Monogamy Realistic? --Give Me a Break

I don't know why I am even giving this article "air time", but it is just SO based in lies and evolutionary tricks that newcomers to the faith would just swallow it up. Beware... this article is WRONG.

You've heard me say it before: Marriage is A LOT of work and Marriage is SERIOUS business. You absolutely have to be completely committed the day that you walk down the aisle, or you will just wash your hands and walk to the next pretty lady. How about when illness comes along or teenagers--the list goes on and on.

Parenting is a commitment, should I say that it is "evolutionary" of me to decide I am sick of my children, so I should eat them to get rid of them? If you can put your mind around it, that's basically what this article is saying about marriage: If you find someone else better, and evolution is telling you to do it, then do it..... whatever.

Dr. Del Tackett needs to read this article, and quick.

This article is full of "assumptive language" and it is junk.

Read it carefully, realizing what Americans are calling news.

Evolution is a religion now and people are crowding into the chapels to worship it.

P.s. I do NOT know WHY my font is in all huge letters..... I have tried to fix it in the html, but it won't work--sorry. :)
~B

Mate debate: Is monogamy realistic?

By A. Pawlowski, CNN

October 28, 2009 1:36 p.m. EDT

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Changing social mores, growing life expectancy prompt new questions about monogamy
• Mating for life is within the realm of human potential, but it's not easy, evolutionary biologist says
• Some people try polyamory, or having relationships with several partners at the same time
• Americans are too surprised by infidelity when it happens, author says

(CNN) -- If you were to judge the success rate of monogamy by the sex lives of public figures, perhaps couples should change their marriage vows to say, "Till a tempting new partner do us part."

Talk-show host David Letterman recently joined former presidential candidate John Edwards, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford and former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer on a long list of politicians and entertainers (think Jude Law) who have admitted having sex outside their marriage or committed relationship.

But do they just illustrate the realities of modern life?

In the age of hookups, friends with benefits and online dating, and as human life expectancy grows, is it still reasonable to expect people to pair up and stay monogamous until death do them part?

"It's realistic that some people can mate for life in the same sense that some people can play the Beethoven violin concerto or other people can ice-skate beautifully or learn a new language," said psychiatrist Judith Eve Lipton.

Added evolutionary biologist David Barash, "It's within the realm of human potential, but it's not easy."

Lipton and Barash, who have been married 32 years and are the co-authors of "Strange Bedfellows" and "The Myth of Monogamy," said serial monogamy may be more realistic -- a model in which people move from one committed long-term relationship to another and choose partners for different reasons at different stages of their life.

Possibilities in polyamory?

For some, even serial monogamy seems too restrictive.

The 1970s introduced the concept of "open marriage" in which couples stayed married but were free to date other people.

More recently, polyamory -- the practice of having romantic relationships with multiple people at the same time with the full knowledge and consent of all involved -- has been getting a lot of attention.

"We found the expectation that one person should be our everything seemed unrealistic given our day and age. ... It's oddly pressuring to set up that scenario," said Mark, who lives in Springfield, Missouri, and is in a polyamorous relationship. (He asked that his last name not be used for privacy reasons.)

Mark, 42, has been married for five years. He and his wife tried different things to spice up their marriage, including swinging, or having casual sex with other people, he said. But they found the experience unfulfilling and decided what they really wanted was to be able to fall in love with others while staying together.

Mark dates another woman, and his wife, who declined to be interviewed for this article, is dating another man. The four of them frequently get together to have dinner or watch movies.

"People describe polyamory as 'poly-agony' because of all the work you have to do to maintain things," Mark said. "It's just not normal to look over and see your wife with another man. I know a lot of people would have a real problem with that. I really don't."

The ultimate goal is for everyone in the group to live together, Mark said.

"This isn't about having affairs, it's really about being able to be open and loving," he added.

Researchers studying polyamory estimate there are more than half a million polyamorous families in the United States, according to Newsweek.

People seeking shorter, more secretive dalliances now have more opportunities than ever online. One example: The Ashley Madison Agency, a dating Web site for married men and women, which claims 4.5 million members and greets visitors with the motto, "Life is short. Have an affair."

No wonder many people believe monogamy is completely on its way out. French author Jacques Attali in recent years wrote, "Monogamy, which is really no more than a useful social convention, will not survive. It has rarely been honored in practice; soon, it will vanish even as an ideal."

Cultural give and take

That ideal may depend on where you live.

A journalist who traveled the world to examine how adultery is viewed by different cultures said Americans have a harsher view of infidelity than people in practically any other country.

"Americans are too surprised by infidelity when it happens. I think we go into marriage with perhaps unrealistically high expectations about human nature," said Pamela Druckerman, author of "Lust in Translation."

The French, in contrast, are as hopeful about staying faithful as Americans when they get married, but if one of the spouses has an affair, they are able to accept it as something that can happen over the course of a long marriage, said Druckerman, an American who lives in Paris.

When French President François Mitterrand died in 1996, for example, his longtime mistress and their daughter attended his funeral -- at his widow's invitation.

