Tuesday, August 24, 2021

Having separate bedrooms can work for couples

We read below:

"That which we desire most in a relationship (read: security and comfort) rarely coexists with that which keeps us attracted to a partner (read: passion and sexual intimacy).

It’s a frustrating contradiction some sex therapists refer to as the ‘intimacy-desire paradox’. In short, this hypothesis proposes the more comfortable we are with someone, the more our sexual desire for them is likely to decline.

Which makes sense, given desire is essentially the result of wanting something we don’t already possess"

I have certainly experienced that in some of my relationships. I have got on so well with my partner that she seems like a sister to me. And there is a big taboo -- of probably biological origin -- which says you don't have sex with your sister. It is in fact the crime of incest. So my sex life rather petered out on those occasions, I am sorry to say

I’m not sure if my parents knew, but I often overheard them arguing at night. Regardless of how heated the quarrel got, they always emerged from the same bedroom when the sun came up.

While I knew fighting among couples was normal, it wasn’t until a decade later – when a friend confessed she’d relegated her boyfriend to the couch for forgetting her birthday – it occurred to me sleeping separately from a partner was, too.

We’re told, after all, never to let our heads hit the pillow on an unresolved row; that occupying different beds is the surest sign a couple’s relationship is on the rocks.

Our sleeping quarters hold huge cultural and social significance.

In the construct of monogamy, the bed symbolises fidelity and togetherness. The bible instructs us to “let the marriage bed be undefiled”, and in modern vernacular, we tell each other to put disputes “to bed” and be especially wary of who we “get into bed with” in business.

Though drifting off together began as an economic necessity rather than a romantic inclination (it wasn’t unusual for entire families to share a mattress to conserve finances until the 1800s), today, most of us get into bed with a partner because we want to.

There’s also an indisputable social pressure attached to sleeping beside a significant other. The stigma tied to admitting you inhabit separate beds, or more rebelliously – discrete bedrooms, is so great, most of us regard it as something to be handled with shame and secrecy.

An engaged friend recently admitted, with a hint of embarrassment, she and her fiance have their own bedrooms.

“The thing is, our sex life is amazing, and I sleep like a baby. Plus, we have enough space from one another to avoid unnecessary arguments. But I rarely tell anyone because of the judgement I get,” she sighed.

However, despite our preconceived notions around the sanctity of bed-sharing, research suggests this unconventional arrangement holds water.

For starters, science is pretty clear on the fact we overwhelmingly sleep worse with someone else in the bed.

A study published in PubMed found people suffered more sleep disturbances when their partners were next to them than when they caught their Zs alone.

Though ironically, when asked to rate how well they slept, the same study participants reported having a better night’s shut-eye with their bae.

This may be because, the annoyance of navigating duvet-hogging and snoring partners aside, we’re ultimately creatures of attachment.

Physical intimacy and closeness not only feel good to us – we crave someone to curl up beside and unpack our day with as much as we do sleep itself.

But here’s the real kicker: that which we desire most in a relationship (read: security and comfort) rarely coexists with that which keeps us attracted to a partner (read: passion and sexual intimacy).

It’s a frustrating contradiction some sex therapists refer to as the ‘intimacy-desire paradox’. In short, this hypothesis proposes the more comfortable we are with someone, the more our sexual desire for them is likely to decline.

Which makes sense, given desire is essentially the result of wanting something we don’t already possess.

Add to this, research that shows sleeping beside someone not only impacts the quality of our slumber, but reduced sleep is a leading cause of lowered libido, and you have a recipe for a lacklustre sex life.

So, what’s the remedy then?

Admittedly, having separate bedrooms isn’t going to be for everyone, but it may be worth considering a middle ground, especially if your sex life is experiencing a plateau.

One partner taking to the couch after an argument may not be the worst thing to happen to your relationship, nor would the odd vacation in the spare room.

You’ll probably get a more restful night’s sleep and be in a better mood toward your significant other the next day, and you’re also likely to experience a renewed sense of desire as a result of recreating space between the two of you.

While it’s an awfully romantic notion, never sleeping apart isn’t a guarantee for relationship success, or a sign your love is superior to couples with less conventional arrangements.


Will Liberty Win Out Over Mask Mandates?

In the next couple of weeks — if not already — it’s back to the classroom for most of America’s school children.

Thanks to the Biden administration and willing governors in Democrat-run states, many of them will be wearing masks despite scientific evidence indicating that the masks most people wear don’t prevent the transmission of COVID-19 or its variants.

Some states are giving into Joe Biden and Anthony Fauci’s medical tyranny, but others are pushing back.

Florida, Texas, Tennessee, and Georgia, among others, have banned mask mandates. (They’re not “banning masks in classrooms” as The New York Times falsely reported before a stealth correction; they banned mask mandates.) In Texas, mixed judicial rulings resulted in the state temporarily dropping enforcement of its mandate ban.

