Delicious LiveJournal Links for 8-9-2010
Aug. 9th, 2010 12:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andrewducker-
Americans now get nearly 25 percent of their calories from liquids. The quickest, most reliable way to lose weight is to cut down on liquid calories by reducing or eliminating beverages that have added sugar.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-09 11:18 am (UTC)----
I always bring my sociobiological background to discussions on human sexuality, which is kind of educationally privileged of me and I don't want to be read as telling other people how to deifne themselves, but:
The type of polygamy described by that article is extra-pair bonding, and when it occurs in songbirds, we still call those songbirds monogamous.
I'm just saying.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-09 02:24 pm (UTC)I'm just saying.
I would certainly draw a distinction between 'polyamory' and 'open relationships' - and I'd be okay* with an open relationship being described as monogamous or polyamorous. I can see reasons for using either distinction. When I talk about what I personally 'get' or could ever see myself having been a part of, I tend to draw a distinction between 'open (monogamous) relationship' and 'polyamory'.
I know that that would mean that a lot of people who call themselves 'polyamorous' I would call 'open-monogamous' or whatever, but then everyone draws their lines in different places and that's okay as long as there's mutual respect, right?
I think that where a relationship has a 'primary' partner to whom some unique level of faithfulness is shown and with whom all other relationships are on some level negociated, for example where there's a power of veto or a line that can't be crossed with secondary partners, then there's a pretty solid argument for calling that relationship 'monogamous' if you want to.
*'Okay' lexically rather than morally I mean - morally people can do whatver they want and call it whatever they want.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-09 02:35 pm (UTC)I differentiate between 'relationships' and 'sex'* in which the former defines your familial state (with or without children - a committed, long term partnership of two or more adults is still a 'family'), and the other is no one's business but your own.
To me, monogamy is a state of being in a committed life partnership with one person. Whether sex happens outside (or even within) that relationship is no ones business except the people having (or not having) the sex.
*Academically at least. I am not comfortable with sex outside my own, monogamous relationship. I consider this a function of my own issues with sex and relationships.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-09 11:42 am (UTC)P&G came up with an idea and ran a campaign claiming it was a healthy alternative to coke, pepsi etc. But the stroke of genius was that at the same time, they insisted shops put it in the chilled section rather than on the shelves. There was no need for it to be refrigerated, it contained preservatives and had a very long shelf-life, but by putting it in the chilled cabinet, consumers assumed it must be healthy, and sales rocketed. Not the most ethical ad campaign, but it worked.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-09 02:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-09 12:00 pm (UTC)Parenting
Date: 2010-08-09 01:00 pm (UTC)The short and long of it is that children are people too. You wouldn't expect another adult to fit in with your preexisting life, so why expect that of a child? Children aren't an add-on, they're an upgrade. People should read the back of the packet before they breed.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-09 01:10 pm (UTC)25 percent is for the cowardly and weak.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-09 03:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-09 03:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-09 09:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-09 05:46 pm (UTC)