Posts Tagged ‘relationships’
Data collected from 100% of your significant other over a three-month span point to a number of levels on which your relationship and overall quality of life would be enhanced if you were to take the relatively simple step of tending toward less chastity, the report claims. If true, the report has the potential to enrich an ongoing romantic relationship.
The researcher who led the study hopes the findings will have an immediate positive impact, but that depends entirely, he said, on your taking the matter to heart and acting accordingly. “The research speaks for itself, obviously, and the world would be a better place if in general people used their heads a little more often than their hearts – in this case, not the heart specifically, but whichever set of glands are responsible for raising inhibitions,” he explained. “At this point I encourage whoever reads the report to take it seriously, because following its sober conclusions can really bring benefits.”
While the report indicates an increase in positivity to be experienced if you put out more, a relative paucity of data limits the granularity the report can offer. The study’s original goal also included establishing a direct mathematical correlation between specific levels or frequencies of putting out and corresponding increases in satisfaction, closeness, and general well-being. However, the researcher, lamented, there simply have not been enough data points to put together a coherent picture of that statistical relationship.
“Beyond the important benefits that the study cites, for everyone involved, more putting out would also prove helpful in strictly scientific terms,” said the researcher. “In the interest of furthering human knowledge, if for no other reason, I urge the subjects of this study to cooperate in the creation, tracking, and documentation – preferably by high-quality video – of further material for a follow-up to this important research.”
Bethesda, MD, January 5 – Scientists at the nation’s leading institute for chronological studies have concluded that as of today, there is no point in resolving to make a positive lifestyle or behavioral change to mark the new year.
Researchers at the University of Maryland analyzed data from each year over the last 50, and determined that the temporal deadline for making a New Year’s resolution never occurs later than the fourth of January. Any resolution voiced or otherwise accepted after that date sill simply not take force, and the would-be resolver will have no choice but to wait until the following January 1 to make a valid commitment.
The study carries important implications for commitment studies, especially as they affect diets and relationships, says researcher Indyan Giver. “For many people, the onset of January activates their resolutions, but that only works when a person has a resolution lined up that can kick in the moment midnight arrives to usher in the new year,” she said. “But the calendar has some flexibility, meaning that as many as three more days can pass before it’s simply too late to make a resolution, and that person will remain unable to make any lasting positive changes for nearly 365 more days.”
To some, notes Giver, missing that tiny window of opportunity is a blessing in disguise. “Our study also found that up to 75% of Americans are physiologically incapable of sustaining a resolution beyond the third week of January, and 95% beyond the first week of February,” explained. “So this study is good news for most people, who shouldn’t bother anyway.”
The consequences of missing the resolution deadline generally involve becoming stuck in a rut of weight gain, bad habits, dysfunctional relationships, and undesirable work situations, with no hope of personal, professional, or any other sort of positive transformation. Which is just a well, says Giver.
“Imagine the deteriorating self-esteem that would result from all these losers being forced to confront their own inability to stick to anything positive,” she said. “The realization can be crushing, and send a person into an even more acute downward spiral of binging, guilt, inadequacy, shame, and a bevy of other unpleasant emotions. This way, they’re better off, knowing that it makes no difference most of the time anyway.”
Murphy, 37, forced his mouth into a thin smile before offering details of his wife’s goddamn perfect attitude. “She just shoved a load of unfolded laundry into my arms and said, ‘Here’s a little present,’ then stomped into the bedroom and closed the door,” he said, shaking his head. “Just goddamn perfect.”
The couple’s three children agreed with their father’s assessment. “Oh, yeah, Mom’s just greeeeat,” offered Ben, 16. “She’s just ALWAYS the sweetest, most supportive person. Like this morning, when I came downstairs for breakfast maybe thirty seconds later than I was supposed to because my sister had gone all prima ballerina in the bathroom as if she’s the only one who needs the place, and Mom’s all like, ‘Well, look who decided to join us! Alert the media!’ Yeah, I just LOVE that,” he added as he kicked the waste paper basket and scattered its contents across the den floor.
“So sweet of you to leave the rest of us to clean up your mess,” commented Lydia, 14. “Don’t mind us. We just live here too.”
As for her mother, Lydia praised Patricia’s habit of always making sure to include criticism of some sort in her remarks. “It’s simply wonderful to see my self-esteem and sense of security are paramount in Mom’s eyes,” she said with a saccharine smile. “I wouldn’t be the way I am without her comments complimenting my choice of wardrobe by remarking how strikingly similar it is to some primitive nudist tribal culture. Thanks, Mom.”
“Like you’re one to talk,” interjected Susie, 11. “Little Miss Backhanded Compliment here is complaining. That’s rich. As if you don’t specifically pick out clothes you know will upset her.”
“It’s so cute the way you call me little,” oozed Lydia. “I’ll remember that next time you’re begging to borrow my sweaters.”