In these states, and some others, there’s a real discussion about balancing the need for public health while protecting constitutional liberties and commonsense freedom. There’s also debate about whether masks even really advance public health. Asking such questions has outraged some in the medical community and, unsurprisingly, in the Biden administration.

None other than Dr. Anthony Fauci, the witch doctor of American medicine, recently demanded that we “put aside all of these issues of concern about liberties and personal liberties and realize we have a common enemy and that common enemy is the virus.”

Put aside liberties? How does the nation’s highest paid bureaucrat get away with this? Of course, we know how: Democrats in power and their media mouthpieces always view our constitutional rights as an inconvenience. Anything that stops them from total power is dispensable.

(And as for Fauci, it seems that no matter how many times he flip-flops, his contradictory pronouncements are always considered gospel.)

Power grabbing is one reason why conservative, freedom-loving states are in the Democrats’ crosshairs, but it’s not the only reason. Texas and Florida are both populous states clinging to the concept of individual liberty, and they just happen to be in the sights of Democrats hoping to turn them blue in the next few years.

It’d be one thing if Biden and the CDC were playing fairly, but recently the CDC made the convenient “mistake” of combining several days’ worth of Covid infection rates into one day. The fake numbers resulted in an unjustified upswell of criticism directed toward the governor and the Florida Department Health.

DeSantis, who accused Biden of trying to turn Florida into a “biomedical security state,” isn’t backing down.

“if you’re trying to deny kids a proper in-person education, I’m gonna stand in your way and I’m gonna stand up for the kids in Florida,” he stated. “If you’re trying to restrict people, impose mandates, if you’re trying to ruin their jobs and their livelihoods and their small business, if you are trying to lock people down, I am standing in your way.” The governor is warning Florida schools who ignore his anti-mandate order.

Not willing to let states handle their own affairs — and hoping to distract from Biden’s Afghanistan debacle by picking a fight with these governors — the Biden administration is looking to bypass governors and order all school children to wear masks. And he’s threatening legal action against governors who don’t comply.

It’s no wonder Florida Governor Ron DeSantis thinks President Biden is obsessed with Florida during a time when the president should be focused on larger issues.

Meanwhile, the Leftmedia will say and write anything to spin the rest of us into accepting mandates of masks and vaccines.

For example, a Yahoo! News headline suggests that Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who took the vaccine and yet recently came down with COVID, got sick because he opposed vaccines and mandates. “Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who opposes vaccine and mask mandates, tests positive for COVID-19,” it said.

Then there’s YouTube taking down a video of a real doctor, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, for daring to counter the official narrative around masks. Indeed, Facebook and Twitter are deleting the accounts of anyone who offers a different take on masks or vaccines. To bypass Big Media, some people seek out local media to express their concerns. According to NBC News, so-called experts call this practice “information laundering.”

So that’s what it’s called when Americans don’t click their heels and salute to Biden and Fauci.

Over the past year-and-a-half, we’ve been told to trust the science, but the science is on the side of those who choose freedom. If you want to get your children vaccinated and have them wear masks in school, God bless you. But not everyone has to live under Biden’s never-ending medical tyranny or sacrifice constitutional rights in the process.


A Court Victory in Texas Against Obamacare’s Transgender Mandate

The long march of gender ideology through our laws and government institutions lately seems more like a mad dash. But that advance hit a high hurdle last week in Texas.

A federal district court judge blocked an Obama-era measure that forced medical professionals to participate in gender transition surgery and similar measures, even against their medical or moral judgment.

This “transgender mandate” saga began in 2016. That’s when the Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services manipulated the definition of “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.

The mandate coercing medical professionals to toe the line on this expanded definition of “sex” provided no exemption for religious conscience or professional opinion based on medical training and experience. As a result, it also trumped the conscience rights of doctors and hospitals who still recognize that the biological differences between males and females can’t be bridged with pill and scalpel.

In 2020, the Trump administration reversed course, but the Biden administration promptly revived the Obamacare rule.

Fortunately, District Judge Reed O’Connor, a 2007 appointee of President George W. Bush, issued a permanent injunction Aug. 9 against the mandate. The lynchpin of the victory was O’Connor’s reliance on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which he said was violated by the transgender mandate.

Ruling Based in Law

The mandate forced a Catholic hospital association “to perform and provide insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures” or face fines and civil liability, O’Connor wrote in his decision.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, passed with the opposition of only three senators and signed into law in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, ensures protection of the rights of conscience against an overreaching federal law or policy that impinges on someone’s religious beliefs or practices, requiring the federal government to satisfy a “strict scrutiny” standard.

