had had other extra marital affairs, which had been previously exposed in the press, and he had reason to believe his wife's tolerance might be exhausted). Evidently, according to her, the surprising news that he was married enraged her (she said he was so tender and taken with her it did not occur to her that he might be married...). So, not only did she admit to the affair, the interview she gave the English tabloid press is so sexy it could be published as a page out of a soft porn pot boiler. She gives a move by move description of the seduction, detailed color commentary about their love making and includes her not always flattering impressions of him out of bed. (She did compliment him as a lover). The description would hardly have been more detailed if we had been there to watch it happen. Furthermore, when the reporter called to find out more from the woman, she was referred, by the woman, to her publicist in England! (Most Seattleite office assistants do not have a publicity agent much less a European "handler.") So back to the original question: was this woman's conduct normal? My answer is I hope not, but I fear it is becoming more normal all the time.  There seems to be a new standard: it is that you can, and perhaps should, do anything for fame, or money or any combination thereof. This means having sex with someone -- much less an intimate conversation -- is at your own peril. There is no contract of conduct between the two of you. Celebrities be warned: these days you are just grist for the mill. Or put another way, this might be a good time to rethink your policy on non-monogamy. I find this unfettered worship of fame, money and notoriety both odd and sad. Did the newest "Monica Lewinsky" not notice what happed to the actual Monica?  Did she have to become a character in a soap opera or could she just say "no comment" to the press? It seems she was more interested in her day of fame, easy money (if it is true, as reported, that she was paid handsomely for her description of their evening together) and perhaps the possibility of parlaying this one night stand into a dubious kind of Paris Hilton celebrity. Whatever her motivations, we should resist seeing this kind of gross kiss and tell media expose as anything but pulp porn even if it tries to pass for news. If we refuse to 'normalize' this kind of conduct, life does not have to resemble the lowest rung of reality television.   celebrity, pepper, schwartz, sex, sexuality nonadult false The Latest Low: Using Sex for Fame text blog celebrity,pepper,schwartz,sex,sexuality 428 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 1 0 1927705 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_Fidelity-Is-It-Important/BLOG/1807250/142833.html There have been a number of articles on non-monogamy, and not just about Tiger Woods. He was the headline, but there were a number of page two stories-and if you picked up a celebrity magazine, you'd think there was no one on earth who had sex only with their spouse. It's not true -- at least not true for marriage. Some research says there is a fifty percent infidelity record among dating couples, but marriage still means something different to most people. Infidelity in marriage is nowhere near the reported fifty percent in dating couples, and while studies vary, the indicators tend to hover around 20 to 25 percent lifetime non-monogamy - and about ten percent in a given year. But all these statistics miss what I think is an important point: that even if the world or one's spouse never knew, infidelity has its own profound costs to the individual and to their perception of the relationship. First of all, keeping a secret of that magnitude is difficult. Tiger would have had to be balancing multiple realities at once -- and while that may have seemed like fun some of the time, it must have kept him awake and anxiety ridden about how he could keep his different women happy, quiet and loyal. Assuming he loved his wife -- and he must have at least loved their life together as a family -- he would have worried what would happen if this all blew up in his face. And finally, when he was in bed with her -- or with one of these other women -- some part of his head would always be elsewhere. The present intimacy compromised by all the competing visions and scripts in his head. Add to this a niggling conscience that maybe he wasn't being fair to anyone in his life, and you hardly get simple sexual pleasure or a happy husband. Fidelity has its own rewards, and they include more than just avoiding ending up on the front page of the Enquirer or the subject of blistering attacks in the mass media. It is what you promised, and there is the pleasure of fulfilling your word. Furthermore, your feelings are focused, your energy is directed, and your issues have to be solved with the one person who holds the key to a harmonious and supportive relationship. It isn't easy for people with a heavy-duty sex drive or an ego that needs confirmation from others, but when it's hard to do, it's all the more satisfying to accomplish. Failing to do so has inevitable costs. Perhaps the worst cost is the dilution of the relationship. Your intimacy is necessarily diminished and your energies are necessarily scattered. That's why I think there are so few "open marriages" that last. So few people who can handle "swinging" and only a very small minority of people open up their relationship to polyamory (loving and having a sexual connection with more than one person in an honest relationship).  It's not just that few partners will tolerate sharing the person they love; it's also because most people want to be faithful because it helps sustain and deepen a lifetime relationship. Furthermore, most people need to feel that they are uniquely loved and prioritized-if they love someone, they don't want to be one of two or three partners, even if the person in question is famous or rich. Sure there are exceptions. Watch Big Love on television and you can see how polygamy functions under a theological directive, but even in that religiously supportive framework, you can also see jealousy and jockeying for first position. Try non-monogamy outside of a religious community and the vast majority of people will experience heartbreak and relationship meltdown. I think that most people are faithful, not because they were told to be, but because sooner or later, they learn that it works for them better than anything else. It turns out that fidelity is a worthy goal, even for a man who can have anyone. Of course Tiger Woods could go into a nightclub and come out with a sex partner, so could most Hollywood celebrities, CEOs, and so on. But sooner or later, all those men (or women) want loyalty and love. And it isn't having ten lovers that makes that happen-it's fidelity with one.    There have been a number of articles on non-monogamy, and not just about Tiger Woods. He was the headline, but there were a number of page two stories-and if you picked up a celebrity magazine, you'd think there was no one on earth who had sex only with their spouse. It's not true -- at least not true for marriage. Some research says there is a fifty percent infidelity record among dating couples, but marriage still means something different to most people. Infidelity in marriage is nowhere near the reported fifty percent in dating couples, and while studies vary, the indicators tend to hover around 20 to 25 percent lifetime non-monogamy - and about ten percent in a given year. But all these statistics miss what I think is an important point: that even if the world or one's spouse never knew, infidelity has its own profound costs to the individual and to their perception of the relationship. First of all, keeping a secret of that magnitude is difficult. Tiger would have had to be balancing multiple realities at once -- and while that may have seemed like fun some of the time, it must have kept him awake and anxiety ridden about how he could keep his different women happy, quiet and loyal. Assuming he loved his wife -- and he must have at least loved their life together as a family -- he would have worried what would happen if this all blew up in his face. And finally, when he was in bed with her -- or with one of these other women -- some part of his head would always be elsewhere. The present intimacy compromised by all the competing visions and scripts in his head. Add to this a niggling conscience that maybe he wasn't being fair to anyone in his life, and you hardly get simple sexual pleasure or a happy husband. Fidelity has its own rewards, and they include more than just avoiding ending up on the front page of the Enquirer or the subject of blistering attacks in the mass media. It is what you promised, and there is the pleasure of fulfilling your word. Furthermore, your feelings are focused, your energy is directed, and your issues have to be solved with the one person who holds the key to a harmonious and supportive relationship. It isn't easy for people with a heavy-duty sex drive or an ego that needs confirmation from others, but when it's hard to do, it's all the more satisfying to accomplish. Failing to do so has inevitable costs. Perhaps the worst cost is the dilution of the relationship. Your intimacy is necessarily diminished and your energies are necessarily scattered. That's why I think there are so few "open marriages" that last. So few people who can handle "swinging" and only a very small minority of people open up their relationship to polyamory (loving and having a sexual connection with more than one person in an honest relationship).  It's not just that few partners will tolerate sharing the person they love; it's also because most people want to be faithful because it helps sustain and deepen a lifetime relationship. Furthermore, most people need to feel that they are uniquely loved and prioritized-if they love someone, they don't want to be one of two or three partners, even if the person in question is famous or rich. Sure there are exceptions. Watch Big Love on television and you can see how polygamy functions under a theological directive, but even in that religiously supportive framework, you can also see jealousy and jockeying for first position. Try non-monogamy outside of a religious community and the vast majority of people will experience heartbreak and relationship meltdown. I think that most people are faithful, not because they were told to be, but because sooner or later, they learn that it works for them better than anything else. It turns out that fidelity is a worthy goal, even for a man who can have anyone. Of course Tiger Woods could go into a nightclub and come out with a sex partner, so could most Hollywood celebrities, CEOs, and so on. But sooner or later, all those men (or women) want loyalty and love. And it isn't having ten lovers that makes that happen-it's fidelity with one.    Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:32:04 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_Fidelity-Is-It-Important/BLOG/1807250/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2010-02-04T22:32:04Z BeWell Community There have been a number of articles on non-monogamy, and not just about Tiger Woods. He was the headline, but there were a number of page two stories-and if you picked up a celebrity magazine, you'd think there was no one on earth who had sex only with their spouse. It's not true -- at least not true for marriage. Some research says there is a fifty percent infidelity record among dating couples, but marriage still means something different to most people. Infidelity in marriage is nowhere near the reported fifty percent in dating couples, and while studies vary, the indicators tend to hover around 20 to 25 percent lifetime non-monogamy - and about ten percent in a given year. But all these statistics miss what I think is an important point: that even if the world or one's spouse never knew, infidelity has its own profound costs to the individual and to their perception of the relationship. First of all, keeping a secret of that magnitude is difficult. Tiger would have had to be balancing multiple realities at once -- and while that may have seemed like fun some of the time, it must have kept him awake and anxiety ridden about how he could keep his different women happy, quiet and loyal. Assuming he loved his wife -- and he must have at least loved their life together as a family -- he would have worried what would happen if this all blew up in his face. And finally, when he was in bed with her -- or with one of these other women -- some part of his head would always be elsewhere. The present intimacy compromised by all the competing visions and scripts in his head. Add to this a niggling conscience that maybe he wasn't being fair to anyone in his life, and you hardly get simple sexual pleasure or a happy husband. Fidelity has its own rewards, and they include more than just avoiding ending up on the front page of the Enquirer or the subject of blistering attacks in the mass media. It is what you promised, and there is the pleasure of fulfilling your word. Furthermore, your feelings are focused, your energy is directed, and your issues have to be solved with the one person who holds the key to a harmonious and supportive relationship. It isn't easy for people with a heavy-duty sex drive or an ego that needs confirmation from others, but when it's hard to do, it's all the more satisfying to accomplish. Failing to do so has inevitable costs. Perhaps the worst cost is the dilution of the relationship. Your intimacy is necessarily diminished and your energies are necessarily scattered. That's why I think there are so few "open marriages" that last. So few people who can handle "swinging" and only a very small minority of people open up their relationship to polyamory (loving and having a sexual connection with more than one person in an honest relationship).  It's not just that few partners will tolerate sharing the person they love; it's also because most people want to be faithful because it helps sustain and deepen a lifetime relationship. Furthermore, most people need to feel that they are uniquely loved and prioritized-if they love someone, they don't want to be one of two or three partners, even if the person in question is famous or rich. Sure there are exceptions. Watch Big Love on television and you can see how polygamy functions under a theological directive, but even in that religiously supportive framework, you can also see jealousy and jockeying for first position. Try non-monogamy outside of a religious community and the vast majority of people will experience heartbreak and relationship meltdown. I think that most people are faithful, not because they were told to be, but because sooner or later, they learn that it works for them better than anything else. It turns out that fidelity is a worthy goal, even for a man who can have anyone. Of course Tiger Woods could go into a nightclub and come out with a sex partner, so could most Hollywood celebrities, CEOs, and so on. But sooner or later, all those men (or women) want loyalty and love. And it isn't having ten lovers that makes that happen-it's fidelity with one.    fidelity, infidelity, pepper, schwartz nonadult false Fidelity: Is It Important? text blog fidelity,infidelity,pepper,schwartz 563 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1807250 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_John-Edwards-Condoms-Conscience/BLOG/1778873/142833.html If you are an academic, like I am, when you are faced with a piece of bizarre data (like how does a Presidential candidate allow himself to cheat on his wife in the middle of a campaign AND not even use a condom), you search for a theory to explain what has happened...as opposed to just writing this guy off as one stupid, self absorbed jackass. For example, if you are a socio-biologist, you might think that the drive to reproduce is so elemental that it creates a passion so strong it overwhelms anything that might get in the way of the conscious brain's desire to protect itself from a highly inconvenient paternity. Thus, you would say that even though John Edwards should have been the most wrapped in rubber philanderer on the planet, subconscious drives allowed him to take his chances during intercourse, or believe his lover if she told him he couldn't get her pregnant. Psychoanalysts might reach for another theory: unconscious drives, stemming from guilt, the desire to escape the "rat race," or the pain of his family ties that are consciously or unconsciously self destructive. People do this all the time. They drink too much, eat themselves into oblivion, or set up a situation that is guaranteed to blow up in their face. This kind of self-punishment comes from self-loathing, or other emotional states that need to "pay" for their happiness -- or unexpected success. A sociologist like myself is not unimpressed with these explanations, but looks at both the situation and the gender of the players, throws in some class differences, and comes up with another way to look at it: Superficially at least, John Edwards was quite a catch. Rich, famous, good looking, and living in a dazzling universe. Could his mistress depend on his infatuation when he had all these things going for him? No, so she chose the best way to take the decision for commitment out of his hands: she got pregnant.  Of course this lady was looking for a way to have his child - and, of course, he would underestimate the intensity (and perhaps desperation) of her desire and her ability to carry out this scenario. Why don't I think it was an unconscious desire of his to create a pregnancy? Narcissistic as John Edwards is, I still don't want to consider the possibility that he would plan (at any level of consciousness) to have a child with his mistress while his ailing wife was still alive. If he did do that, I'd just have to label him a monster and move on to some other more interesting question. So, assuming he's not a monster, I'm guessing he thought he could keep this affair under wraps as long as his wife was alive (there's the narcissism part) and felt in control of the situation. Bill Clinton also felt that way. I think this state of mind may just be generic to powerful men; they underestimate their lovers' craftiness and overestimate their own ability to handle anything on their own terms. Now comes the final act in what has turned into an almost Greek Tragedy. His marriage to Elizabeth cannot bear the weight of these revelations and facts, and they have separated. No one can see inside the marriage itself and perhaps there were many good reasons to end it under normal circumstances. But these are not normal circumstances. She is deathly ill, he has publically humiliated her, and his children will also have to live with the legacy of this period of his life. Rumor has it that he was already looking for a house with his mistress -- and his wife was assisting. I hope that's not true. John Edwards has no class. That's for sure. There are just so many sad aspects to this story, and he has yet to look good in any one of them. But at least one important part of it could have been avoided with the use of one low-tech condom and just a little self-control. The story would be sad enough without the addition of a baby with his mistress; but introducing the baby into this melodrama makes his actions infinitely more cruel and stupid.   If you are an academic, like I am, when you are faced with a piece of bizarre data (like how does a Presidential candidate allow himself to cheat on his wife in the middle of a campaign AND not even use a condom), you search for a theory to explain what has happened...as opposed to just writing this guy off as one stupid, self absorbed jackass. For example, if you are a socio-biologist, you might think that the drive to reproduce is so elemental that it creates a passion so strong it overwhelms anything that might get in the way of the conscious brain's desire to protect itself from a highly inconvenient paternity. Thus, you would say that even though John Edwards should have been the most wrapped in rubber philanderer on the planet, subconscious drives allowed him to take his chances during intercourse, or believe his lover if she told him he couldn't get her pregnant. Psychoanalysts might reach for another theory: unconscious drives, stemming from guilt, the desire to escape the "rat race," or the pain of his family ties that are consciously or unconsciously self destructive. People do this all the time. They drink too much, eat themselves into oblivion, or set up a situation that is guaranteed to blow up in their face. This kind of self-punishment comes from self-loathing, or other emotional states that need to "pay" for their happiness -- or unexpected success. A sociologist like myself is not unimpressed with these explanations, but looks at both the situation and the gender of the players, throws in some class differences, and comes up with another way to look at it: Superficially at least, John Edwards was quite a catch. Rich, famous, good looking, and living in a dazzling universe. Could his mistress depend on his infatuation when he had all these things going for him? No, so she chose the best way to take the decision for commitment out of his hands: she got pregnant.  Of course this lady was looking for a way to have his child - and, of course, he would underestimate the intensity (and perhaps desperation) of her desire and her ability to carry out this scenario. Why don't I think it was an unconscious desire of his to create a pregnancy? Narcissistic as John Edwards is, I still don't want to consider the possibility that he would plan (at any level of consciousness) to have a child with his mistress while his ailing wife was still alive. If he did do that, I'd just have to label him a monster and move on to some other more interesting question. So, assuming he's not a monster, I'm guessing he thought he could keep this affair under wraps as long as his wife was alive (there's the narcissism part) and felt in control of the situation. Bill Clinton also felt that way. I think this state of mind may just be generic to powerful men; they underestimate their lovers' craftiness and overestimate their own ability to handle anything on their own terms. Now comes the final act in what has turned into an almost Greek Tragedy. His marriage to Elizabeth cannot bear the weight of these revelations and facts, and they have separated. No one can see inside the marriage itself and perhaps there were many good reasons to end it under normal circumstances. But these are not normal circumstances. She is deathly ill, he has publically humiliated her, and his children will also have to live with the legacy of this period of his life. Rumor has it that he was already looking for a house with his mistress -- and his wife was assisting. I hope that's not true. John Edwards has no class. That's for sure. There are just so many sad aspects to this story, and he has yet to look good in any one of them. But at least one important part of it could have been avoided with the use of one low-tech condom and just a little self-control. The story would be sad enough without the addition of a baby with his mistress; but introducing the baby into this melodrama makes his actions infinitely more cruel and stupid.   Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:55:01 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_John-Edwards-Condoms-Conscience/BLOG/1778873/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2010-01-29T22:55:01Z BeWell Community If you are an academic, like I am, when you are faced with a piece of bizarre data (like how does a Presidential candidate allow himself to cheat on his wife in the middle of a campaign AND not even use a condom), you search for a theory to explain what has happened...as opposed to just writing this guy off as one stupid, self absorbed jackass. For example, if you are a socio-biologist, you might think that the drive to reproduce is so elemental that it creates a passion so strong it overwhelms anything that might get in the way of the conscious brain's desire to protect itself from a highly inconvenient paternity. Thus, you would say that even though John Edwards should have been the most wrapped in rubber philanderer on the planet, subconscious drives allowed him to take his chances during intercourse, or believe his lover if she told him he couldn't get her pregnant. Psychoanalysts might reach for another theory: unconscious drives, stemming from guilt, the desire to escape the "rat race," or the pain of his family ties that are consciously or unconsciously self destructive. People do this all the time. They drink too much, eat themselves into oblivion, or set up a situation that is guaranteed to blow up in their face. This kind of self-punishment comes from self-loathing, or other emotional states that need to "pay" for their happiness -- or unexpected success. A sociologist like myself is not unimpressed with these explanations, but looks at both the situation and the gender of the players, throws in some class differences, and comes up with another way to look at it: Superficially at least, John Edwards was quite a catch. Rich, famous, good looking, and living in a dazzling universe. Could his mistress depend on his infatuation when he had all these things going for him? No, so she chose the best way to take the decision for commitment out of his hands: she got pregnant.  Of course this lady was looking for a way to have his child - and, of course, he would underestimate the intensity (and perhaps desperation) of her desire and her ability to carry out this scenario. Why don't I think it was an unconscious desire of his to create a pregnancy? Narcissistic as John Edwards is, I still don't want to consider the possibility that he would plan (at any level of consciousness) to have a child with his mistress while his ailing wife was still alive. If he did do that, I'd just have to label him a monster and move on to some other more interesting question. So, assuming he's not a monster, I'm guessing he thought he could keep this affair under wraps as long as his wife was alive (there's the narcissism part) and felt in control of the situation. Bill Clinton also felt that way. I think this state of mind may just be generic to powerful men; they underestimate their lovers' craftiness and overestimate their own ability to handle anything on their own terms. Now comes the final act in what has turned into an almost Greek Tragedy. His marriage to Elizabeth cannot bear the weight of these revelations and facts, and they have separated. No one can see inside the marriage itself and perhaps there were many good reasons to end it under normal circumstances. But these are not normal circumstances. She is deathly ill, he has publically humiliated her, and his children will also have to live with the legacy of this period of his life. Rumor has it that he was already looking for a house with his mistress -- and his wife was assisting. I hope that's not true. John Edwards has no class. That's for sure. There are just so many sad aspects to this story, and he has yet to look good in any one of them. But at least one important part of it could have been avoided with the use of one low-tech condom and just a little self-control. The story would be sad enough without the addition of a baby with his mistress; but introducing the baby into this melodrama makes his actions infinitely more cruel and stupid.   infidelity, pepper, safe, schwartz, sex nonadult false John Edwards: Condoms & Conscience text blog infidelity,pepper,safe,schwartz,sex 235 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 1 0 1778873 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_Levi-Johnston-Age-Does-Matter/BLOG/1691798/142833.html Ok, maybe I am getting too old, but doesn't it seem that 19-year-old Levi Johnston is a little too young to be posing nude for Playgirl? I am not against ladies having eye candy; women like to fantasize about six packs and cute little butts in much the same way men ogle breasts and cute little butts. But still, shouldn't there be an age limit? This makes me feel like a 'chicken queen' (a term the gay community used to use for men who sexualize young men). I know that the fashion world has been dressing up young girls for years, calling them women and using them as seductive or sexy models, but I think it is something to be resisted, not copied. We know that the sexualization of female children has already occurred. If you don't believe me look at some of the mainline fashions for girls under 12. Five year olds look like they are going to sing in a bar. It's revolting, actually, and I don't like it anymore when we prop up boys and use them as adult sex symbols. I am not sure where this fetish for teenage flesh came from, but I think we should avoid it. Adult women and men are plenty sexy enough and beautiful enough to hold our attention. And just for one extra thought: I know Playgirl is desperate for attention and putting Levi on their cover will be a big marketing score, but don't they care about making a model out of a guy who had sex with his girlfriend without a condom and proceeded to become an unwed father with an unwed mother?  Hopefully these two young people can pull together and give their child some consistent love and loyalty, but really, making him a poster boy is not exactly sending the right message to teenagers or to young adults. I am not asking him to be shunned, just not celebrated.  Playgirl should want us to ogle a guy who is a man and who knows how to play safely. Ok, maybe I am getting too old, but doesn't it seem that 19-year-old Levi Johnston is a little too young to be posing nude for Playgirl? I am not against ladies having eye candy; women like to fantasize about six packs and cute little butts in much the same way men ogle breasts and cute little butts. But still, shouldn't there be an age limit? This makes me feel like a 'chicken queen' (a term the gay community used to use for men who sexualize young men). I know that the fashion world has been dressing up young girls for years, calling them women and using them as seductive or sexy models, but I think it is something to be resisted, not copied. We know that the sexualization of female children has already occurred. If you don't believe me look at some of the mainline fashions for girls under 12. Five year olds look like they are going to sing in a bar. It's revolting, actually, and I don't like it anymore when we prop up boys and use them as adult sex symbols. I am not sure where this fetish for teenage flesh came from, but I think we should avoid it. Adult women and men are plenty sexy enough and beautiful enough to hold our attention. And just for one extra thought: I know Playgirl is desperate for attention and putting Levi on their cover will be a big marketing score, but don't they care about making a model out of a guy who had sex with his girlfriend without a condom and proceeded to become an unwed father with an unwed mother?  Hopefully these two young people can pull together and give their child some consistent love and loyalty, but really, making him a poster boy is not exactly sending the right message to teenagers or to young adults. I am not asking him to be shunned, just not celebrated.  Playgirl should want us to ogle a guy who is a man and who knows how to play safely. Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:50:45 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_Levi-Johnston-Age-Does-Matter/BLOG/1691798/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2009-11-18T16:50:45Z BeWell Community Ok, maybe I am getting too old, but doesn't it seem that 19-year-old Levi Johnston is a little too young to be posing nude for Playgirl? I am not against ladies having eye candy; women like to fantasize about six packs and cute little butts in much the same way men ogle breasts and cute little butts. But still, shouldn't there be an age limit? This makes me feel like a 'chicken queen' (a term the gay community used to use for men who sexualize young men). I know that the fashion world has been dressing up young girls for years, calling them women and using them as seductive or sexy models, but I think it is something to be resisted, not copied. We know that the sexualization of female children has already occurred. If you don't believe me look at some of the mainline fashions for girls under 12. Five year olds look like they are going to sing in a bar. It's revolting, actually, and I don't like it anymore when we prop up boys and use them as adult sex symbols. I am not sure where this fetish for teenage flesh came from, but I think we should avoid it. Adult women and men are plenty sexy enough and beautiful enough to hold our attention. And just for one extra thought: I know Playgirl is desperate for attention and putting Levi on their cover will be a big marketing score, but don't they care about making a model out of a guy who had sex with his girlfriend without a condom and proceeded to become an unwed father with an unwed mother?  Hopefully these two young people can pull together and give their child some consistent love and loyalty, but really, making him a poster boy is not exactly sending the right message to teenagers or to young adults. I am not asking him to be shunned, just not celebrated.  Playgirl should want us to ogle a guy who is a man and who knows how to play safely. nonadult false Levi Johnston: Age Does Matter text blog 138 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1691798 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_Prescription-for-Better-Sex-Talk-to-Your-Doctor/BLOG/1691796/142833.html A recent study on the Prevalence of Sexual Dysfunction (the whole title is PRESIDE, but it‘s too many words to inflict on you) has indicated that 70% of the 31,000 women in the study mention some kind of sexual issue. The study, conducted by HealthyWomen.com (formerly the National Center for Women’s Health) and the Association of Reproduction Professionals (with an educational sponsorship by Boehringer-Ingelheim) indicated that five to ten percent of these women were not only concerned, but distressed about lack of sexual desire, arousal, or pain during sex. Less than one sixth of these women, however, had talked to a doctor about it -- and in another national study, less than ten percent of doctors mentioned spontaneously bringing it up with a patient. When they did bring it up, however, over a third of women wanted to discuss their sexual problems. On the one hand, I don’t want to concentrate on women’s sexual problems to the exclusion of their sexual pleasures. There is some fairness in the accusation that we problematize women’s sexuality too much and perhaps create some anxieties that don’t have to be there. But on the other hand, women do have sexual issues and they are not getting heard, much less addressed. That means that no matter whose commercial interest it is in to talk about sexual dysfunction, the fact is that it exists and very few women know whom to talk to about it -- much less who could offer them valuable consultation or a solution to their problem. Women, especially older women, too often assume that sexual problems are an inevitable part of aging, but that is not true, and it is especially not true for issues such as lack of lubrication or pain during intercourse.  Even feelings that feel intractable such as lack of desire (no erotic attraction to anyone) or lack of arousal (which I will define here as no sexual excitement during foreplay or love making) can be helped. Our sexual health is part of our overall health, and it should be discussed as part of our life long need to be aware of our body and to take care of it.  The fact that very few medical programs give a significant amount of time to sexual health, or teach most physicians how to take a good sexual history, is sad and scary all by itself. But beyond that, doctors and other health professionals at least should inquire about their patient’s sexual life and see if there are any issues that the patient considers distressing. Given health care pressures these days I know that many doctors say they just can’t attend to everything and so sexuality just doesn’t rate unless it’s the presenting problem.  I don’t buy that argument though  because  the PRESIDE study -- and many other studies -- make it clear that sexual response is an important issue for women, and a critical one for their own mental health and the happiness of their relationship. If doctors are squeamish about this subject, they need to get further training.  At the very least, they should ask questions and have a list of good referrals available. A recent study on the Prevalence of Sexual Dysfunction (the whole title is PRESIDE, but it‘s too many words to inflict on you) has indicated that 70% of the 31,000 women in the study mention some kind of sexual issue. The study, conducted by HealthyWomen.com (formerly the National Center for Women’s Health) and the Association of Reproduction Professionals (with an educational sponsorship by Boehringer-Ingelheim) indicated that five to ten percent of these women were not only concerned, but distressed about lack of sexual desire, arousal, or pain during sex. Less than one sixth of these women, however, had talked to a doctor about it -- and in another national study, less than ten percent of doctors mentioned spontaneously bringing it up with a patient. When they did bring it up, however, over a third of women wanted to discuss their sexual problems. On the one hand, I don’t want to concentrate on women’s sexual problems to the exclusion of their sexual pleasures. There is some fairness in the accusation that we problematize women’s sexuality too much and perhaps create some anxieties that don’t have to be there. But on the other hand, women do have sexual issues and they are not getting heard, much less addressed. That means that no matter whose commercial interest it is in to talk about sexual dysfunction, the fact is that it exists and very few women know whom to talk to about it -- much less who could offer them valuable consultation or a solution to their problem. Women, especially older women, too often assume that sexual problems are an inevitable part of aging, but that is not true, and it is especially not true for issues such as lack of lubrication or pain during intercourse.  Even feelings that feel intractable such as lack of desire (no erotic attraction to anyone) or lack of arousal (which I will define here as no sexual excitement during foreplay or love making) can be helped. Our sexual health is part of our overall health, and it should be discussed as part of our life long need to be aware of our body and to take care of it.  The fact that very few medical programs give a significant amount of time to sexual health, or teach most physicians how to take a good sexual history, is sad and scary all by itself. But beyond that, doctors and other health professionals at least should inquire about their patient’s sexual life and see if there are any issues that the patient considers distressing. Given health care pressures these days I know that many doctors say they just can’t attend to everything and so sexuality just doesn’t rate unless it’s the presenting problem.  I don’t buy that argument though  because  the PRESIDE study -- and many other studies -- make it clear that sexual response is an important issue for women, and a critical one for their own mental health and the happiness of their relationship. If doctors are squeamish about this subject, they need to get further training.  At the very least, they should ask questions and have a list of good referrals available. Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:20:11 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_Prescription-for-Better-Sex-Talk-to-Your-Doctor/BLOG/1691796/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2009-10-29T13:20:11Z BeWell Community A recent study on the Prevalence of Sexual Dysfunction (the whole title is PRESIDE, but it‘s too many words to inflict on you) has indicated that 70% of the 31,000 women in the study mention some kind of sexual issue. The study, conducted by HealthyWomen.com (formerly the National Center for Women’s Health) and the Association of Reproduction Professionals (with an educational sponsorship by Boehringer-Ingelheim) indicated that five to ten percent of these women were not only concerned, but distressed about lack of sexual desire, arousal, or pain during sex. Less than one sixth of these women, however, had talked to a doctor about it -- and in another national study, less than ten percent of doctors mentioned spontaneously bringing it up with a patient. When they did bring it up, however, over a third of women wanted to discuss their sexual problems. On the one hand, I don’t want to concentrate on women’s sexual problems to the exclusion of their sexual pleasures. There is some fairness in the accusation that we problematize women’s sexuality too much and perhaps create some anxieties that don’t have to be there. But on the other hand, women do have sexual issues and they are not getting heard, much less addressed. That means that no matter whose commercial interest it is in to talk about sexual dysfunction, the fact is that it exists and very few women know whom to talk to about it -- much less who could offer them valuable consultation or a solution to their problem. Women, especially older women, too often assume that sexual problems are an inevitable part of aging, but that is not true, and it is especially not true for issues such as lack of lubrication or pain during intercourse.  Even feelings that feel intractable such as lack of desire (no erotic attraction to anyone) or lack of arousal (which I will define here as no sexual excitement during foreplay or love making) can be helped. Our sexual health is part of our overall health, and it should be discussed as part of our life long need to be aware of our body and to take care of it.  The fact that very few medical programs give a significant amount of time to sexual health, or teach most physicians how to take a good sexual history, is sad and scary all by itself. But beyond that, doctors and other health professionals at least should inquire about their patient’s sexual life and see if there are any issues that the patient considers distressing. Given health care pressures these days I know that many doctors say they just can’t attend to everything and so sexuality just doesn’t rate unless it’s the presenting problem.  I don’t buy that argument though  because  the PRESIDE study -- and many other studies -- make it clear that sexual response is an important issue for women, and a critical one for their own mental health and the happiness of their relationship. If doctors are squeamish about this subject, they need to get further training.  At the very least, they should ask questions and have a list of good referrals available. nonadult false Prescription for Better Sex: Talk to Your Doctor text blog 136 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1691796 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_The-Missing-Woman-in-the-David-Letterman-Affair/BLOG/1691810/142833.html As I sat listening to David Letterman's masterful Public Relations coup during his initial explanation of his response to being blackmailed, I was impressed. But I was also quite shocked about the woman who was not mentioned in his initial delivery. That woman was, of course, his wife.  Dave Letterman’s wife was really nonexistent in his revelatory conversation with his audience. He talked about his having sex with women (note the plural) who worked for him, a fact that he characterized as the “creepy part” of his behavior, and his audience sort of sniggered at his admission, perhaps not quite knowing how to react.  Letterman took his lumps, but also created the atmosphere of being at a table with his best friends who would understand just about anything he did. He surrounded himself in the glow of audience commiseration, and for the moment, suspended judgment. What he did not do was put his wife first...again. Now someone has brought this to his attention. Maybe it was his wife, or maybe it was one of the millions of women who noticed that protecting his wife's dignity or feelings simply wasn't on his agenda when he first brought the situation public. It took days before he allowed a few face-saving gestures to his marriage, indicating that perhaps his wife was extremely upset, feeling betrayed, and disinclined to make this as easy a confessional expiation of sin as he had created with his audience. What does he owe his wife? What does any spouse owe the person who is most hurt by their infidelity?  Unless this is the result of mutually broken vows and a series of emotional assaults on both sides of the marriage, the very least a person owes a partner is some protection of their dignity and self esteem. The errant spouse needs to explain themselves, and offer to get therapeutic help if, like Letterman, there seems to be a pattern of sexual escapades or a parallel life of extra marital conquests.  If they love their partner, they have to bend over backwards to make their spouse understand that, all appearances to the contrary, they are indeed loved and treasured. Their spouse deserves explanations of why this happened -- no matter how painful it is to undergo their partner's questions and anger.  The unfaithful partner should make sure their partner doesn't feel unattractive, unworthy, and, if at all possible, the errant spouse needs to protect their spouse from friends’ and stranger's musings that perhaps their partner was somehow at fault.  True, some non-monogamous behavior is an outcome of a shell of a marriage that has long since ceased to provide love or companionship or it is an escape from a sexless or emotionally abusive relationship. Still, when marriages are troubled, the recommended remediation is counseling, or dissolution -- an unraveling relationship is not justification for leading a double life. But of course infidelity often occurs in relationships that seem just fine. Just because there is infidelity doesn't mean the marriage was in trouble. It may only mean that one partner was restless, needed validation, loved the challenge of conquest, wanted an adventure, or was impulsive, indulgent or sociopathic.  In a high profile situation like this one, the least Letterman's wife deserved was the first apology -- on or off screen.  I don't know if his apology will be too little, but I do know it's too late. Maybe he can make it up to her, but as far as I am concerned, I think he gave a performance in how not to handle an exposure of infidelity. His first concern should have been her welfare and his first priority, at least as far as I could see, was himself. As I sat listening to David Letterman's masterful Public Relations coup during his initial explanation of his response to being blackmailed, I was impressed. But I was also quite shocked about the woman who was not mentioned in his initial delivery. That woman was, of course, his wife.  Dave Letterman’s wife was really nonexistent in his revelatory conversation with his audience. He talked about his having sex with women (note the plural) who worked for him, a fact that he characterized as the “creepy part” of his behavior, and his audience sort of sniggered at his admission, perhaps not quite knowing how to react.  Letterman took his lumps, but also created the atmosphere of being at a table with his best friends who would understand just about anything he did. He surrounded himself in the glow of audience commiseration, and for the moment, suspended judgment. What he did not do was put his wife first...again. Now someone has brought this to his attention. Maybe it was his wife, or maybe it was one of the millions of women who noticed that protecting his wife's dignity or feelings simply wasn't on his agenda when he first brought the situation public. It took days before he allowed a few face-saving gestures to his marriage, indicating that perhaps his wife was extremely upset, feeling betrayed, and disinclined to make this as easy a confessional expiation of sin as he had created with his audience. What does he owe his wife? What does any spouse owe the person who is most hurt by their infidelity?  Unless this is the result of mutually broken vows and a series of emotional assaults on both sides of the marriage, the very least a person owes a partner is some protection of their dignity and self esteem. The errant spouse needs to explain themselves, and offer to get therapeutic help if, like Letterman, there seems to be a pattern of sexual escapades or a parallel life of extra marital conquests.  If they love their partner, they have to bend over backwards to make their spouse understand that, all appearances to the contrary, they are indeed loved and treasured. Their spouse deserves explanations of why this happened -- no matter how painful it is to undergo their partner's questions and anger.  The unfaithful partner should make sure their partner doesn't feel unattractive, unworthy, and, if at all possible, the errant spouse needs to protect their spouse from friends’ and stranger's musings that perhaps their partner was somehow at fault.  True, some non-monogamous behavior is an outcome of a shell of a marriage that has long since ceased to provide love or companionship or it is an escape from a sexless or emotionally abusive relationship. Still, when marriages are troubled, the recommended remediation is counseling, or dissolution -- an unraveling relationship is not justification for leading a double life. But of course infidelity often occurs in relationships that seem just fine. Just because there is infidelity doesn't mean the marriage was in trouble. It may only mean that one partner was restless, needed validation, loved the challenge of conquest, wanted an adventure, or was impulsive, indulgent or sociopathic.  In a high profile situation like this one, the least Letterman's wife deserved was the first apology -- on or off screen.  I don't know if his apology will be too little, but I do know it's too late. Maybe he can make it up to her, but as far as I am concerned, I think he gave a performance in how not to handle an exposure of infidelity. His first concern should have been her welfare and his first priority, at least as far as I could see, was himself. Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:17:19 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_The-Missing-Woman-in-the-David-Letterman-Affair/BLOG/1691810/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2009-10-08T15:17:19Z BeWell Community As I sat listening to David Letterman's masterful Public Relations coup during his initial explanation of his response to being blackmailed, I was impressed. But I was also quite shocked about the woman who was not mentioned in his initial delivery. That woman was, of course, his wife.  Dave Letterman’s wife was really nonexistent in his revelatory conversation with his audience. He talked about his having sex with women (note the plural) who worked for him, a fact that he characterized as the “creepy part” of his behavior, and his audience sort of sniggered at his admission, perhaps not quite knowing how to react.  Letterman took his lumps, but also created the atmosphere of being at a table with his best friends who would understand just about anything he did. He surrounded himself in the glow of audience commiseration, and for the moment, suspended judgment. What he did not do was put his wife first...again. Now someone has brought this to his attention. Maybe it was his wife, or maybe it was one of the millions of women who noticed that protecting his wife's dignity or feelings simply wasn't on his agenda when he first brought the situation public. It took days before he allowed a few face-saving gestures to his marriage, indicating that perhaps his wife was extremely upset, feeling betrayed, and disinclined to make this as easy a confessional expiation of sin as he had created with his audience. What does he owe his wife? What does any spouse owe the person who is most hurt by their infidelity?  Unless this is the result of mutually broken vows and a series of emotional assaults on both sides of the marriage, the very least a person owes a partner is some protection of their dignity and self esteem. The errant spouse needs to explain themselves, and offer to get therapeutic help if, like Letterman, there seems to be a pattern of sexual escapades or a parallel life of extra marital conquests.  If they love their partner, they have to bend over backwards to make their spouse understand that, all appearances to the contrary, they are indeed loved and treasured. Their spouse deserves explanations of why this happened -- no matter how painful it is to undergo their partner's questions and anger.  The unfaithful partner should make sure their partner doesn't feel unattractive, unworthy, and, if at all possible, the errant spouse needs to protect their spouse from friends’ and stranger's musings that perhaps their partner was somehow at fault.  True, some non-monogamous behavior is an outcome of a shell of a marriage that has long since ceased to provide love or companionship or it is an escape from a sexless or emotionally abusive relationship. Still, when marriages are troubled, the recommended remediation is counseling, or dissolution -- an unraveling relationship is not justification for leading a double life. But of course infidelity often occurs in relationships that seem just fine. Just because there is infidelity doesn't mean the marriage was in trouble. It may only mean that one partner was restless, needed validation, loved the challenge of conquest, wanted an adventure, or was impulsive, indulgent or sociopathic.  In a high profile situation like this one, the least Letterman's wife deserved was the first apology -- on or off screen.  I don't know if his apology will be too little, but I do know it's too late. Maybe he can make it up to her, but as far as I am concerned, I think he gave a performance in how not to handle an exposure of infidelity. His first concern should have been her welfare and his first priority, at least as far as I could see, was himself. nonadult false The Missing Woman in the David Letterman Affair text blog 143 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1691810 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_So-How-Do-You-Feel-About-Roman-Polanski/BLOG/1691808/142833.html There are a lot of split opinions about Roman Polanski. The gifted producer was a major partygoer in the sixties when conventions were considered not only bourgeois but counter revolutionary. Of course, looking back, it was all pretty self serving. Having been there, I can say that a whole lot of it was just about getting laid without taking responsibility for anyone else’s health or happiness. It was a selfish, indulgent time, and Polanski’s actions have to, in some way, be seen in that context. But that’s an explanation, not an excuse. While all of his powerful and equally gifted friends are rising to his defense, there are some bottom lines here that just won’t go away. Whether or not his victim forgives him (and who doesn’t sympathize with her desire to put it all behind her instead of having it float through the media again), the facts are pretty clear: he took a thirteen-year-old girl with him to a party, gave her drugs, and had sex with her. He was well into his mature years, knew exactly what he was doing, and didn’t care a fig for how it affected her then...or in the future. In his own mind it’s clear that he thinks a puritanical country overreacted. He believes that he fled the USA for a just cause, and he believes that he is persecuted by a justice system gone rogue. That means he is still a self centered and unrepentant rat. He still doesn’t understand that the night spent with him was not a peak moment in that young girl’s life. He doesn’t understand that a thirteen year old can be bold, sexually curious, and flattered at adult attention...and still be a child who has no idea that intercourse or some intense sexual behavior is about to follow.  I have some idea what that’s like. I had a few sexual experiences with adult men in my childhood. I remember necking in the archery hut with a 33-year-old gynecologist. I was thirteen, and I knew that if my Dad knew about his he would ring this guy’s neck and then some. The taboo thrill was terrific—but I didn’t have to pay for it with a rape, or worse. I felt powerful, but I wasn’t. Young girls have an exaggerated sense of their own control. They are coming of age sexually, are interested in testing their attractiveness, and may like the sexual excitement. But they do not—and cannot—understand what is going on in an adult man’s mind. They cannot discriminate the dangerous from the merely flirtatious or complimentary. It’s a roll of the dice whether or not they have a scary or horrific experience. Polanski has two problems: the age of this girl and the fact that he fled sentencing. I hope the latter crime does not overshadow the former. The central felony is that he took a cheap and destructive shot at a very young girl, and that kind of pedophilia really cannot be tolerated no matter how long ago it occurred. I admire Polanski’s work. I feel compassion for the tragedies he has endured in his life. But nothing excuses his conduct, and it will be a travesty of justice and common morality if he continues to evade responsibility for his crude and criminal mishandling of a young girl’s fascination with him long ago. There are a lot of split opinions about Roman Polanski. The gifted producer was a major partygoer in the sixties when conventions were considered not only bourgeois but counter revolutionary. Of course, looking back, it was all pretty self serving. Having been there, I can say that a whole lot of it was just about getting laid without taking responsibility for anyone else’s health or happiness. It was a selfish, indulgent time, and Polanski’s actions have to, in some way, be seen in that context. But that’s an explanation, not an excuse. While all of his powerful and equally gifted friends are rising to his defense, there are some bottom lines here that just won’t go away. Whether or not his victim forgives him (and who doesn’t sympathize with her desire to put it all behind her instead of having it float through the media again), the facts are pretty clear: he took a thirteen-year-old girl with him to a party, gave her drugs, and had sex with her. He was well into his mature years, knew exactly what he was doing, and didn’t care a fig for how it affected her then...or in the future. In his own mind it’s clear that he thinks a puritanical country overreacted. He believes that he fled the USA for a just cause, and he believes that he is persecuted by a justice system gone rogue. That means he is still a self centered and unrepentant rat. He still doesn’t understand that the night spent with him was not a peak moment in that young girl’s life. He doesn’t understand that a thirteen year old can be bold, sexually curious, and flattered at adult attention...and still be a child who has no idea that intercourse or some intense sexual behavior is about to follow.  I have some idea what that’s like. I had a few sexual experiences with adult men in my childhood. I remember necking in the archery hut with a 33-year-old gynecologist. I was thirteen, and I knew that if my Dad knew about his he would ring this guy’s neck and then some. The taboo thrill was terrific—but I didn’t have to pay for it with a rape, or worse. I felt powerful, but I wasn’t. Young girls have an exaggerated sense of their own control. They are coming of age sexually, are interested in testing their attractiveness, and may like the sexual excitement. But they do not—and cannot—understand what is going on in an adult man’s mind. They cannot discriminate the dangerous from the merely flirtatious or complimentary. It’s a roll of the dice whether or not they have a scary or horrific experience. Polanski has two problems: the age of this girl and the fact that he fled sentencing. I hope the latter crime does not overshadow the former. The central felony is that he took a cheap and destructive shot at a very young girl, and that kind of pedophilia really cannot be tolerated no matter how long ago it occurred. I admire Polanski’s work. I feel compassion for the tragedies he has endured in his life. But nothing excuses his conduct, and it will be a travesty of justice and common morality if he continues to evade responsibility for his crude and criminal mishandling of a young girl’s fascination with him long ago. Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:52:55 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_So-How-Do-You-Feel-About-Roman-Polanski/BLOG/1691808/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2009-10-06T19:52:55Z BeWell Community There are a lot of split opinions about Roman Polanski. The gifted producer was a major partygoer in the sixties when conventions were considered not only bourgeois but counter revolutionary. Of course, looking back, it was all pretty self serving. Having been there, I can say that a whole lot of it was just about getting laid without taking responsibility for anyone else’s health or happiness. It was a selfish, indulgent time, and Polanski’s actions have to, in some way, be seen in that context. But that’s an explanation, not an excuse. While all of his powerful and equally gifted friends are rising to his defense, there are some bottom lines here that just won’t go away. Whether or not his victim forgives him (and who doesn’t sympathize with her desire to put it all behind her instead of having it float through the media again), the facts are pretty clear: he took a thirteen-year-old girl with him to a party, gave her drugs, and had sex with her. He was well into his mature years, knew exactly what he was doing, and didn’t care a fig for how it affected her then...or in the future. In his own mind it’s clear that he thinks a puritanical country overreacted. He believes that he fled the USA for a just cause, and he believes that he is persecuted by a justice system gone rogue. That means he is still a self centered and unrepentant rat. He still doesn’t understand that the night spent with him was not a peak moment in that young girl’s life. He doesn’t understand that a thirteen year old can be bold, sexually curious, and flattered at adult attention...and still be a child who has no idea that intercourse or some intense sexual behavior is about to follow.  I have some idea what that’s like. I had a few sexual experiences with adult men in my childhood. I remember necking in the archery hut with a 33-year-old gynecologist. I was thirteen, and I knew that if my Dad knew about his he would ring this guy’s neck and then some. The taboo thrill was terrific—but I didn’t have to pay for it with a rape, or worse. I felt powerful, but I wasn’t. Young girls have an exaggerated sense of their own control. They are coming of age sexually, are interested in testing their attractiveness, and may like the sexual excitement. But they do not—and cannot—understand what is going on in an adult man’s mind. They cannot discriminate the dangerous from the merely flirtatious or complimentary. It’s a roll of the dice whether or not they have a scary or horrific experience. Polanski has two problems: the age of this girl and the fact that he fled sentencing. I hope the latter crime does not overshadow the former. The central felony is that he took a cheap and destructive shot at a very young girl, and that kind of pedophilia really cannot be tolerated no matter how long ago it occurred. I admire Polanski’s work. I feel compassion for the tragedies he has endured in his life. But nothing excuses his conduct, and it will be a travesty of justice and common morality if he continues to evade responsibility for his crude and criminal mishandling of a young girl’s fascination with him long ago. nonadult false So How Do You Feel About Roman Polanski? text blog 117 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1691808 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_A-Whole-Lot-of-Golden-Years/BLOG/1691804/142833.html The National Institute on Aging recently issued a thought provoking report. The bottom line is that the world is getting older because we are living longer. You know the hackneyed phrase by now: 'Fifty is the new Forty' and 'Sixty is the new Fifty' and so on. Well, occasionally those pop sayings are right on target…and this one is. People over 80 are the fastest growing group in all age categories. The report says that the number of people 65 and older is going to be 506 million by mid-2008 and about 1.3 billion by 2040. That will be 14% of the estimated total world population at that time. As I ponder this awesome statistic, I am torn between positive and worried feelings. The positive ones are all about how lucky we baby boomers are to have such a long extension of life for so many people. Most of us will gain a fourth quarter we could never have dreamed of a mere fifty years ago. We can date at eighty, start another career in our seventies, plan a new mission that might take five or ten years to come to fruition, or finally take a decade to travel, garden or write poetry. We will just have more life -- and a higher quality of life --because it looks like we will be healthier longer. So what's the downside? The obvious one is the cost to society. We might be healthy, but we won't be 40 year olds. We will need more services of all kinds, and they will be expensive. It will be hard to make our savings last into our nineties and beyond. And think of it: Our kids might have to wait until they are 70 to inherit anything! (If there is anything left for them to get, that is.) We will be an awesome voting block. Will we care about kids and vote as benevolent grandparents, or greedy and frightened oldsters? Kids may be a much smaller lobbying group: In 2006, 20% of women in the U.S had no biological children. How are we going to behave when it's their kindergartens versus our home care? I think we Boomers have an amazing opportunity to create exciting and productive years between age 65 and our nineties. But if we follow previous models of aging, it might not turn out to be so glorious or well planned. Retiring at 65 could be financially hazardous and mentally debilitating. Resources have to be preserved for the long haul. We have to think long(er) term for ourselves -- and for others. But we will be able to take care of ourselves and our changed society if we understand that an extra twenty years is expectable rather than unlikely. Classic retirement, per se, should be rethought because we will need to keep ourselves emotionally and financially ambitious: We will need to be sharp to be able to enjoy living the extra decades most of our relatives never got to experience. We can also use this gift to develop a civic and charitable segment to our life span, or even an adventurous one. Don't scoff: The octogenarian years, plus, will be real for a great many of us, and if we are innovative, optimistic, conscientious about resources, and public spirited, our extended life cycle can be golden for us -- and not a disaster for the younger populations behind us. Read the full NIH report here. The National Institute on Aging recently issued a thought provoking report. The bottom line is that the world is getting older because we are living longer. You know the hackneyed phrase by now: 'Fifty is the new Forty' and 'Sixty is the new Fifty' and so on. Well, occasionally those pop sayings are right on target…and this one is. People over 80 are the fastest growing group in all age categories. The report says that the number of people 65 and older is going to be 506 million by mid-2008 and about 1.3 billion by 2040. That will be 14% of the estimated total world population at that time. As I ponder this awesome statistic, I am torn between positive and worried feelings. The positive ones are all about how lucky we baby boomers are to have such a long extension of life for so many people. Most of us will gain a fourth quarter we could never have dreamed of a mere fifty years ago. We can date at eighty, start another career in our seventies, plan a new mission that might take five or ten years to come to fruition, or finally take a decade to travel, garden or write poetry. We will just have more life -- and a higher quality of life --because it looks like we will be healthier longer. So what's the downside? The obvious one is the cost to society. We might be healthy, but we won't be 40 year olds. We will need more services of all kinds, and they will be expensive. It will be hard to make our savings last into our nineties and beyond. And think of it: Our kids might have to wait until they are 70 to inherit anything! (If there is anything left for them to get, that is.) We will be an awesome voting block. Will we care about kids and vote as benevolent grandparents, or greedy and frightened oldsters? Kids may be a much smaller lobbying group: In 2006, 20% of women in the U.S had no biological children. How are we going to behave when it's their kindergartens versus our home care? I think we Boomers have an amazing opportunity to create exciting and productive years between age 65 and our nineties. But if we follow previous models of aging, it might not turn out to be so glorious or well planned. Retiring at 65 could be financially hazardous and mentally debilitating. Resources have to be preserved for the long haul. We have to think long(er) term for ourselves -- and for others. But we will be able to take care of ourselves and our changed society if we understand that an extra twenty years is expectable rather than unlikely. Classic retirement, per se, should be rethought because we will need to keep ourselves emotionally and financially ambitious: We will need to be sharp to be able to enjoy living the extra decades most of our relatives never got to experience. We can also use this gift to develop a civic and charitable segment to our life span, or even an adventurous one. Don't scoff: The octogenarian years, plus, will be real for a great many of us, and if we are innovative, optimistic, conscientious about resources, and public spirited, our extended life cycle can be golden for us -- and not a disaster for the younger populations behind us. Read the full NIH report here. Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:35:04 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_A-Whole-Lot-of-Golden-Years/BLOG/1691804/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2009-08-12T17:35:04Z BeWell Community The National Institute on Aging recently issued a thought provoking report. The bottom line is that the world is getting older because we are living longer. You know the hackneyed phrase by now: 'Fifty is the new Forty' and 'Sixty is the new Fifty' and so on. Well, occasionally those pop sayings are right on target…and this one is. People over 80 are the fastest growing group in all age categories. The report says that the number of people 65 and older is going to be 506 million by mid-2008 and about 1.3 billion by 2040. That will be 14% of the estimated total world population at that time. As I ponder this awesome statistic, I am torn between positive and worried feelings. The positive ones are all about how lucky we baby boomers are to have such a long extension of life for so many people. Most of us will gain a fourth quarter we could never have dreamed of a mere fifty years ago. We can date at eighty, start another career in our seventies, plan a new mission that might take five or ten years to come to fruition, or finally take a decade to travel, garden or write poetry. We will just have more life -- and a higher quality of life --because it looks like we will be healthier longer. So what's the downside? The obvious one is the cost to society. We might be healthy, but we won't be 40 year olds. We will need more services of all kinds, and they will be expensive. It will be hard to make our savings last into our nineties and beyond. And think of it: Our kids might have to wait until they are 70 to inherit anything! (If there is anything left for them to get, that is.) We will be an awesome voting block. Will we care about kids and vote as benevolent grandparents, or greedy and frightened oldsters? Kids may be a much smaller lobbying group: In 2006, 20% of women in the U.S had no biological children. How are we going to behave when it's their kindergartens versus our home care? I think we Boomers have an amazing opportunity to create exciting and productive years between age 65 and our nineties. But if we follow previous models of aging, it might not turn out to be so glorious or well planned. Retiring at 65 could be financially hazardous and mentally debilitating. Resources have to be preserved for the long haul. We have to think long(er) term for ourselves -- and for others. But we will be able to take care of ourselves and our changed society if we understand that an extra twenty years is expectable rather than unlikely. Classic retirement, per se, should be rethought because we will need to keep ourselves emotionally and financially ambitious: We will need to be sharp to be able to enjoy living the extra decades most of our relatives never got to experience. We can also use this gift to develop a civic and charitable segment to our life span, or even an adventurous one. Don't scoff: The octogenarian years, plus, will be real for a great many of us, and if we are innovative, optimistic, conscientious about resources, and public spirited, our extended life cycle can be golden for us -- and not a disaster for the younger populations behind us. Read the full NIH report here. nonadult false A Whole Lot of Golden Years text blog 136 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1691804 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_Fathers-and-Step-Fathers/BLOG/1691802/142833.html Recently I've been asking myself 'what is a Dad?' The famous case before us is the sad legal battle of the American Dad whose wife kidnapped their child and took him to Brazil on the pretext of visiting her parents. When she died in childbirth (an ironic twist if there ever was one), her husband refused to let his stepchild go home to his biological father. All of America, as far as I can tell, was incensed and even Congress and Hillary Clinton got involved to protect the Dad's rights. The whole affair turned into an international incident, calmed but not solved by the supreme court of Brazil's unanimous decision to return the child. (The father is awaiting a decision by Brazil's court of appeals on the validity of the earlier ruling to return the child to the father's custody.) Hopefully the child and father will be reunited, as it should be, but unpopular as this sentiment might be, there is also the question of the step father. Will he ever be allowed to see his step son again? The step father has fought for custody of this child, and certainly has tried to stop the biological father of vesting his rightful relationship with his child. On the other hand, his only possible motivation for doing so was because he loved this child and had assumed a father-son relationship with him. While I am not excusing his behavior, I must say that no one proposed a solution wherein the step father could have visiting rights. In fact, not one commentator talks about his loss. We give lip service to the idea that biological and adoptive and step parent relationships have equal emotional legitimacy and perhaps, in some cases, legal equality. But in this case there was no sympathy for the man who had parented this child to be owed any further contact with the child. I don't think we should let the unfortunate facts of this case obscure the larger issue: step dads and adoptive dads have important parenting roles and develop deep commitments and passionate love for their children. They need recognition on just as much as biological Dads do. There are many adopted children or children of step Dads that thank a higher power that a step dad or adoptive  dad (or sometimes a foster Dad) came into their life and blotted out the imprint of a destructive or absent biological father or added to an already good family. Biology is important, but sometimes it is not enough to create a good enough bond between father and child.   So the next time we celebrate fathers and holidays like Father's Day, let's think about all those men who love and care for children. Some of them are coaches, teachers, ministers, and counselors. Others are Dads and step Dads who participate fully in a child's life. Lets support all the men, just as we celebrate all the women, who try and give children love, guidance, support, and a better life. We need every man who has good will and generosity and loyalty to children. No one who loves a child in a positive and constructive way should be considered expendable. Recently I've been asking myself 'what is a Dad?' The famous case before us is the sad legal battle of the American Dad whose wife kidnapped their child and took him to Brazil on the pretext of visiting her parents. When she died in childbirth (an ironic twist if there ever was one), her husband refused to let his stepchild go home to his biological father. All of America, as far as I can tell, was incensed and even Congress and Hillary Clinton got involved to protect the Dad's rights. The whole affair turned into an international incident, calmed but not solved by the supreme court of Brazil's unanimous decision to return the child. (The father is awaiting a decision by Brazil's court of appeals on the validity of the earlier ruling to return the child to the father's custody.) Hopefully the child and father will be reunited, as it should be, but unpopular as this sentiment might be, there is also the question of the step father. Will he ever be allowed to see his step son again? The step father has fought for custody of this child, and certainly has tried to stop the biological father of vesting his rightful relationship with his child. On the other hand, his only possible motivation for doing so was because he loved this child and had assumed a father-son relationship with him. While I am not excusing his behavior, I must say that no one proposed a solution wherein the step father could have visiting rights. In fact, not one commentator talks about his loss. We give lip service to the idea that biological and adoptive and step parent relationships have equal emotional legitimacy and perhaps, in some cases, legal equality. But in this case there was no sympathy for the man who had parented this child to be owed any further contact with the child. I don't think we should let the unfortunate facts of this case obscure the larger issue: step dads and adoptive dads have important parenting roles and develop deep commitments and passionate love for their children. They need recognition on just as much as biological Dads do. There are many adopted children or children of step Dads that thank a higher power that a step dad or adoptive  dad (or sometimes a foster Dad) came into their life and blotted out the imprint of a destructive or absent biological father or added to an already good family. Biology is important, but sometimes it is not enough to create a good enough bond between father and child.   So the next time we celebrate fathers and holidays like Father's Day, let's think about all those men who love and care for children. Some of them are coaches, teachers, ministers, and counselors. Others are Dads and step Dads who participate fully in a child's life. Lets support all the men, just as we celebrate all the women, who try and give children love, guidance, support, and a better life. We need every man who has good will and generosity and loyalty to children. No one who loves a child in a positive and constructive way should be considered expendable. Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:54:09 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_Fathers-and-Step-Fathers/BLOG/1691802/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2009-07-16T19:54:09Z BeWell Community Recently I've been asking myself 'what is a Dad?' The famous case before us is the sad legal battle of the American Dad whose wife kidnapped their child and took him to Brazil on the pretext of visiting her parents. When she died in childbirth (an ironic twist if there ever was one), her husband refused to let his stepchild go home to his biological father. All of America, as far as I can tell, was incensed and even Congress and Hillary Clinton got involved to protect the Dad's rights. The whole affair turned into an international incident, calmed but not solved by the supreme court of Brazil's unanimous decision to return the child. (The father is awaiting a decision by Brazil's court of appeals on the validity of the earlier ruling to return the child to the father's custody.) Hopefully the child and father will be reunited, as it should be, but unpopular as this sentiment might be, there is also the question of the step father. Will he ever be allowed to see his step son again? The step father has fought for custody of this child, and certainly has tried to stop the biological father of vesting his rightful relationship with his child. On the other hand, his only possible motivation for doing so was because he loved this child and had assumed a father-son relationship with him. While I am not excusing his behavior, I must say that no one proposed a solution wherein the step father could have visiting rights. In fact, not one commentator talks about his loss. We give lip service to the idea that biological and adoptive and step parent relationships have equal emotional legitimacy and perhaps, in some cases, legal equality. But in this case there was no sympathy for the man who had parented this child to be owed any further contact with the child. I don't think we should let the unfortunate facts of this case obscure the larger issue: step dads and adoptive dads have important parenting roles and develop deep commitments and passionate love for their children. They need recognition on just as much as biological Dads do. There are many adopted children or children of step Dads that thank a higher power that a step dad or adoptive  dad (or sometimes a foster Dad) came into their life and blotted out the imprint of a destructive or absent biological father or added to an already good family. Biology is important, but sometimes it is not enough to create a good enough bond between father and child.   So the next time we celebrate fathers and holidays like Father's Day, let's think about all those men who love and care for children. Some of them are coaches, teachers, ministers, and counselors. Others are Dads and step Dads who participate fully in a child's life. Lets support all the men, just as we celebrate all the women, who try and give children love, guidance, support, and a better life. We need every man who has good will and generosity and loyalty to children. No one who loves a child in a positive and constructive way should be considered expendable. nonadult false Fathers and Step Fathers text blog 150 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1691802 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_Who-Is-Going-to-Lead-the-GOP/BLOG/1691819/142833.html It seems that the GOP has had a sudden drop in eligible leaders. Senator John Ensign and Governor Mark Sanford have recently stepped down from leadership positions in the party because of sexual indiscretions. Both men have been caught with their pants down, even as they have pontificated on morality to the rest of us. Maybe that's why watching them get busted is such a guilty pleasure.Of course none of us can afford to be sanctimonious. We all know that there is no one who is pure in all categories, even if we can pass muster in a few. I think we can even understand that a certain kind of hypocrisy is necessary in public life…for example, while President Obama smokes, he certainly tells other people not to! Still, sex is a little different. Even though we know that the nature of human beings is to fall in love or lust unwisely, we don't like to find out that people who have been telling us what is and is not moral have been breaking their own rules.That said those rules are harder to keep than we pretend they are. I keep thinking that if the GOP actually goes through their leadership roster looking for someone without 'sin,' they may have a little trouble finding enough men to fill the executive council. I think they would have to appoint someone who is newly married and has a low sex drive and low impulsivity -- and it would be advisable if he had little or no ability to be passionately in love. Otherwise, one of these days there could be that temptation and then, well, ya never know.You think I am letting philanders off the hook? That they are a special kind of human failure? The fact is that even if most men and women are monogamous, a huge percentage are not -- and that percentage grows when you allow for the fact that ambitious, hard-driving, fame-seeking people are not too likely to be laid back and uninterested in their sexual appetites and emotional connections. They are, let's face it, a high risk group.So, here's where I stand on this situation. I actually felt sorry for Governor Sanford. It was clear to me that he had deeply loved his Argentinean lady, felt he had sinned against God, himself, and his wife and family, and was miserable about everything that had happened.  He wanted punishment, and his frankness and openness about his behavior was testament to his desire for full disclosure and censure. Eventually, however, I think he will want forgiveness. Personally, I think we should give it to him. He gave into his emotions, he betrayed his own moral standards, but he did not buy votes, sell dope, or in any way break the law. His wife will have her own decisions to make. But I think we should wrap that part of this sorry drama in privacy. This scene, or a variation of one like it, happens all the time, in every part of the world. It's not admirable -- but it's oh so human. And if the GOP doesn't recognize that, they may be plumb out of leaders. It seems that the GOP has had a sudden drop in eligible leaders. Senator John Ensign and Governor Mark Sanford have recently stepped down from leadership positions in the party because of sexual indiscretions. Both men have been caught with their pants down, even as they have pontificated on morality to the rest of us. Maybe that's why watching them get busted is such a guilty pleasure.Of course none of us can afford to be sanctimonious. We all know that there is no one who is pure in all categories, even if we can pass muster in a few. I think we can even understand that a certain kind of hypocrisy is necessary in public life…for example, while President Obama smokes, he certainly tells other people not to! Still, sex is a little different. Even though we know that the nature of human beings is to fall in love or lust unwisely, we don't like to find out that people who have been telling us what is and is not moral have been breaking their own rules.That said those rules are harder to keep than we pretend they are. I keep thinking that if the GOP actually goes through their leadership roster looking for someone without 'sin,' they may have a little trouble finding enough men to fill the executive council. I think they would have to appoint someone who is newly married and has a low sex drive and low impulsivity -- and it would be advisable if he had little or no ability to be passionately in love. Otherwise, one of these days there could be that temptation and then, well, ya never know.You think I am letting philanders off the hook? That they are a special kind of human failure? The fact is that even if most men and women are monogamous, a huge percentage are not -- and that percentage grows when you allow for the fact that ambitious, hard-driving, fame-seeking people are not too likely to be laid back and uninterested in their sexual appetites and emotional connections. They are, let's face it, a high risk group.So, here's where I stand on this situation. I actually felt sorry for Governor Sanford. It was clear to me that he had deeply loved his Argentinean lady, felt he had sinned against God, himself, and his wife and family, and was miserable about everything that had happened.  He wanted punishment, and his frankness and openness about his behavior was testament to his desire for full disclosure and censure. Eventually, however, I think he will want forgiveness. Personally, I think we should give it to him. He gave into his emotions, he betrayed his own moral standards, but he did not buy votes, sell dope, or in any way break the law. His wife will have her own decisions to make. But I think we should wrap that part of this sorry drama in privacy. This scene, or a variation of one like it, happens all the time, in every part of the world. It's not admirable -- but it's oh so human. And if the GOP doesn't recognize that, they may be plumb out of leaders. Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:56:07 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_Who-Is-Going-to-Lead-the-GOP/BLOG/1691819/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2009-06-25T14:56:07Z BeWell Community It seems that the GOP has had a sudden drop in eligible leaders. Senator John Ensign and Governor Mark Sanford have recently stepped down from leadership positions in the party because of sexual indiscretions. Both men have been caught with their pants down, even as they have pontificated on morality to the rest of us. Maybe that's why watching them get busted is such a guilty pleasure.Of course none of us can afford to be sanctimonious. We all know that there is no one who is pure in all categories, even if we can pass muster in a few. I think we can even understand that a certain kind of hypocrisy is necessary in public life…for example, while President Obama smokes, he certainly tells other people not to! Still, sex is a little different. Even though we know that the nature of human beings is to fall in love or lust unwisely, we don't like to find out that people who have been telling us what is and is not moral have been breaking their own rules.That said those rules are harder to keep than we pretend they are. I keep thinking that if the GOP actually goes through their leadership roster looking for someone without 'sin,' they may have a little trouble finding enough men to fill the executive council. I think they would have to appoint someone who is newly married and has a low sex drive and low impulsivity -- and it would be advisable if he had little or no ability to be passionately in love. Otherwise, one of these days there could be that temptation and then, well, ya never know.You think I am letting philanders off the hook? That they are a special kind of human failure? The fact is that even if most men and women are monogamous, a huge percentage are not -- and that percentage grows when you allow for the fact that ambitious, hard-driving, fame-seeking people are not too likely to be laid back and uninterested in their sexual appetites and emotional connections. They are, let's face it, a high risk group.So, here's where I stand on this situation. I actually felt sorry for Governor Sanford. It was clear to me that he had deeply loved his Argentinean lady, felt he had sinned against God, himself, and his wife and family, and was miserable about everything that had happened.  