"[Americans] think if an affair happens, it's the end of the story, the fairy tale has been completely shattered, the person isn't the person we thought they were. The knee-jerk reaction is you have to get a divorce," Druckerman said.

"[In France,] there's less of a sense that the person who cheats is a terrible human being or that this is a marker of a person's whole character."

In Russia, Druckerman found that infidelity is considered a pleasurable vice, like smoking cigarettes. In Finland, sex in general is viewed as a very positive experience, so when a person is presented with the possibility of a sexual experience, it's in some ways socially sanctioned to pursue it, Druckerman said.

Famous and powerful are different

Experts on relationships and human sexuality said that while we may not be wired to stay faithful to one partner for a lifetime, we can make a conscious decision to do so -- a choice that still comes with powerful emotional, biological and economic benefits.

And while the sexual exploits of celebrities such as David Letterman can be shocking, it's important to remember that powerful or famous people can have more inclination, opportunity and resources to stray.

"They are used to the adrenaline rush in terms of being out there in the limelight. ... I call them adrenaline junkies," said Terri Orbuch, a professor of sociology at Oakland University and author of the new book "5 Simple Steps to Take Your Marriage From Good to Great."

"They need that passion and excitement in their relationships."

That can make famous or powerful people more likely to look outside their marriage to continue the adrenaline rush, Orbuch said.

Power, wealth and fame are also well-known aphrodisiacs that attract lots of potential new sexual partners -- an issue with which typical couples may not have to grapple.

Monogamy's payoffs

Whatever the temptation, most people still prefer to be in a monogamous relationship, said Nadine Kaslow, a professor at Emory University School of Medicine who specializes in couples and families and who also is chief psychologist at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia.

"People feel safer and they feel more trusting. They feel like they can depend on their partner," Kaslow said. "I think that we can make choices in a different way than [other] mammals and think through the consequences of things."

Those consequences can be huge, in many ways. Nature has provided powerful incentives to stay faithful that are still valid.

"There are a lot of reasons why sexual monogamy is in people's interests," Lipton said.

"Because whether it's raising children or avoiding emotional chaos and drama, like what David Letterman is facing, or whether it's building an estate and avoiding conflict about estate planning, there are lots of reasons that two people who cooperate are better off than one person alone or one person who is a cheat."

Projected Anger Ahead

To Whom it May Concern:

When I came up with the idea to get people interested in getting our church a power point projector, I had NO idea that everyone would get their undies in such a bind.

I talked to the treasurer and asked her if there were any steps that we needed to take in order to start raising funds for the projector, she told me, no-that the people that wanted to start the fund could just donate it into the general fund and designate it for this.

The people that did end up donating to this fund, were excited, to say the least. We thought about other churches and how they used their projectors and how cool it would be if our church could use one too.

Just think: we can let the pastor use it to enhance his sermons sometimes. We could use it to air certain videos or to do a slideshow at different venues. We could even STOP borrowing projectors from that other little tiny church in another town and instead use our OWN. Imagine that.

Last night at the meeting, I was SHOCKED at how stupid and tense people can be about things like this.

I know, I know... people don't always agree on things. I know, I know, there will always be disputes and all that--but over this? THE MONEY WAS ALREADY DONATED.

Can you read that people? The participants that donated this money, didn't stop tithing, they gave above and beyond their tithe so that this could be made possible-- they still donate their time to church and they are not just sitting there thinking how wonderful they are. THEY WERE JUST TRYING TO HELP.

So, I will write out my ANGER on this blog and I will keep my real feelings from YOU because I am thinking that people are pretty stupid right now.

HOW WILL OUR CHURCH GROW IF WE DON'T KEEP ON GROWING.

As far as I'm concerned, you can take the projector and shove it--it was supposed to be a gift.

B

If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It. Part Two.

Plan to rid Australian island of feral cats backfires

By MICHAEL CASEY Associated Press

Jan. 13, 2009, 10:52AM

BANGKOK, Thailand — It seemed like a good idea at the time: Remove all the feral cats from a famous Australian island to save the native seabirds.

But the decision to eradicate the felines from Macquarie island allowed the rabbit population to explode and, in turn, destroy much of its fragile vegetation that birds depend on for cover, researchers said today.

Removing the cats from Macquarie "caused environmental devastation" that will cost authorities 24 million Australian dollars ($16.2 million) to remedy, Dana Bergstrom of the Australian Antarctic Division and her colleagues wrote in the British Ecological Society's Journal of Applied Ecology.

"Our study shows that between 2000 and 2007, there has been widespread ecosystem devastation and decades of conservation effort compromised," Bergstrom said in a statement.

The unintended consequences of the cat-removal project show the dangers of meddling with an ecosystem — even with the best of intentions — without thinking long and hard, the study said.

"The lessons for conservation agencies globally is that interventions should be comprehensive, and include risk assessments to explicitly consider and plan for indirect effects, or face substantial subsequent costs," Bergstrom said.

Located about halfway between Australia and the Antarctic continent, Macquarie was designated a World Heritage site in 1997 as the world's only island composed entirely of oceanic crust. It is known for its wind-swept landscape, and about 3.5 million seabirds and 80,000 elephant seals arrive there each year to breed.