This means that the federal government may interfere with the exercise of someone’s religion only if it can establish that such interference is the least restrictive means available to achieve a compelling purpose.

O’Connor’s ruling in Texas is a key victory for doctors, other health care providers, and their supporters and defenders. As a result, medical workers may continue to follow their moral, religious, and professional convictions in treating patients when gender issues are involved.

Right to Conscience

Policy should concern itself with the well-being of patients and providers. And a basic moral principle is at stake for health care providers: their central duty to do no harm.

Our society long has recognized that medical care involves two parties—the patient and the doctor. Patients should be free to seek treatment, and doctors should be free to exercise their judgment about the right treatment for patients.

The transgender mandate violates this principle. Using it, the state may force doctors to offer treatment they oppose.

Many doctors, for instance, reasonably believe that to remove healthy organs, or to give young people puberty-blocking drugs, would harm their patients—whatever the subjective wishes of the patient. Healthy organs are not deadly tumors, and puberty is not a disease.

O’Connor’s ruling protects such medical judgment, whether it’s based on scientific evidence, religious conviction, or plain common sense.


Woke Nonsense Warps Everyday Life

Victor Davis Hanson

Americans are growing angrier by the day, but in a way different from prior sagebrush revolts such as the 1960s silent majority or the tea party movement over a decade ago.

The rage this time is not just fueled by conservatives. For the first time in their lives, Americans of all classes and races are starting to fear a self-created apocalypse that threatens their family’s safety and the American way of life.

The border is not just porous as in the pre-Trump past. It is arguably nonexistent. Some 2 million people may cross illegally in the current fiscal year, according to reports—with complete impunity. There is zero effort to stop them. Officials hector Americans daily to get vaccinated and tested for COVID-19. But they are mute about illegal entrants, some of them no doubt infected with the virus.

Have we ever had a president who made no pretense about destroying federal immigration law and asking of Americans what he does not ask of those entering the country illegally?

President Joe Biden has also conceded that his moratorium on housing evictions defied a Supreme Court ruling. He added that he probably didn’t have the legal authority to ignore the court but didn’t really care.

As in the case of demolishing immigration law, the president seems either unaware or proud that he is insidiously dismantling the Constitution.

America has also never before seen such overt and multifaceted efforts to undermine the foundations of free market capitalism.

At a time of resurging gross domestic product, low unemployment, and record worker shortages, Biden has announced that renters can continue to avoid paying what they owe their landlords—even after a prior year of free housing.

In a rebounding economy amid record debt, the government is still sending workers unemployment benefits that are more remunerative than the paychecks they would earn if employed.

Such insanity not only means that labor-short employers can’t provide goods and services to American consumers; the new ethos also institutionalizes the pernicious idea that it is smarter to stay home and be idle than to get a job and be productive.

Biden is also considering further extending exemptions for the repayment of $1.7 trillion in student loans. That amnesty will only further mainstream this growing notion that borrowing money entails no legal or moral obligation to pay it back.

No one seems to acknowledge that both students and the universities that lured them to borrow knew the risks they were taking. Meanwhile, millions of American youth, the working classes who choose not to attend college, and those who paid off their loans or whose parents saved enough over the years to cover their tuition obligations will subsidize the debt evaders by paying higher taxes.

Inflation is roaring back. Soaring prices are a direct result of incentivizing the unemployed not to work, while discouraging manufacturers and producers of food, gas, oil, timber, mineral, and metals.

Rising crime rates are likewise not accidental. Increasing crime is the logical result of releasing thousands of criminals from prison, defunding and defaming the police, and empowering woke mayors and prosecutors to contextualize crime as the fault of society, not the criminal.

In response, millions of Americans now simply avoid the mayhem of big cities in blue states.

Race relations have regressed 50 years. Under the fad of critical race theory, the color of our skin is now deemed essential to who we are.

Most Americans still integrate and assimilate, and many intermarry. But the current woke revolution is an elite, top-down effort to smear a self-critical and always improving nation as some sort of contemporary racist hellhole.

George Orwell would say of these cultural Marxists that they grab power in the present to reinvent the past in order to control our futures.

All this multifaceted chaos is not just faculty lounge stuff. We are beginning to see the collective craziness filter down to disruptions in our everyday lives.

Airliners cannot take off due to fuel shortages. Automobiles, houses, gas, and lumber are in short supply.

Consumers can’t get their roofs fixed, their houses painted, or their trees trimmed, as employers plead with their idle, government-subsidized employees to come back to work.

Many Americans have lost faith in the FBI, the CIA, the Pentagon, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and most of the other federal bureaucracies, which are as politicized as they are incompetent.

What started out as elite woke nonsense now warps daily life. If we don’t wake up from wokeness, we will continue on our sure trajectory to self-inflicted, systemic paralysis—followed by civilizational collapse.


My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)


No comments: