I do know that Psychology Today is or, rather, was, the Reader’s Digest of psychiatric mags. You know, pre-chewed pabulum, nicely, if dully, laid out – essays for PowerPoint fans. Now though, it seems they’re trying to be Cosmo for married people.
Who says marriage is where desire goes to die? We can't quite bring ourselves to believe that passion can thrive on modern love—because our sexual imagination is stuck in the past. (source)Or maybe they’ve been like this for a long, long time. My mother used to have a subscription way back in the early ‘70s and I totally do NOT remember any sexytime covers or topics. Granted that’s 40+ years ago.
The facts on the ground in no way preclude sex in long-lived relationships. Yet we seem to have trouble accepting that coexistence. We readily blame any loss of sexual desire on the domesticity of modern marriage—especially the sharing of household chores—or the constant proximity of familiar partners. (source)“We.” Who is this "we?" Sounds like something a ‘50s throwback, lazy ass, spoiled-by-mummy, Neanderthal-esque dude would think.
Where men contribute to housework and child care, Gottman observes, their partners see them as sexy, and indeed they have more sex than couples in which the men are chore-free. (source)Well, yes – that’s more like it. I always found the fact that The Amazing Bob vacuumed, did laundry, cleaned cat boxes, watered all the plants AND cooked, blindingly sexy.
And then the mag’s writers try to take it back:
Attention all readers: The finding establishes a correlation, not a cause. Housework does not cause sex, nor does it inhibit sex. Instead, Gottman says, the qualities of people who share in the one (housework) are the qualities of people who share in the other (sex). (source)Yeah, whatevs. The article goes on and on – giving a little and then pulling it back.
Here let me summarize for you:
Wives are turned off by husbands who do nada but sit in their recliners all day, watching sportsball and drinking beer.Yeah – that little revelation was not worth the cover price OR the time spent reading it. This is a sexy women’s mag article dressed up in beige sentences and taupe paragraphs.
Meanwhile, Cosmo has a very interesting article about a woman, Brandi Swindell, who’s working toward setting up a whole slew of “women's health care” clinics BUT there will be no talk of birth control methods let alone abortion services. Yup, these are fetus worshipping, right wingers.
Meet the Woman Who Wants to Take Down Planned ParenthoodJust FYI, if birth control’s off the table then they are NOT offering a full range of women's reproductive health services. No, they are not.
While Stanton clinics intend to offer a full range of women's reproductive health services that address pregnancy, sexual health screenings and STI testing, and gynecological issues like ovarian cyst diagnostics or annual pelvic exams, not one Stanton affiliate will be offering contraception — either hormonal or IUDs, or even simple barrier methods like condoms.
For women's health advocates, especially those hoping to reduce the nation's unintended pregnancy rate, the concept leaves them concerned. Increasing women's options for accessing no or low-cost health care is always a positive, they say, but some worry about the effect of leaving birth control out of the equation. (source)Another Gee-Duh-RILLY! sentence. Lemme guess who "they" are – any person with half a brain. This, naturally, leaves out the vast majority of Republicans, who seem to believe that us Vagina Americans are nothing more than uteri on legs and we MUST be controlled at all costs. Once again, The Handmaid’s Tale was a dystopian horror novel. It was a warning of what could happen not what should.
Also too, Psych Today seems to be Cosmo-for-babes-who’d-rather-be-seen-reading-“smart”-books. You know, Jane Austen versus Jude Deveraux. Pass!