The cats, rabbits, rats and mice are all nonnative species to Macquarie, probably introduced in the past 100 years by passing ships. Authorities have struggled for decades to remove them.

The invader predators menaced the native seabirds, some of them threatened species. So in 1995, the Parks and Wildlife Service of Tasmania that manages Macquarie tried to undo the damage by removing most of the cats.

Several conservation groups including the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Birds Australia said the problem was not the original eradication effort itself — but that it didn't go far enough. They said the project should have taken aim at all the invasive mammals on the island at once.

"What was wrong was that the rabbits were not eradicated at the same time as the cats," University of Auckland Prof. Mick Clout, who also is a member of the Union's invasive species specialist group. "It would have been ideal if the cats and rabbits were eradicated at the same time, or the rabbits first and the cats subsequently."

Liz Wren, a spokeswoman for the Parks and Wildlife Service of Tasmania, said authorities were aware from the beginning that removing the feral cats would increase the rabbit population. But at the time, researchers argued it was worth the risk considering the damage the cats were doing to the seabird populations.

"The alternative was to accept the known and extensive impacts of cats and not do anything for fear of other unknown impacts," Wren said. "Since cats were eradicated, the grey petrel successfully bred on the island for the first time in a century and the recovery of Antarctic prions has continued since the eradication of feral cats."

Now, the parks service has a new plan to finish the job, using technology and poisons that weren't available a decade ago.

Wren said plans to eradicate both rabbits as well as rats and mice from the island will begin in 2010. Helicopters using global positioning systems will drop poisonous bait that targets all three pests. Later, teams will shoot, fumigate and trap the remaining rabbits, she said.

Some of the earlier critics are now behind this latest eradication effort, saying it should help the island's ecosystem fully recover because it would remove the last remaining invasive species.

"Without this action, there will be serious long-term consequences for the majestic seabirds which nest on the island including the four threatened albatross species, and for the health of the island ecosystem as a whole," said Dean Ingwersen, Bird Australia's threatened bird network coordinator.

"We believe that the process they are going to follow uses best practice for this type of work," Ingwersen said. "And that all possible ramifications have now been considered."

Stupidity at Its Worst- aka: How to Make a Joke Out of Your Organization In Less Than One Minute

Dear Peta,

I'm assuming that you do not eat any meat because of your stance on animals. I am also assuming that you are all vegetarians, I have no problem with that....

When you poke your fork into that leafy green salad, please remember that the leaves cry out in pain. And when you take a big bite of that apple, the apple cries out to it's mother, the tree.

You are dealing with South Dakotans here, and telling them to rename their schools "Sea Kitten" instead of "Spearfish" is, well, a huge joke.

If you want your association to have some legitimacy here in a state that have people that enjoy tasty animals, then stop with the "Sea Kitten" stupidity.

Thanks,

~B

P.S. If you hadn't noticed. There's no sea around here.

PETA Wants Spearfish School To Change Its Name To ‘Sea Kitten’

Published: Saturday, January 10, 2009 12:37 AM CST

SPEARFISH (AP) — The activist animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has asked school officials to change the name of Spearfish High School to “Sea Kitten High School.” The new name would “reflect the gentle nature of its current marine namesake,” the organization said in a letter to Steve Morford, Spearfish High School principal. PETA said the letter is part of a new Sea Kitten campaign aimed at children. If children were taught to refer to fish as “sea kittens,” reflecting that fish, like cats and dogs, are “individuals” that “do have friendships,” fewer fish might be killed for food or sport, said Pulin Modi, a PETA spokesman. “We want people to realize that more fish are killed each year than all animals combined,” he said. “They don’t have the sympathy of more popular animals like cats and dogs.” Morford said he did not want to share his feelings about PETA. “Obviously, it’s nothing we’re taking seriously,” he said. Spearfish students have access to the Internet at school and had started talking about the request. “It’s so illogical that it’s hard to comprehend it,” senior Zach Retzl said. “I really don’t think any student would necessarily go for that.” Spearfish High School is just named the same as its town and doesn’t promote hunting or fishing, he said. “I would say it probably has something to do with Native Americans and what they did to hunt for food to survive,” Retzl said. “Most parents would never dream of spending a family weekend torturing kittens, but hooking fish through their mouths and pulling them through the water is just as painful as hooking a cat’s mouth and dragging him or her behind a car,” Dan Shannon, whose title was listed as executive director, wrote in the letter to Morford that was posted online by the Black Hills Pioneer. “We’re hoping that this name change will encourage people young and old to start treating these gentle “kittens of the sea’ with respect and show them the kindness that they deserve. We hope that Spearfish High School will start off the semester right by changing its name to Sea Kitten High School.”

Unjust Jealousy

We have friends.

They have friends.

Their friends and our friends go on little vacations together.

I get jealous..... It's unjust and wrong of me.

I want to go on a vacation with close friends.....

How silly am I?

~B

Commitment

Hopefully you see the irony......

~B