He wanted punishment, and his frankness and openness about his behavior was testament to his desire for full disclosure and censure. Eventually, however, I think he will want forgiveness. Personally, I think we should give it to him. He gave into his emotions, he betrayed his own moral standards, but he did not buy votes, sell dope, or in any way break the law. His wife will have her own decisions to make. But I think we should wrap that part of this sorry drama in privacy. This scene, or a variation of one like it, happens all the time, in every part of the world. It's not admirable -- but it's oh so human. And if the GOP doesn't recognize that, they may be plumb out of leaders. nonadult false Who Is Going to Lead the GOP? text blog 124 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1691819 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_Obama-Dude-Crank-It-Down-a-Notch/BLOG/1691817/142833.html A few nights ago, a wise cracking Jon Stewart observed the President and First Lady's date night in New York, and told the President to 'crank it down a notch.' In other words, Stewart was ribbing Barack Obama for making it hard on men, in general, by setting such a high standard of marital conduct. His statement was a joke, of course, but it did recognize that a Presidential marriage does set a model for the rest of the nation. It's pretty ironic since no situation could be more singular than being the first African American President living in the White House with a highly educated and accomplished wife (who had been his boss) and two small children. Nonetheless, the impact is real. We watch President Obama treat his wife with utmost respect and we watch her gently chide, kid, and guide him. They have a playful relationship that is not sidelined by, arguably, the most important job in the world. One does not doubt that they are even more affectionate in private and that they have a connection that is both companionable and sexual. They radiate happy marriage. Now that is a high bar. We've gotten so used to melodramas about marriages on the rocks and hand wringing about the state of matrimony in America that we really don't know what to do with a model of a marriage that is smokin'. The recipe, however, is not so mysterious that we can't replicate it: Take two smart people who have self esteem and purpose in the world and insert a man who likes to spend time with his wife and doesn't let his work eclipse his relationship. (Now, if he can do it, what excuse do other husbands have?) At the center of the relationship is obvious mutual admiration and shared values, including a devotion to two energetic and bright young daughters. Doesn't sound that hard to do, does it? Of course the Obama's don’t have financial worries that often keep couples at odds, but they do have a few other things on their plate, like nuclear threats from North Korea, political unrest throughout the Middle East, and conflict over health care reform at home...to name just a few preoccupying issues. Still, they keep time for each other and time for their children. They obviously need one another's counsel and support. Why? Because the basic ingredient of all relationships is mutual respect and they have plenty of it. And that, to me, is the core part of this famous marriage. So, I rarely disagree with Jon Stewart, but this time I will. President Obama does not place the bar too high. We've just been keeping it too low. Respect, love, affection, shared purpose, and time together...not such a hard formula -- we just have to adopt it! A few nights ago, a wise cracking Jon Stewart observed the President and First Lady's date night in New York, and told the President to 'crank it down a notch.' In other words, Stewart was ribbing Barack Obama for making it hard on men, in general, by setting such a high standard of marital conduct. His statement was a joke, of course, but it did recognize that a Presidential marriage does set a model for the rest of the nation. It's pretty ironic since no situation could be more singular than being the first African American President living in the White House with a highly educated and accomplished wife (who had been his boss) and two small children. Nonetheless, the impact is real. We watch President Obama treat his wife with utmost respect and we watch her gently chide, kid, and guide him. They have a playful relationship that is not sidelined by, arguably, the most important job in the world. One does not doubt that they are even more affectionate in private and that they have a connection that is both companionable and sexual. They radiate happy marriage. Now that is a high bar. We've gotten so used to melodramas about marriages on the rocks and hand wringing about the state of matrimony in America that we really don't know what to do with a model of a marriage that is smokin'. The recipe, however, is not so mysterious that we can't replicate it: Take two smart people who have self esteem and purpose in the world and insert a man who likes to spend time with his wife and doesn't let his work eclipse his relationship. (Now, if he can do it, what excuse do other husbands have?) At the center of the relationship is obvious mutual admiration and shared values, including a devotion to two energetic and bright young daughters. Doesn't sound that hard to do, does it? Of course the Obama's don’t have financial worries that often keep couples at odds, but they do have a few other things on their plate, like nuclear threats from North Korea, political unrest throughout the Middle East, and conflict over health care reform at home...to name just a few preoccupying issues. Still, they keep time for each other and time for their children. They obviously need one another's counsel and support. Why? Because the basic ingredient of all relationships is mutual respect and they have plenty of it. And that, to me, is the core part of this famous marriage. So, I rarely disagree with Jon Stewart, but this time I will. President Obama does not place the bar too high. We've just been keeping it too low. Respect, love, affection, shared purpose, and time together...not such a hard formula -- we just have to adopt it! Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:57:02 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_Obama-Dude-Crank-It-Down-a-Notch/BLOG/1691817/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2009-06-18T17:57:02Z BeWell Community A few nights ago, a wise cracking Jon Stewart observed the President and First Lady's date night in New York, and told the President to 'crank it down a notch.' In other words, Stewart was ribbing Barack Obama for making it hard on men, in general, by setting such a high standard of marital conduct. His statement was a joke, of course, but it did recognize that a Presidential marriage does set a model for the rest of the nation. It's pretty ironic since no situation could be more singular than being the first African American President living in the White House with a highly educated and accomplished wife (who had been his boss) and two small children. Nonetheless, the impact is real. We watch President Obama treat his wife with utmost respect and we watch her gently chide, kid, and guide him. They have a playful relationship that is not sidelined by, arguably, the most important job in the world. One does not doubt that they are even more affectionate in private and that they have a connection that is both companionable and sexual. They radiate happy marriage. Now that is a high bar. We've gotten so used to melodramas about marriages on the rocks and hand wringing about the state of matrimony in America that we really don't know what to do with a model of a marriage that is smokin'. The recipe, however, is not so mysterious that we can't replicate it: Take two smart people who have self esteem and purpose in the world and insert a man who likes to spend time with his wife and doesn't let his work eclipse his relationship. (Now, if he can do it, what excuse do other husbands have?) At the center of the relationship is obvious mutual admiration and shared values, including a devotion to two energetic and bright young daughters. Doesn't sound that hard to do, does it? Of course the Obama's don’t have financial worries that often keep couples at odds, but they do have a few other things on their plate, like nuclear threats from North Korea, political unrest throughout the Middle East, and conflict over health care reform at home...to name just a few preoccupying issues. Still, they keep time for each other and time for their children. They obviously need one another's counsel and support. Why? Because the basic ingredient of all relationships is mutual respect and they have plenty of it. And that, to me, is the core part of this famous marriage. So, I rarely disagree with Jon Stewart, but this time I will. President Obama does not place the bar too high. We've just been keeping it too low. Respect, love, affection, shared purpose, and time together...not such a hard formula -- we just have to adopt it! nonadult false Obama, Dude, Crank It Down a Notch... text blog 142 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1691817 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_Adultery-Love-Pragmatism-The-Elizabeth-Edwards-Story/BLOG/1691800/142833.html I've been asked my opinion about Elizabeth Edwards so often that I think it's time to go on record with what I think. For starters, I really like Elizabeth Edwards...a lot. She's a strong, intelligent, feeling woman who is taking care of herself and her family even as she sees death walking intently towards her. You've got to admire her for that kind of bravery -- whether or not you agree with her decision to stay with her husband. That said, I actually do agree with her choice to stay in the marriage. Why, you might wonder, do I support her decision even though he humiliated her and dishonored himself and his own goals? Because I admire pragmatism and I admire the courage to do what you need to do for yourself, even if the rest of the world is indulging in cheap moralizing. It's easy for everyone to scream 'dump the creep,' but that's only emotion and pain speaking -- not good sense. I don't think the shrill voices of judgment are thinking about what they would do if: A. they were dying, B. they had had a long and mostly good marriage, C. their spouse was the only person in the world with whom they had shared a tragic loss that only the two of them could truly understand, and D. they still saw their spouse's best side even though the worst side had been publically exposed to the world.  So, come on and give her a break! She still loves the guy. We all know that we've loved people who wouldn't pass muster for character, much less the way they've treated us, if we found ourselves in front of an impartial panel of relationship judges. There are people who are weak (John Edwards comes to mind) and immature (there's that name again), but also worthy in other ways. Ways, in this case, that not only Elizabeth has seen, but also a significant number of people who watched him run for President. That he has flaws the size of a Greek tragedy is indisputable. I knew that from the time I learned he had a 26 million dollar house. When I heard that I thought (I swear I did), 'that man has ego problems and I think something isn't quite solid there.' But even though I didn't guess the extent of it, and Elizabeth didn't either, the fact is he was a man of contradictions, which included, it seems, a loving and large heart for his children and his wife...at least some of the time. Can she ever get over his adultery? Probably not. But does the specter of her own mortality and leaving her children give her a sense of proportion about what to leave and what to accept? I think so. And furthermore, I think there is a lesson in this for all of us: Sure, adultery is crummy and painful, but it is not always a reason for dissolution. I don't think it's even always a reason to fall out of love. I can't begin to know what prompted John Edwards to embark on such a foolhardy affair while he was running for President, but I can imagine how much he might have wanted to run away from the fear of failure and the fear of losing his wife forever, and run to something that made him feel strong, dashing, naughty, and off the clock. Stupid rewards for such huge losses when all was revealed, but who thinks about such things when they are adrenalized and feeling like they can take on the world? We are all glad that John Edwards is not our President now, but we shouldn't also conclude that he shouldn't be Elizabeth's husband. She knows, and he knows, that he can and will be there for her now in this trying time. She needs him and he needs the time with her to do what he can to make up his trespasses to her and his kids. Will the slate be clean? No. But can a marriage and love revive and grace be given? Yes. And I say that not only to the Edwards, but to all of us. Elizabeth is giving us all a gift before she goes, but you have to stop your knee-jerk reactions to hear it and learn from it. I've been asked my opinion about Elizabeth Edwards so often that I think it's time to go on record with what I think. For starters, I really like Elizabeth Edwards...a lot. She's a strong, intelligent, feeling woman who is taking care of herself and her family even as she sees death walking intently towards her. You've got to admire her for that kind of bravery -- whether or not you agree with her decision to stay with her husband. That said, I actually do agree with her choice to stay in the marriage. Why, you might wonder, do I support her decision even though he humiliated her and dishonored himself and his own goals? Because I admire pragmatism and I admire the courage to do what you need to do for yourself, even if the rest of the world is indulging in cheap moralizing. It's easy for everyone to scream 'dump the creep,' but that's only emotion and pain speaking -- not good sense. I don't think the shrill voices of judgment are thinking about what they would do if: A. they were dying, B. they had had a long and mostly good marriage, C. their spouse was the only person in the world with whom they had shared a tragic loss that only the two of them could truly understand, and D. they still saw their spouse's best side even though the worst side had been publically exposed to the world.  So, come on and give her a break! She still loves the guy. We all know that we've loved people who wouldn't pass muster for character, much less the way they've treated us, if we found ourselves in front of an impartial panel of relationship judges. There are people who are weak (John Edwards comes to mind) and immature (there's that name again), but also worthy in other ways. Ways, in this case, that not only Elizabeth has seen, but also a significant number of people who watched him run for President. That he has flaws the size of a Greek tragedy is indisputable. I knew that from the time I learned he had a 26 million dollar house. When I heard that I thought (I swear I did), 'that man has ego problems and I think something isn't quite solid there.' But even though I didn't guess the extent of it, and Elizabeth didn't either, the fact is he was a man of contradictions, which included, it seems, a loving and large heart for his children and his wife...at least some of the time. Can she ever get over his adultery? Probably not. But does the specter of her own mortality and leaving her children give her a sense of proportion about what to leave and what to accept? I think so. And furthermore, I think there is a lesson in this for all of us: Sure, adultery is crummy and painful, but it is not always a reason for dissolution. I don't think it's even always a reason to fall out of love. I can't begin to know what prompted John Edwards to embark on such a foolhardy affair while he was running for President, but I can imagine how much he might have wanted to run away from the fear of failure and the fear of losing his wife forever, and run to something that made him feel strong, dashing, naughty, and off the clock. Stupid rewards for such huge losses when all was revealed, but who thinks about such things when they are adrenalized and feeling like they can take on the world? We are all glad that John Edwards is not our President now, but we shouldn't also conclude that he shouldn't be Elizabeth's husband. She knows, and he knows, that he can and will be there for her now in this trying time. She needs him and he needs the time with her to do what he can to make up his trespasses to her and his kids. Will the slate be clean? No. But can a marriage and love revive and grace be given? Yes. And I say that not only to the Edwards, but to all of us. Elizabeth is giving us all a gift before she goes, but you have to stop your knee-jerk reactions to hear it and learn from it. Wed, 27 May 2009 20:59:44 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_Adultery-Love-Pragmatism-The-Elizabeth-Edwards-Story/BLOG/1691800/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2009-05-27T20:59:44Z BeWell Community I've been asked my opinion about Elizabeth Edwards so often that I think it's time to go on record with what I think. For starters, I really like Elizabeth Edwards...a lot. She's a strong, intelligent, feeling woman who is taking care of herself and her family even as she sees death walking intently towards her. You've got to admire her for that kind of bravery -- whether or not you agree with her decision to stay with her husband. That said, I actually do agree with her choice to stay in the marriage. Why, you might wonder, do I support her decision even though he humiliated her and dishonored himself and his own goals? Because I admire pragmatism and I admire the courage to do what you need to do for yourself, even if the rest of the world is indulging in cheap moralizing. It's easy for everyone to scream 'dump the creep,' but that's only emotion and pain speaking -- not good sense. I don't think the shrill voices of judgment are thinking about what they would do if: A. they were dying, B. they had had a long and mostly good marriage, C. their spouse was the only person in the world with whom they had shared a tragic loss that only the two of them could truly understand, and D. they still saw their spouse's best side even though the worst side had been publically exposed to the world.  So, come on and give her a break! She still loves the guy. We all know that we've loved people who wouldn't pass muster for character, much less the way they've treated us, if we found ourselves in front of an impartial panel of relationship judges. There are people who are weak (John Edwards comes to mind) and immature (there's that name again), but also worthy in other ways. Ways, in this case, that not only Elizabeth has seen, but also a significant number of people who watched him run for President. That he has flaws the size of a Greek tragedy is indisputable. I knew that from the time I learned he had a 26 million dollar house. When I heard that I thought (I swear I did), 'that man has ego problems and I think something isn't quite solid there.' But even though I didn't guess the extent of it, and Elizabeth didn't either, the fact is he was a man of contradictions, which included, it seems, a loving and large heart for his children and his wife...at least some of the time. Can she ever get over his adultery? Probably not. But does the specter of her own mortality and leaving her children give her a sense of proportion about what to leave and what to accept? I think so. And furthermore, I think there is a lesson in this for all of us: Sure, adultery is crummy and painful, but it is not always a reason for dissolution. I don't think it's even always a reason to fall out of love. I can't begin to know what prompted John Edwards to embark on such a foolhardy affair while he was running for President, but I can imagine how much he might have wanted to run away from the fear of failure and the fear of losing his wife forever, and run to something that made him feel strong, dashing, naughty, and off the clock. Stupid rewards for such huge losses when all was revealed, but who thinks about such things when they are adrenalized and feeling like they can take on the world? We are all glad that John Edwards is not our President now, but we shouldn't also conclude that he shouldn't be Elizabeth's husband. She knows, and he knows, that he can and will be there for her now in this trying time. She needs him and he needs the time with her to do what he can to make up his trespasses to her and his kids. Will the slate be clean? No. But can a marriage and love revive and grace be given? Yes. And I say that not only to the Edwards, but to all of us. Elizabeth is giving us all a gift before she goes, but you have to stop your knee-jerk reactions to hear it and learn from it. nonadult false Adultery, Love & Pragmatism: The Elizabeth Edwards Story text blog 128 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1691800 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_The-Contradictions-of-Gay-Marriage/BLOG/1691799/142833.html The recent decision of the California Supreme Court has left me puzzled, and I am not alone. On the one hand, I understand how the court could decide to uphold a democratic vote on gay marriage. I disagree, though, with their reasoning. To me, gay marriage is a constitutional issue and -- just in the same way we cannot lawfully vote to deny minorities the right to a job or to vote or to marry -- I also don't think we can lawfully ban gay people from such a personal and socially-advantageous legal status. On the other hand, the California Supreme Court left 18,000 gay marriages intact. Now while I think that's great for those 18,000 people, you might see why I find that an awkward situation. It suits me to think that once-married people cannot be stripped of that status by the state. Yet, don't you think it's odd that some gay people who got in the door will get all the legal rights of marriage the state can provide while others who missed getting inside because the door was slammed shut will be perpetually disenfranchised? I can see the division: the anointed couples and the ones who look just like them except they didn't fall in love at the right time or drive soon enough to the courthouse. I can imagine how awful this model would prove if it were applied to other controversial rights such as adoption. Imagine if gay people (or single people or older parents) were given full adoptive rights, as they have been in certain states and agencies, and then a referendum denied those people the right to adopt in the future. It certainly would be hard to explain to the children, and I would also be worried about the psychic wounds to the individuals involved. Next to the right to live, the right to love -- as parents and partners -- is as key and as important a human right as I can imagine. How can we not give it? How can we give it and take it away? How can we have groups of people who are viritualy identical, but one group has a precious right (the right to marry) and the other group does not? The only good thing I can think about this situation is that by having these 18,000 same sex couples certified as married that it makes the anti-gay marriage laws that much more untenable and ridiculous. These scatter-shot civil liberties -- one state here, another there ratifying gay marriage -- seem to be a rocky passage we must go through. Still, it's high time to get over our fear, act on the facts, and give the right of marriage to every adult couple willing to take on its responsibilities. The recent decision of the California Supreme Court has left me puzzled, and I am not alone. On the one hand, I understand how the court could decide to uphold a democratic vote on gay marriage. I disagree, though, with their reasoning. To me, gay marriage is a constitutional issue and -- just in the same way we cannot lawfully vote to deny minorities the right to a job or to vote or to marry -- I also don't think we can lawfully ban gay people from such a personal and socially-advantageous legal status. On the other hand, the California Supreme Court left 18,000 gay marriages intact. Now while I think that's great for those 18,000 people, you might see why I find that an awkward situation. It suits me to think that once-married people cannot be stripped of that status by the state. Yet, don't you think it's odd that some gay people who got in the door will get all the legal rights of marriage the state can provide while others who missed getting inside because the door was slammed shut will be perpetually disenfranchised? I can see the division: the anointed couples and the ones who look just like them except they didn't fall in love at the right time or drive soon enough to the courthouse. I can imagine how awful this model would prove if it were applied to other controversial rights such as adoption. Imagine if gay people (or single people or older parents) were given full adoptive rights, as they have been in certain states and agencies, and then a referendum denied those people the right to adopt in the future. It certainly would be hard to explain to the children, and I would also be worried about the psychic wounds to the individuals involved. Next to the right to live, the right to love -- as parents and partners -- is as key and as important a human right as I can imagine. How can we not give it? How can we give it and take it away? How can we have groups of people who are viritualy identical, but one group has a precious right (the right to marry) and the other group does not? The only good thing I can think about this situation is that by having these 18,000 same sex couples certified as married that it makes the anti-gay marriage laws that much more untenable and ridiculous. These scatter-shot civil liberties -- one state here, another there ratifying gay marriage -- seem to be a rocky passage we must go through. Still, it's high time to get over our fear, act on the facts, and give the right of marriage to every adult couple willing to take on its responsibilities. Tue, 26 May 2009 20:37:02 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_The-Contradictions-of-Gay-Marriage/BLOG/1691799/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2009-05-26T20:37:02Z BeWell Community The recent decision of the California Supreme Court has left me puzzled, and I am not alone. On the one hand, I understand how the court could decide to uphold a democratic vote on gay marriage. I disagree, though, with their reasoning. To me, gay marriage is a constitutional issue and -- just in the same way we cannot lawfully vote to deny minorities the right to a job or to vote or to marry -- I also don't think we can lawfully ban gay people from such a personal and socially-advantageous legal status. On the other hand, the California Supreme Court left 18,000 gay marriages intact. Now while I think that's great for those 18,000 people, you might see why I find that an awkward situation. It suits me to think that once-married people cannot be stripped of that status by the state. Yet, don't you think it's odd that some gay people who got in the door will get all the legal rights of marriage the state can provide while others who missed getting inside because the door was slammed shut will be perpetually disenfranchised? I can see the division: the anointed couples and the ones who look just like them except they didn't fall in love at the right time or drive soon enough to the courthouse. I can imagine how awful this model would prove if it were applied to other controversial rights such as adoption. Imagine if gay people (or single people or older parents) were given full adoptive rights, as they have been in certain states and agencies, and then a referendum denied those people the right to adopt in the future. It certainly would be hard to explain to the children, and I would also be worried about the psychic wounds to the individuals involved. Next to the right to live, the right to love -- as parents and partners -- is as key and as important a human right as I can imagine. How can we not give it? How can we give it and take it away? How can we have groups of people who are viritualy identical, but one group has a precious right (the right to marry) and the other group does not? The only good thing I can think about this situation is that by having these 18,000 same sex couples certified as married that it makes the anti-gay marriage laws that much more untenable and ridiculous. These scatter-shot civil liberties -- one state here, another there ratifying gay marriage -- seem to be a rocky passage we must go through. Still, it's high time to get over our fear, act on the facts, and give the right of marriage to every adult couple willing to take on its responsibilities. nonadult false The Contradictions of Gay Marriage text blog 77 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1691799 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_The-Greatest-Mothers-Day-Gift-of-All/BLOG/1691816/142833.html I was watching the results of the Kentucky Derby and there was the jockey, Calvin Borel, who had just won the race on a fifty-to-one shot horse, Mine That Bird. Calvin is a guy with little education but fantastic skills. When he won this incredible upset, a woman reporter on a horse rode up to him with a microphone and asked him how he was feeling. Calvin broke down crying, thanking his mom and dad. He said something about hoping they could see this accomplishment and, later, took a rose from the roses draped around his horse's neck and threw one to heavens. By this time, tears were streaming down my face. Sure, some of those tears were for the come-from-behind triumph of the unknown gelding and the victory of a group of underdog owners and trainers. But most of it was about the love this guy felt for his parents and that they were uppermost in his mind on this fabulous day. It got me thinking about my mom and Mother's Day. Like Calvin and a whole lot of other people, when something good is happening to me, I hope my mother is in heaven and able to see it. Why? Because I can see her face: She'd be smiling, proud, and grateful that something good had happened to her child. Like most moms, her happiness was in large part based on my happiness. Nothing thrilled her more than when my dreams and aspirations were fulfilled. Is there anything more pure in the world than this...the happiness of a loving parent that is almost soley based on the happiness of her child? I don't think so and, luckily, being a mom myself, I am fortunate enough to have the same feeling. There is nothing -- NOTHING -- that can compare to my happiness when something good happens to one of my children. When they do something they hoped they could do, when they experience something they love, when they reach unlikely heights, and when they recover from something dificult, my heart soars. The added special pleasure to all of this is that I know they know how I feel.  They feel my love and they know that that their happy existance is the greatest gift they can give me. We are a circle of love -- and that circle will exist even when I am no longer on this earth. What an amazing gift we have, this precious gift of love that lives on between parent and child, and, in some cases, grandchildren, so long as memory survives.  No wonder we celebrate Mother's Day. It's only a wonder that we don't celebrate it more often.  I was watching the results of the Kentucky Derby and there was the jockey, Calvin Borel, who had just won the race on a fifty-to-one shot horse, Mine That Bird. Calvin is a guy with little education but fantastic skills. When he won this incredible upset, a woman reporter on a horse rode up to him with a microphone and asked him how he was feeling. Calvin broke down crying, thanking his mom and dad. He said something about hoping they could see this accomplishment and, later, took a rose from the roses draped around his horse's neck and threw one to heavens. By this time, tears were streaming down my face. Sure, some of those tears were for the come-from-behind triumph of the unknown gelding and the victory of a group of underdog owners and trainers. But most of it was about the love this guy felt for his parents and that they were uppermost in his mind on this fabulous day. It got me thinking about my mom and Mother's Day. Like Calvin and a whole lot of other people, when something good is happening to me, I hope my mother is in heaven and able to see it. Why? Because I can see her face: She'd be smiling, proud, and grateful that something good had happened to her child. Like most moms, her happiness was in large part based on my happiness. Nothing thrilled her more than when my dreams and aspirations were fulfilled. Is there anything more pure in the world than this...the happiness of a loving parent that is almost soley based on the happiness of her child? I don't think so and, luckily, being a mom myself, I am fortunate enough to have the same feeling. There is nothing -- NOTHING -- that can compare to my happiness when something good happens to one of my children. When they do something they hoped they could do, when they experience something they love, when they reach unlikely heights, and when they recover from something dificult, my heart soars. The added special pleasure to all of this is that I know they know how I feel.  They feel my love and they know that that their happy existance is the greatest gift they can give me. We are a circle of love -- and that circle will exist even when I am no longer on this earth. What an amazing gift we have, this precious gift of love that lives on between parent and child, and, in some cases, grandchildren, so long as memory survives.  No wonder we celebrate Mother's Day. It's only a wonder that we don't celebrate it more often.  Wed, 06 May 2009 19:29:34 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_The-Greatest-Mothers-Day-Gift-of-All/BLOG/1691816/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2009-05-06T19:29:34Z BeWell Community I was watching the results of the Kentucky Derby and there was the jockey, Calvin Borel, who had just won the race on a fifty-to-one shot horse, Mine That Bird. Calvin is a guy with little education but fantastic skills. When he won this incredible upset, a woman reporter on a horse rode up to him with a microphone and asked him how he was feeling. Calvin broke down crying, thanking his mom and dad. He said something about hoping they could see this accomplishment and, later, took a rose from the roses draped around his horse's neck and threw one to heavens. By this time, tears were streaming down my face. Sure, some of those tears were for the come-from-behind triumph of the unknown gelding and the victory of a group of underdog owners and trainers. But most of it was about the love this guy felt for his parents and that they were uppermost in his mind on this fabulous day. It got me thinking about my mom and Mother's Day. Like Calvin and a whole lot of other people, when something good is happening to me, I hope my mother is in heaven and able to see it. Why? Because I can see her face: She'd be smiling, proud, and grateful that something good had happened to her child. Like most moms, her happiness was in large part based on my happiness. Nothing thrilled her more than when my dreams and aspirations were fulfilled. Is there anything more pure in the world than this...the happiness of a loving parent that is almost soley based on the happiness of her child? I don't think so and, luckily, being a mom myself, I am fortunate enough to have the same feeling. There is nothing -- NOTHING -- that can compare to my happiness when something good happens to one of my children. When they do something they hoped they could do, when they experience something they love, when they reach unlikely heights, and when they recover from something dificult, my heart soars. The added special pleasure to all of this is that I know they know how I feel.  They feel my love and they know that that their happy existance is the greatest gift they can give me. We are a circle of love -- and that circle will exist even when I am no longer on this earth. What an amazing gift we have, this precious gift of love that lives on between parent and child, and, in some cases, grandchildren, so long as memory survives.  No wonder we celebrate Mother's Day. It's only a wonder that we don't celebrate it more often.  nonadult false The Greatest Mother's Day Gift of All text blog 83 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1691816 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_Beauty-and-the-Blogger-What-Miss-California-Didn39t-Realize/BLOG/1691815/142833.html There's been a cultural sea change and somehow Miss California, almost Miss USA, missed it. You've probably heard the flap. The Miss USA contest -- always a forum for such tricky questions as 'If you had to choose between baking brownies and lemon cake, which would you choose?' -- changed its public face and actually asked difficult and potentially divisive questions. One contestant was asked about the bank and corporate bailouts (!!!) and Miss California was asked about whether she thought the rest of the states should follow Vermont's lead on gay marriage. Miss California, dutifully following her own conservative values, said, as nicely as possible (she prefaced her remarks with 'no offense meant...'), that she thought marriage was between a man and a woman...and nothing else. Her response was directed to one of the contest's judges, Perez Hilton, who asked the question and is openly gay. The judge probably gave her a big fat zero, was visibly offended, and -- while many in her home neighborhood will probably make her a cultural heroine for her stance on this issue (ala Anita Bryant) -- the fact is: She ain't going to be Miss USA.Miss California never had a chance. Why? Because Miss California thought she'd get questions that would allow her to include in her responses why she loved God and why children should be loved -- and that those answers would carry her through the contest. As we all know now, that's not what happened. Still, given the track record of beauty pageants, she had every right to expect that everything she had learned at the lower level pageants would carry her through on this one.But not only no...hell no! The fact is we are now a nation deeply divided about its values. On this issue, the country is almost evenly split. About 55% of the American public doesn't think homosexuality is okay, but almost 75% think homosexuals should have civil rights that protect jobs and housing. A large majority of Americans do not support gay marriage, but over 40% support civil unions or domestic partnerships. I could go on, but you get the point. There is no consensus. And this is the case for a number of issues, including abortion, immigration, enforced vaccination for HPV, and so on.Contestants may need a new style for their answers like, 'I respect the right of people to differ on this issue. I believe in love, but each state will have to work out how they want to legalize relationships.' That's almost in the same vein as 'everyone should worship God, or not, in their own special way.' Flacid, I know. But these are beauty pageants. Do we really have to evaluate them as if they were running for Congress? Judge Perez Hilton said it was important for him to ask his question because 'Miss USA represents everyone,' but, really, I never thought she represented me. After all, I didn't get a chance to vote. Do we want a values test for everything? When you get to some issues, there is almost no way to avoid offending someone. Personally, I wish she had given a ringing endorsement of gay marriage. I support it and have testified in court supporting the cause. But there is still a little part of me that felt sorry for the beauty contestants this year. Next year, of course, they will be forewarned and they will have to speak about the right to medically-aided suicide or whether or not doctors should abort some of the fetuses in multiple births in order to make the survival of the others more likely. I wonder if this should happen during the evening gown or swim suit competition? There's been a cultural sea change and somehow Miss California, almost Miss USA, missed it. You've probably heard the flap. The Miss USA contest -- always a forum for such tricky questions as 'If you had to choose between baking brownies and lemon cake, which would you choose?' -- changed its public face and actually asked difficult and potentially divisive questions. One contestant was asked about the bank and corporate bailouts (!!!) and Miss California was asked about whether she thought the rest of the states should follow Vermont's lead on gay marriage. Miss California, dutifully following her own conservative values, said, as nicely as possible (she prefaced her remarks with 'no offense meant...'), that she thought marriage was between a man and a woman...and nothing else. Her response was directed to one of the contest's judges, Perez Hilton, who asked the question and is openly gay. The judge probably gave her a big fat zero, was visibly offended, and -- while many in her home neighborhood will probably make her a cultural heroine for her stance on this issue (ala Anita Bryant) -- the fact is: She ain't going to be Miss USA.Miss California never had a chance. Why? Because Miss California thought she'd get questions that would allow her to include in her responses why she loved God and why children should be loved -- and that those answers would carry her through the contest. As we all know now, that's not what happened. Still, given the track record of beauty pageants, she had every right to expect that everything she had learned at the lower level pageants would carry her through on this one.But not only no...hell no! The fact is we are now a nation deeply divided about its values. On this issue, the country is almost evenly split. About 55% of the American public doesn't think homosexuality is okay, but almost 75% think homosexuals should have civil rights that protect jobs and housing. A large majority of Americans do not support gay marriage, but over 40% support civil unions or domestic partnerships. I could go on, but you get the point. There is no consensus. And this is the case for a number of issues, including abortion, immigration, enforced vaccination for HPV, and so on.Contestants may need a new style for their answers like, 'I respect the right of people to differ on this issue. I believe in love, but each state will have to work out how they want to legalize relationships.' That's almost in the same vein as 'everyone should worship God, or not, in their own special way.' Flacid, I know. But these are beauty pageants. Do we really have to evaluate them as if they were running for Congress? Judge Perez Hilton said it was important for him to ask his question because 'Miss USA represents everyone,' but, really, I never thought she represented me. After all, I didn't get a chance to vote. Do we want a values test for everything? When you get to some issues, there is almost no way to avoid offending someone. Personally, I wish she had given a ringing endorsement of gay marriage. I support it and have testified in court supporting the cause. But there is still a little part of me that felt sorry for the beauty contestants this year. Next year, of course, they will be forewarned and they will have to speak about the right to medically-aided suicide or whether or not doctors should abort some of the fetuses in multiple births in order to make the survival of the others more likely. I wonder if this should happen during the evening gown or swim suit competition? Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:57:19 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_Beauty-and-the-Blogger-What-Miss-California-Didn39t-Realize/BLOG/1691815/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2009-04-21T20:57:19Z BeWell Community There's been a cultural sea change and somehow Miss California, almost Miss USA, missed it. You've probably heard the flap. The Miss USA contest -- always a forum for such tricky questions as 'If you had to choose between baking brownies and lemon cake, which would you choose?' -- changed its public face and actually asked difficult and potentially divisive questions. One contestant was asked about the bank and corporate bailouts (!!!) and Miss California was asked about whether she thought the rest of the states should follow Vermont's lead on gay marriage. Miss California, dutifully following her own conservative values, said, as nicely as possible (she prefaced her remarks with 'no offense meant...'), that she thought marriage was between a man and a woman...and nothing else. Her response was directed to one of the contest's judges, Perez Hilton, who asked the question and is openly gay. The judge probably gave her a big fat zero, was visibly offended, and -- while many in her home neighborhood will probably make her a cultural heroine for her stance on this issue (ala Anita Bryant) -- the fact is: She ain't going to be Miss USA.Miss California never had a chance. Why? Because Miss California thought she'd get questions that would allow her to include in her responses why she loved God and why children should be loved -- and that those answers would carry her through the contest. As we all know now, that's not what happened. Still, given the track record of beauty pageants, she had every right to expect that everything she had learned at the lower level pageants would carry her through on this one.But not only no...hell no! The fact is we are now a nation deeply divided about its values. On this issue, the country is almost evenly split. About 55% of the American public doesn't think homosexuality is okay, but almost 75% think homosexuals should have civil rights that protect jobs and housing. A large majority of Americans do not support gay marriage, but over 40% support civil unions or domestic partnerships. I could go on, but you get the point. There is no consensus. And this is the case for a number of issues, including abortion, immigration, enforced vaccination for HPV, and so on.Contestants may need a new style for their answers like, 'I respect the right of people to differ on this issue. I believe in love, but each state will have to work out how they want to legalize relationships.' That's almost in the same vein as 'everyone should worship God, or not, in their own special way.' Flacid, I know. But these are beauty pageants. Do we really have to evaluate them as if they were running for Congress? Judge Perez Hilton said it was important for him to ask his question because 'Miss USA represents everyone,' but, really, I never thought she represented me. After all, I didn't get a chance to vote. Do we want a values test for everything? When you get to some issues, there is almost no way to avoid offending someone. Personally, I wish she had given a ringing endorsement of gay marriage. I support it and have testified in court supporting the cause. But there is still a little part of me that felt sorry for the beauty contestants this year. Next year, of course, they will be forewarned and they will have to speak about the right to medically-aided suicide or whether or not doctors should abort some of the fetuses in multiple births in order to make the survival of the others more likely. I wonder if this should happen during the evening gown or swim suit competition? nonadult false Beauty and the Blogger: What Miss California Didn't Realize text blog 55 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1691815 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_The-Quiet-Revolution-Gay-Marriage/BLOG/1691813/142833.html A rather quiet revolution is taking place. I suppose it is quiet because it is happening in the courts and in legislatures…and not so much in the streets. But after a huge amount of legal argument in various courts, it seems that the logic of marriage as a civil right for all Americans is finally asserting itself in judicial opinions. In the last couple of weeks Iowa joined Massachusetts -- and other states are following suit -- to state in no uncertain terms that the institution of marriage should include homosexual as well as heterosexual couples.   I have personally been involved as an expert witness on a number of these cases. I testified in person when Hawaii struggled with gay marriage. In that state, the issue went back and forth in the courts, and -- when it looked like gay marriage might be imposed (because not doing so conflicted with the state's constitution) -- the legislature negotiated a domestic rights package for same sex couples. The measure fell short of marriage, but activists accepted the compromise.   I was also on the amicus brief for Iowa, fought to give same sex couples the right to be foster parents in Arkansas, and advocated for non-biological partners in same sex relationships to have adoptive rights to the children they co-parent in Washington. In all these cases I have focused on the humanity of the people involved and their rights, as citizens, to have the same legal and emotional benefits that heterosexuals in this country take for granted. In the course of my life I have met so many wonderful same sex couples and parents that I cannot imagine why society doesn't want to legitimize and support their aspiration to have the protection -- and obligations -- of marriage and legal parental rights. Likewise, like most people I know, I also care about the children in any relationship. If a couple breaks up, I would like the law to help support either an equitable custodial and/or visitation schedule (for the child's sake, as well as the parents') and to impose, if a parent does not take on financial support willingly, a reasonable child support obligation. The growing number of states and countries that now agree with this position is a testament, I think, of society's ability to learn, change, adjust, apologize and, ultimately, to deliver justice. We all know the fears and stereotypes that homosexuality invokes, and it has been no small matter to do the research that could refute the stereotypes, reeducate people over the years, and calm their fears about what gay marriage would mean for society, marriage and children. While I understand that not everyone is pleased by these changes, agrees with the research, or has changed their opinion, I still think we are now in a situation where more than half of all Americans believe that same sex marriage (or some form of domestic partnership that is equal to marriage) should be the standard in all states. The revolution I see is not just that same sex marriage or gay parental rights are being allowed and legalized. The revolution I see is country-wide emotional growth -- enabling people to accept diversity, reject homophobic rhetoric, and, instead, look at gay and lesbian partners as fellow citizens, friends and family members. When I compare today's society to the one in which I was born into more than sixty years ago, I am proud to say that the one I live in today is more tolerant, more knowledgeable and more inclusive.   I think this revolution of respecting people 'not like us' and wanting civil rights for all people -- gay or straight, black and white, immigrant or citizen, and so on -- has its antecedents in the civil rights movement of the 1950s...and those movements that formed in the decades following those first stirrings of righteous anger and frustration. The civil rights movement, the farm workers' movement, the women's movement, the sexual revolution, and the gay rights movement have all been our legacy. Gay marriage is the logical next step in our changing society.  Our increasing understanding and protection of human dignity and our continuing investigation into what constitutes fairness, has made it possible for this newest incarnation of marriage to have standing in the courts. I, for one, am proud of the road we have traveled together.  A rather quiet revolution is taking place. I suppose it is quiet because it is happening in the courts and in legislatures…and not so much in the streets. But after a huge amount of legal argument in various courts, it seems that the logic of marriage as a civil right for all Americans is finally asserting itself in judicial opinions. In the last couple of weeks Iowa joined Massachusetts -- and other states are following suit -- to state in no uncertain terms that the institution of marriage should include homosexual as well as heterosexual couples.   I have personally been involved as an expert witness on a number of these cases. I testified in person when Hawaii struggled with gay marriage. In that state, the issue went back and forth in the courts, and -- when it looked like gay marriage might be imposed (because not doing so conflicted with the state's constitution) -- the legislature negotiated a domestic rights package for same sex couples. The measure fell short of marriage, but activists accepted the compromise.   I was also on the amicus brief for Iowa, fought to give same sex couples the right to be foster parents in Arkansas, and advocated for non-biological partners in same sex relationships to have adoptive rights to the children they co-parent in Washington. In all these cases I have focused on the humanity of the people involved and their rights, as citizens, to have the same legal and emotional benefits that heterosexuals in this country take for granted. In the course of my life I have met so many wonderful same sex couples and parents that I cannot imagine why society doesn't want to legitimize and support their aspiration to have the protection -- and obligations -- of marriage and legal parental rights. Likewise, like most people I know, I also care about the children in any relationship. If a couple breaks up, I would like the law to help support either an equitable custodial and/or visitation schedule (for the child's sake, as well as the parents') and to impose, if a parent does not take on financial support willingly, a reasonable child support obligation. The growing number of states and countries that now agree with this position is a testament, I think, of society's ability to learn, change, adjust, apologize and, ultimately, to deliver justice. We all know the fears and stereotypes that homosexuality invokes, and it has been no small matter to do the research that could refute the stereotypes, reeducate people over the years, and calm their fears about what gay marriage would mean for society, marriage and children. While I understand that not everyone is pleased by these changes, agrees with the research, or has changed their opinion, I still think we are now in a situation where more than half of all Americans believe that same sex marriage (or some form of domestic partnership that is equal to marriage) should be the standard in all states. The revolution I see is not just that same sex marriage or gay parental rights are being allowed and legalized. The revolution I see is country-wide emotional growth -- enabling people to accept diversity, reject homophobic rhetoric, and, instead, look at gay and lesbian partners as fellow citizens, friends and family members. When I compare today's society to the one in which I was born into more than sixty years ago, I am proud to say that the one I live in today is more tolerant, more knowledgeable and more inclusive.   I think this revolution of respecting people 'not like us' and wanting civil rights for all people -- gay or straight, black and white, immigrant or citizen, and so on -- has its antecedents in the civil rights movement of the 1950s...and those movements that formed in the decades following those first stirrings of righteous anger and frustration. The civil rights movement, the farm workers' movement, the women's movement, the sexual revolution, and the gay rights movement have all been our legacy. Gay marriage is the logical next step in our changing society.  Our increasing understanding and protection of human dignity and our continuing investigation into what constitutes fairness, has made it possible for this newest incarnation of marriage to have standing in the courts. I, for one, am proud of the road we have traveled together.  Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:30:48 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_The-Quiet-Revolution-Gay-Marriage/BLOG/1691813/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2009-04-13T15:30:48Z BeWell Community A rather quiet revolution is taking place. I suppose it is quiet because it is happening in the courts and in legislatures…and not so much in the streets. But after a huge amount of legal argument in various courts, it seems that the logic of marriage as a civil right for all Americans is finally asserting itself in judicial opinions. In the last couple of weeks Iowa joined Massachusetts -- and other states are following suit -- to state in no uncertain terms that the institution of marriage should include homosexual as well as heterosexual couples.   I have personally been involved as an expert witness on a number of these cases. I testified in person when Hawaii struggled with gay marriage. In that state, the issue went back and forth in the courts, and -- when it looked like gay marriage might be imposed (because not doing so conflicted with the state's constitution) -- the legislature negotiated a domestic rights package for same sex couples. The measure fell short of marriage, but activists accepted the compromise.   I was also on the amicus brief for Iowa, fought to give same sex couples the right to be foster parents in Arkansas, and advocated for non-biological partners in same sex relationships to have adoptive rights to the children they co-parent in Washington. In all these cases I have focused on the humanity of the people involved and their rights, as citizens, to have the same legal and emotional benefits that heterosexuals in this country take for granted. In the course of my life I have met so many wonderful same sex couples and parents that I cannot imagine why society doesn't want to legitimize and support their aspiration to have the protection -- and obligations -- of marriage and legal parental rights. Likewise, like most people I know, I also care about the children in any relationship. If a couple breaks up, I would like the law to help support either an equitable custodial and/or visitation schedule (for the child's sake, as well as the parents') and to impose, if a parent does not take on financial support willingly, a reasonable child support obligation. The growing number of states and countries that now agree with this position is a testament, I think, of society's ability to learn, change, adjust, apologize and, ultimately, to deliver justice. We all know the fears and stereotypes that homosexuality invokes, and it has been no small matter to do the research that could refute the stereotypes, reeducate people over the years, and calm their fears about what gay marriage would mean for society, marriage and children. While I understand that not everyone is pleased by these changes, agrees with the research, or has changed their opinion, I still think we are now in a situation where more than half of all Americans believe that same sex marriage (or some form of domestic partnership that is equal to marriage) should be the standard in all states. The revolution I see is not just that same sex marriage or gay parental rights are being allowed and legalized. The revolution I see is country-wide emotional growth -- enabling people to accept diversity, reject homophobic rhetoric, and, instead, look at gay and lesbian partners as fellow citizens, friends and family members. When I compare today's society to the one in which I was born into more than sixty years ago, I am proud to say that the one I live in today is more tolerant, more knowledgeable and more inclusive.   I think this revolution of respecting people 'not like us' and wanting civil rights for all people -- gay or straight, black and white, immigrant or citizen, and so on -- has its antecedents in the civil rights movement of the 1950s...and those movements that formed in the decades following those first stirrings of righteous anger and frustration. The civil rights movement, the farm workers' movement, the women's movement, the sexual revolution, and the gay rights movement have all been our legacy. Gay marriage is the logical next step in our changing society.  Our increasing understanding and protection of human dignity and our continuing investigation into what constitutes fairness, has made it possible for this newest incarnation of marriage to have standing in the courts. I, for one, am proud of the road we have traveled together.  nonadult false The Quiet Revolution: Gay Marriage text blog 68 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 1 0 1691813 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_Hot-amp-Bothered-Sex-After-Menopause/BLOG/1691811/142833.html I am a woman of a 'certain age,' as the French delicately put it. It's a nice appellation, I think. It means I am older than young, but it means no disrespect. In fact, the French have been famous for their appreciation of women who are far past their youth. Way before American movie makers ever considered putting a postmenopausal woman as the heroine in a romantic comedy or drama, the French quite regularly featured love between a woman in her fifties or older and a younger or older lover. The French do not think that a woman's middle-aged body is unsexy and I think that helps French women (and European women in general) stay sexually interested way into their later years. And why not? Granted the insults of aging (infirmity, urine and bladder problems, vaginal dryness, and the like) are not wonderful. Still, if our bodies have not totally turned against us, staying sexual, desired, and desirable is not at all daunting.The famous sex researchers Masters and Johnson said long ago, 'use it or lose it,' and therein lies the trick. If we stay sexual -- with a partner or with ourselves -- then our vaginal tissues will generally stay pliant and our adrenal glands will continue to pump some androgens...even if our ovaries are giving up. So there are enough circulating hormones in most women to take advantage of -- or one can use a topical estrogen to plump up vaginal tissue (this, of course, does depend on whether or not you've had a collision with cancer, in which case, talking to one's doctors about the options is mandatory).      A book recently mentioned in the New York Times Health column on this topic (Is It Hot in Here or Is It Me?) quotes authors Pat Wingart and Barbara Kantrowitz as saying to postmenopausal readers, 'You're not in the mood a lot of the time. Most nights, you just wish your partner would roll over and go to sleep. When you do feel like a little action, it takes forever to get warmed up. Sometimes sex is more painful than pleasurable.' This is not a pretty picture, but it doesn't have to be yours. In fact those authors go on to say that some women feel more interested in sex after menopause and a third notice no difference in their desire or satisfaction. Is that just because some women are advantaged hormonally? Or is there some element of embracing one's sexuality, doing whatever medical interventions are necessary to compensate for troubled body functions, and, then, making one's peace with having the body of a sixty year old rather than that of woman thirty years younger?! I am not saying it's all in our head. That would be wrong and disrespectful to all the women who truly wonder where to their sex drive has vanished, are in pain every time they try to have intercourse, or who have interest but somehow just can't get aroused the way they used to. Those women need to see their doctor and see what is available in the medical marketplace to help modify pain or increase libido.I do believe, however, that at least for many of us, postmenopausal sexuality is a matter of our determination to stay sexy to ourselves, to encourage our partner by our enjoyment of his or her caresses, or to enjoy masturbation (digital or electronic), revel in erotic fantasy, and, overall, have a program that keeps our body alive -- both as a source of physical pleasure and emotional connection. I am a woman of a 'certain age,' as the French delicately put it. It's a nice appellation, I think. It means I am older than young, but it means no disrespect. In fact, the French have been famous for their appreciation of women who are far past their youth. Way before American movie makers ever considered putting a postmenopausal woman as the heroine in a romantic comedy or drama, the French quite regularly featured love between a woman in her fifties or older and a younger or older lover. The French do not think that a woman's middle-aged body is unsexy and I think that helps French women (and European women in general) stay sexually interested way into their later years. And why not? Granted the insults of aging (infirmity, urine and bladder problems, vaginal dryness, and the like) are not wonderful. Still, if our bodies have not totally turned against us, staying sexual, desired, and desirable is not at all daunting.The famous sex researchers Masters and Johnson said long ago, 'use it or lose it,' and therein lies the trick. If we stay sexual -- with a partner or with ourselves -- then our vaginal tissues will generally stay pliant and our adrenal glands will continue to pump some androgens...even if our ovaries are giving up. So there are enough circulating hormones in most women to take advantage of -- or one can use a topical estrogen to plump up vaginal tissue (this, of course, does depend on whether or not you've had a collision with cancer, in which case, talking to one's doctors about the options is mandatory).      A book recently mentioned in the New York Times Health column on this topic (Is It Hot in Here or Is It Me?) quotes authors Pat Wingart and Barbara Kantrowitz as saying to postmenopausal readers, 'You're not in the mood a lot of the time. Most nights, you just wish your partner would roll over and go to sleep. When you do feel like a little action, it takes forever to get warmed up. Sometimes sex is more painful than pleasurable.' This is not a pretty picture, but it doesn't have to be yours. In fact those authors go on to say that some women feel more interested in sex after menopause and a third notice no difference in their desire or satisfaction. Is that just because some women are advantaged hormonally? Or is there some element of embracing one's sexuality, doing whatever medical interventions are necessary to compensate for troubled body functions, and, then, making one's peace with having the body of a sixty year old rather than that of woman thirty years younger?! I am not saying it's all in our head. That would be wrong and disrespectful to all the women who truly wonder where to their sex drive has vanished, are in pain every time they try to have intercourse, or who have interest but somehow just can't get aroused the way they used to. Those women need to see their doctor and see what is available in the medical marketplace to help modify pain or increase libido.I do believe, however, that at least for many of us, postmenopausal sexuality is a matter of our determination to stay sexy to ourselves, to encourage our partner by our enjoyment of his or her caresses, or to enjoy masturbation (digital or electronic), revel in erotic fantasy, and, overall, have a program that keeps our body alive -- both as a source of physical pleasure and emotional connection. Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:29:08 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_Hot-amp-Bothered-Sex-After-Menopause/BLOG/1691811/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2009-04-07T16:29:08Z BeWell Community I am a woman of a 'certain age,' as the French delicately put it. It's a nice appellation, I think. It means I am older than young, but it means no disrespect. In fact, the French have been famous for their appreciation of women who are far past their youth. Way before American movie makers ever considered putting a postmenopausal woman as the heroine in a romantic comedy or drama, the French quite regularly featured love between a woman in her fifties or older and a younger or older lover. The French do not think that a woman's middle-aged body is unsexy and I think that helps French women (and European women in general) stay sexually interested way into their later years. And why not? Granted the insults of aging (infirmity, urine and bladder problems, vaginal dryness, and the like) are not wonderful. Still, if our bodies have not totally turned against us, staying sexual, desired, and desirable is not at all daunting.The famous sex researchers Masters and Johnson said long ago, 'use it or lose it,' and therein lies the trick. If we stay sexual -- with a partner or with ourselves -- then our vaginal tissues will generally stay pliant and our adrenal glands will continue to pump some androgens...even if our ovaries are giving up. So there are enough circulating hormones in most women to take advantage of -- or one can use a topical estrogen to plump up vaginal tissue (this, of course, does depend on whether or not you've had a collision with cancer, in which case, talking to one's doctors about the options is mandatory).      A book recently mentioned in the New York Times Health column on this topic (Is It Hot in Here or Is It Me?) quotes authors Pat Wingart and Barbara Kantrowitz as saying to postmenopausal readers, 'You're not in the mood a lot of the time. Most nights, you just wish your partner would roll over and go to sleep. When you do feel like a little action, it takes forever to get warmed up. Sometimes sex is more painful than pleasurable.' This is not a pretty picture, but it doesn't have to be yours. In fact those authors go on to say that some women feel more interested in sex after menopause and a third notice no difference in their desire or satisfaction. Is that just because some women are advantaged hormonally? Or is there some element of embracing one's sexuality, doing whatever medical interventions are necessary to compensate for troubled body functions, and, then, making one's peace with having the body of a sixty year old rather than that of woman thirty years younger?! I am not saying it's all in our head. That would be wrong and disrespectful to all the women who truly wonder where to their sex drive has vanished, are in pain every time they try to have intercourse, or who have interest but somehow just can't get aroused the way they used to. Those women need to see their doctor and see what is available in the medical marketplace to help modify pain or increase libido.I do believe, however, that at least for many of us, postmenopausal sexuality is a matter of our determination to stay sexy to ourselves, to encourage our partner by our enjoyment of his or her caresses, or to enjoy masturbation (digital or electronic), revel in erotic fantasy, and, overall, have a program that keeps our body alive -- both as a source of physical pleasure and emotional connection. nonadult false Hot & Bothered: Sex After Menopause text blog 97 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1691811 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_You39re-Never-Too-Old-Sexuality-amp-Aging/BLOG/1691807/142833.html I just finished up a meeting in San Francisco at the Centers for Sexuality, where we are starting an initiative on sexuality and aging. One of the issues in front of us is protecting the sexual civil liberties of the aged. It seems that many nursing homes either have no policy or constrain older people's sexuality on an ad hoc basis (in other words, what feels moral and comfortable at the time).  Gay men or lesbians may or may not be able to have private time with their partner or someone they have met at the institution, masturbation may be discouraged or stopped, and even sexual talk may be admonished. Geez! Can you imagine being put back into a child's status just because you have lived a long time?!  The issues that were brought up ranged from insulting to outrageously punishing, and it occurred to me that the Baby Boomers -- who are fast approaching circumstances where they might need institutionalized care -- had better change the atmosphere and guidelines of these caretaking places before we are affected by them. We need to safeguard the sexual rights of all adults, however old they might be. Of course, it is not just nursing homes at stake. I'm proud that the Center's initiative on sexuality and aging is investigating a number of issues to research and address.  I had a call myself the other day that made me realize how knotty and complex sexual and romantic issues can become as we age. I spoke with an older man who wanted to date online, but he didn't know how to do it with integrity, as he is neither divorced nor separated. In fact, his wife is in the late stages of Alzheimer's and is not available to him in any way. Yet, because of the way online dating sites are set up, there was no way he could participate. Understandably, he did not want to be condemned to years of loneliness while his wife, though alive, was no longer in emotional or rational connection to him or anyone else.  My heart went out to him, and I realized that there are issues to be discussed and understood that have not really been tackled before in terms of practical guidelines. Part of mental health is our emotional and sexual lives -- and we need to figure out how to enrich and encourage this part of who we are at even the very late stages of the life cycle. I just finished up a meeting in San Francisco at the Centers for Sexuality, where we are starting an initiative on sexuality and aging. One of the issues in front of us is protecting the sexual civil liberties of the aged. It seems that many nursing homes either have no policy or constrain older people's sexuality on an ad hoc basis (in other words, what feels moral and comfortable at the time).  Gay men or lesbians may or may not be able to have private time with their partner or someone they have met at the institution, masturbation may be discouraged or stopped, and even sexual talk may be admonished. Geez! Can you imagine being put back into a child's status just because you have lived a long time?!  The issues that were brought up ranged from insulting to outrageously punishing, and it occurred to me that the Baby Boomers -- who are fast approaching circumstances where they might need institutionalized care -- had better change the atmosphere and guidelines of these caretaking places before we are affected by them. We need to safeguard the sexual rights of all adults, however old they might be. Of course, it is not just nursing homes at stake. I'm proud that the Center's initiative on sexuality and aging is investigating a number of issues to research and address.  I had a call myself the other day that made me realize how knotty and complex sexual and romantic issues can become as we age. I spoke with an older man who wanted to date online, but he didn't know how to do it with integrity, as he is neither divorced nor separated. In fact, his wife is in the late stages of Alzheimer's and is not available to him in any way. Yet, because of the way online dating sites are set up, there was no way he could participate. Understandably, he did not want to be condemned to years of loneliness while his wife, though alive, was no longer in emotional or rational connection to him or anyone else.  My heart went out to him, and I realized that there are issues to be discussed and understood that have not really been tackled before in terms of practical guidelines. Part of mental health is our emotional and sexual lives -- and we need to figure out how to enrich and encourage this part of who we are at even the very late stages of the life cycle. Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:32:16 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_You39re-Never-Too-Old-Sexuality-amp-Aging/BLOG/1691807/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2009-03-25T20:32:16Z BeWell Community I just finished up a meeting in San Francisco at the Centers for Sexuality, where we are starting an initiative on sexuality and aging. One of the issues in front of us is protecting the sexual civil liberties of the aged. It seems that many nursing homes either have no policy or constrain older people's sexuality on an ad hoc basis (in other words, what feels moral and comfortable at the time).  Gay men or lesbians may or may not be able to have private time with their partner or someone they have met at the institution, masturbation may be discouraged or stopped, and even sexual talk may be admonished. Geez! Can you imagine being put back into a child's status just because you have lived a long time?!  The issues that were brought up ranged from insulting to outrageously punishing, and it occurred to me that the Baby Boomers -- who are fast approaching circumstances where they might need institutionalized care -- had better change the atmosphere and guidelines of these caretaking places before we are affected by them. We need to safeguard the sexual rights of all adults, however old they might be. Of course, it is not just nursing homes at stake. I'm proud that the Center's initiative on sexuality and aging is investigating a number of issues to research and address.  I had a call myself the other day that made me realize how knotty and complex sexual and romantic issues can become as we age. I spoke with an older man who wanted to date online, but he didn't know how to do it with integrity, as he is neither divorced nor separated. In fact, his wife is in the late stages of Alzheimer's and is not available to him in any way. Yet, because of the way online dating sites are set up, there was no way he could participate. Understandably, he did not want to be condemned to years of loneliness while his wife, though alive, was no longer in emotional or rational connection to him or anyone else.  My heart went out to him, and I realized that there are issues to be discussed and understood that have not really been tackled before in terms of practical guidelines. Part of mental health is our emotional and sexual lives -- and we need to figure out how to enrich and encourage this part of who we are at even the very late stages of the life cycle. nonadult false You're Never Too Old: Sexuality & Aging text blog 60 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1691807 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_Penis-Envy/BLOG/1691806/142833.html I sometimes think of America as stuck in the giggle stage of sexual development. You know that stage...the one when somebody says the word 'penis' and everyone else giggles or says, 'Oh, gross!' This happens most noticeably in the pre-teen years, but it also happens nationally. Remember when Janet Jackson had a wardrobe malfunction (or, if you prefer, a cleverly pre-arranged display) and her briefly exposed breast sent a significant proportion of America into a fit of righteous indignation and embarrassment. Now what made me think about this recently, you ask? I was in Bhutan, where many of the houses are decorated with very large penises. Yes, I did say 'penises.' A 12th Century monk, now called 'The Divine Mad Man,' came from Tibet to Bhutan with a theology of sex, love and passionate living. He was considered quite a great spiritual man, and as part of his legacy, the penis is used for house decoration to keep away evil spirits and bless the home. Children are brought to the great man's temple and, among the blessings infants are given, is a wooden penis passed over the head for good luck and good health. No one giggles at this. No one is offended.Bhutan accepts genitals as having spiritual and protective power. America thinks only of these body parts as pornographic or erotic or embarrassing. I have to admit, when I first saw the penises adorning houses and being used as water fountains, I found it somewhat amusing and strange. But then I got to like it and started to think, 'why not?' Why not celebrate, as the Hindus do, the yoni and lingam? Why not use penises -- as the Bhutanese do -- as a positive symbol drawn for all the neighbors to admire or as a lucky totem for home and family? After all, the body IS powerful and our sexual organs should be celebrated. We may not feel comfortable decorating our doorways with penis pictures as they do in Bhutan, but we could certainly stop giggling over glimpses of nudity. Sexuality can serve as part of our spirituality if we wish to follow the lead of some Buddhist and Hindu teachings and traditions. Instead of feeling embarrassed and outraged, we could consider honoring the sexual energy that pervades our lives, our psyches, and our souls. I sometimes think of America as stuck in the giggle stage of sexual development. You know that stage...the one when somebody says the word 'penis' and everyone else giggles or says, 'Oh, gross!' This happens most noticeably in the pre-teen years, but it also happens nationally. Remember when Janet Jackson had a wardrobe malfunction (or, if you prefer, a cleverly pre-arranged display) and her briefly exposed breast sent a significant proportion of America into a fit of righteous indignation and embarrassment. Now what made me think about this recently, you ask? I was in Bhutan, where many of the houses are decorated with very large penises. Yes, I did say 'penises.' A 12th Century monk, now called 'The Divine Mad Man,' came from Tibet to Bhutan with a theology of sex, love and passionate living. He was considered quite a great spiritual man, and as part of his legacy, the penis is used for house decoration to keep away evil spirits and bless the home. Children are brought to the great man's temple and, among the blessings infants are given, is a wooden penis passed over the head for good luck and good health. No one giggles at this. No one is offended.Bhutan accepts genitals as having spiritual and protective power. America thinks only of these body parts as pornographic or erotic or embarrassing. I have to admit, when I first saw the penises adorning houses and being used as water fountains, I found it somewhat amusing and strange. But then I got to like it and started to think, 'why not?' Why not celebrate, as the Hindus do, the yoni and lingam? Why not use penises -- as the Bhutanese do -- as a positive symbol drawn for all the neighbors to admire or as a lucky totem for home and family? After all, the body IS powerful and our sexual organs should be celebrated. We may not feel comfortable decorating our doorways with penis pictures as they do in Bhutan, but we could certainly stop giggling over glimpses of nudity. Sexuality can serve as part of our spirituality if we wish to follow the lead of some Buddhist and Hindu teachings and traditions. Instead of feeling embarrassed and outraged, we could consider honoring the sexual energy that pervades our lives, our psyches, and our souls. Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:23:56 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_Penis-Envy/BLOG/1691806/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2009-03-24T20:23:56Z BeWell Community I sometimes think of America as stuck in the giggle stage of sexual development. You know that stage...the one when somebody says the word 'penis' and everyone else giggles or says, 'Oh, gross!' This happens most noticeably in the pre-teen years, but it also happens nationally. Remember when Janet Jackson had a wardrobe malfunction (or, if you prefer, a cleverly pre-arranged display) and her briefly exposed breast sent a significant proportion of America into a fit of righteous indignation and embarrassment. Now what made me think about this recently, you ask? I was in Bhutan, where many of the houses are decorated with very large penises. Yes, I did say 'penises.' A 12th Century monk, now called 'The Divine Mad Man,' came from Tibet to Bhutan with a theology of sex, love and passionate living. He was considered quite a great spiritual man, and as part of his legacy, the penis is used for house decoration to keep away evil spirits and bless the home. Children are brought to the great man's temple and, among the blessings infants are given, is a wooden penis passed over the head for good luck and good health. No one giggles at this. No one is offended.Bhutan accepts genitals as having spiritual and protective power. America thinks only of these body parts as pornographic or erotic or embarrassing. I have to admit, when I first saw the penises adorning houses and being used as water fountains, I found it somewhat amusing and strange. But then I got to like it and started to think, 'why not?' Why not celebrate, as the Hindus do, the yoni and lingam? Why not use penises -- as the Bhutanese do -- as a positive symbol drawn for all the neighbors to admire or as a lucky totem for home and family? After all, the body IS powerful and our sexual organs should be celebrated. We may not feel comfortable decorating our doorways with penis pictures as they do in Bhutan, but we could certainly stop giggling over glimpses of nudity. Sexuality can serve as part of our spirituality if we wish to follow the lead of some Buddhist and Hindu teachings and traditions. Instead of feeling embarrassed and outraged, we could consider honoring the sexual energy that pervades our lives, our psyches, and our souls. nonadult false Penis Envy text blog 67 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1691806 19061593 Bronze 575 http://community.bewell.com/_Rejuvenate-Your-Life-Relationship-With-a-Retreat/BLOG/1691795/142833.html I am on a rock in the middle of the ocean giving relationship seminars. The rock is called Bermuda, and even though it's winter here, the aqua water and gaily colored houses lift the spirit. When I'm not talking to couples or groups of women at the Cambridge Beaches resort, I roam the island, jog in the gym, and get my favorite pick me up: a head, neck and shoulders massage. Life seems about perfect.I'm a big fan of girls' getaways and couples retreat. Just a weekend to a place like Bermuda, or any place that is beautiful and keyed to relaxation and other forms of self care, is probably worth a few jars of vitamins. Most of us lead hectic lives and the last thing we feel free to do is to take a break from demanding life obligations. It's hard to justify getting away when there is always someone who needs us, one more project to do, or another opportunity to hussle some more work. Everyone has claims on us...honest claims and so, inevitably, our big break turns out to be an hour at the gym or maybe a long lunch, if we're lucky.I'm in favor of workouts and long lunches, but for those people who can possibly get away and have the resources, a resort that caters to the mind-body connection is really a healthy choice. In my seminars, women or couples do exercises that help them be mindful about the things that matter in their lives, and they work on improving themselves or their relationships by considering a few new ideas and making a commitment to do the things they discover -- or already knew -- they should do but have been lax in executing. After a few hours of soul searching and enjoyable enrichment exercises they are released for the day to walk, explore, play golf or tennis, sightsee, or just sit around their room or the pool with a book. Everyone I've worked with goes home healthier, happier, and more eager to take on their world.People don't have to go away to get these rewards, but it sure helps. Removing oneself from everyday life gives more permission, it seems, to be both introspective and physically active. Whether it's a spa, a weekend retreat, or even a day program, I think the rewards of turning inward or looking introspectively in conversations with friends or a partner have benefits that last way beyond the actual time spent. In these darker winter days, a few days off might be something that you not only consider -- you plan to do. If you can't get away now, make a plan for a time when you can. Look for bargain; they definitely exist! Still, the price you pay for not taking time for yourself is far greater, I think, than the up front costs of a getaway. I am on a rock in the middle of the ocean giving relationship seminars. The rock is called Bermuda, and even though it's winter here, the aqua water and gaily colored houses lift the spirit. When I'm not talking to couples or groups of women at the Cambridge Beaches resort, I roam the island, jog in the gym, and get my favorite pick me up: a head, neck and shoulders massage. Life seems about perfect.I'm a big fan of girls' getaways and couples retreat. Just a weekend to a place like Bermuda, or any place that is beautiful and keyed to relaxation and other forms of self care, is probably worth a few jars of vitamins. Most of us lead hectic lives and the last thing we feel free to do is to take a break from demanding life obligations. It's hard to justify getting away when there is always someone who needs us, one more project to do, or another opportunity to hussle some more work. Everyone has claims on us...honest claims and so, inevitably, our big break turns out to be an hour at the gym or maybe a long lunch, if we're lucky.I'm in favor of workouts and long lunches, but for those people who can possibly get away and have the resources, a resort that caters to the mind-body connection is really a healthy choice. In my seminars, women or couples do exercises that help them be mindful about the things that matter in their lives, and they work on improving themselves or their relationships by considering a few new ideas and making a commitment to do the things they discover -- or already knew -- they should do but have been lax in executing. After a few hours of soul searching and enjoyable enrichment exercises they are released for the day to walk, explore, play golf or tennis, sightsee, or just sit around their room or the pool with a book. Everyone I've worked with goes home healthier, happier, and more eager to take on their world.People don't have to go away to get these rewards, but it sure helps. Removing oneself from everyday life gives more permission, it seems, to be both introspective and physically active. Whether it's a spa, a weekend retreat, or even a day program, I think the rewards of turning inward or looking introspectively in conversations with friends or a partner have benefits that last way beyond the actual time spent. In these darker winter days, a few days off might be something that you not only consider -- you plan to do. If you can't get away now, make a plan for a time when you can. Look for bargain; they definitely exist! Still, the price you pay for not taking time for yourself is far greater, I think, than the up front costs of a getaway. Mon, 02 Mar 2009 18:12:28 GMT http://community.bewell.com/_Rejuvenate-Your-Life-Relationship-With-a-Retreat/BLOG/1691795/142833.html PepperSchwartzPhD 2009-03-02T18:12:28Z BeWell Community I am on a rock in the middle of the ocean giving relationship seminars. The rock is called Bermuda, and even though it's winter here, the aqua water and gaily colored houses lift the spirit. When I'm not talking to couples or groups of women at the Cambridge Beaches resort, I roam the island, jog in the gym, and get my favorite pick me up: a head, neck and shoulders massage. Life seems about perfect.I'm a big fan of girls' getaways and couples retreat. Just a weekend to a place like Bermuda, or any place that is beautiful and keyed to relaxation and other forms of self care, is probably worth a few jars of vitamins. Most of us lead hectic lives and the last thing we feel free to do is to take a break from demanding life obligations. It's hard to justify getting away when there is always someone who needs us, one more project to do, or another opportunity to hussle some more work. Everyone has claims on us...honest claims and so, inevitably, our big break turns out to be an hour at the gym or maybe a long lunch, if we're lucky.I'm in favor of workouts and long lunches, but for those people who can possibly get away and have the resources, a resort that caters to the mind-body connection is really a healthy choice. In my seminars, women or couples do exercises that help them be mindful about the things that matter in their lives, and they work on improving themselves or their relationships by considering a few new ideas and making a commitment to do the things they discover -- or already knew -- they should do but have been lax in executing. After a few hours of soul searching and enjoyable enrichment exercises they are released for the day to walk, explore, play golf or tennis, sightsee, or just sit around their room or the pool with a book. Everyone I've worked with goes home healthier, happier, and more eager to take on their world.People don't have to go away to get these rewards, but it sure helps. Removing oneself from everyday life gives more permission, it seems, to be both introspective and physically active. Whether it's a spa, a weekend retreat, or even a day program, I think the rewards of turning inward or looking introspectively in conversations with friends or a partner have benefits that last way beyond the actual time spent. In these darker winter days, a few days off might be something that you not only consider -- you plan to do. If you can't get away now, make a plan for a time when you can. Look for bargain; they definitely exist! Still, the price you pay for not taking time for yourself is far greater, I think, than the up front costs of a getaway. nonadult false Rejuvenate Your Life & Relationship With a Retreat text blog 78 0 0.0 http://community.bewell.com/service/displayKickPlace.kickAction?u=19061593&as=142833 http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/142833/users/PepperSchwartzPhD_142833_1262293319191_portrait160X120.jpg false 0 0 1691795 19061593 Bronze 575