Skip professed bemusement at his children’s tone. “I have no idea where they learned to talk like that,” he said with a smirk.
At press time, Patricia was wondering aloud who had the brilliant idea that their home would be a good place for a reporter and photojournalist to spend an afternoon asking intrusive questions.
Kelly Rogers, 19, of Fairborn Avenue, put chocolate ice cream and milk into blender at about 7:25 AM Tuesday. Neighbors soon felt the ground rumbling, as thousands of young men, some as young as twelve, streamed onto the street and crowded into and around the Rogers property, apparently to watch Ms. Rogers consume the liquid breakfast.
The crowd continued to grow for almost an hour, according to Denise Jefferson, who lives several houses away. “We felt the earth shake, and then it just kept shaking until maybe 8:30, I don’t know,” she told reporters. “There must’ve been thousands of guys here, but they disappeared almost as soon as they showed up.” She noted that once Ms. Rogers had finished drinking her shake, the throngs of youths quickly dissipated, leaving behind extensive damage to front lawns, road signs, and parked cars. At least six residents were delayed by the crowd on their way to work.
“We never see anything like this,” said Jamal Watts, who was unable to get to the hospital where he works on time. “It’s supposed to be a quiet street – I mean, that’s why our families chose to live here. It’s a quiet neighborhood in general. I never expected to have to push through such a crowd of people just to get off my street.”
Residents of Fairborn Avenue are considering the measures to take against Ms. Rogers, or perhaps against the Rogers family as a whole, but are uncertain as to their options.
“It’s not really clear what recourse the neighbors have, legal or otherwise,” says property law expert Sol Liss. “The phenomenon of milkshakes attracting throngs of young male visitors to an enclosed suburban property is certainly documented as far back as 2004, but has never been subject to court attention,” he explained. “In fact I’d wager it’s the same incident being cited over and over again, and not a genuine trend that anyone could be expected to consider before making a milkshake.”
For a snarky take on the Middle East, visit PreOccupiedTerritory, and laugh. Or weep.
Celeste Babarina, a member of the Lumbago clan of East Africa, has been carrying a fetus since January and displaying all the requisite symptoms of her condition, but familial and social mores dictate that no one is permitted to bring up the subject for fear of embarrassment. Her pregnancy lies at the root of myriad unusual interactions and their consequences, and the negative consequences cannot be adequately addressed without openly discussing Ms. Babarina’s pregnancy.
For example, the cow’s irritability has sparked at least four known feuds among members of the herd, confrontations that have had adverse impact on claiming and maintaining hold of prime watering holes and grazing grounds this season. Rival clans have made inroads into territory traditionally considered a Lumbago stronghold, and other species such as rhinoceros and ostrich have enjoyed unprecedented freedom to wallow in the mud and water previously off limits to them.
Normally, say elephants who declined to be identified for fear of retribution, Babarina’s friends and sisters would collectively enforce the ban on other wildlife, and would effectively bar other herds from encroaching. But the divisions that have grown out of refusal to discuss the elephant in the womb are causing a breakdown of the social hierarchy, and the rivals are exploiting that breakdown.
It remains unclear how much longer the herd will tolerate the situation, but with more than a year remaining in Babarina’s pregnancy, the herd will be hard pressed to maintain its integrity without a shift. When asked for an opinion for this article, the pregnant elephant declined to comment.
“Can’t talk now,” she said. “I gestate.”
Toledo, OH, February 16 – Local man Stewart Robbins is reporting that his girlfriend of eight months, Natalie Wilder, seems not to have noticed that February 14 has come and gone, meaning that she still expects romantic attention from him.
Robbins, 33, drove out to Denny’s for breakfast this morning and received a text message from Wilder asking where he was. The home appliances salesman replied that he was getting his regular Sunday morning pancake and sausage, which resulted in Wilder, 30, actually calling him on the phone to express her indignance that Robbins had not wished her a good morning despite the romantic weekend they were sharing.
Robbins promised to return as soon as possible, explaining that his car needed gas. After disconnecting, he expressed puzzlement at his lover’s assumptions. “Valentine’s Day was Friday, right?” he asked the waitress, who hesitated and eyed him before nodding. “So it’s not Valentine’s Day anymore. that’s what I thought,” he added, and proceeded to order breakfast. The waitress recorded the order and left for the kitchen a little more quickly than usual.
Relationship experts agree that Robbins can expect difficulty upon returning home. “It doesn’t bode well for him that he was unable to anticipate Ms. Wilder’s continued desire for closeness,” says Ruth Liss, a couples counselor. “It’s an understandable mistake, considering that the one day a year for expressing love was two days ago, but women’s sensibilities are not dependent on the solar calendar,” she observed.
Robbins is not the first to encounter the anomaly, according to Bay Area social historian Dina Ben-Hamor. “It’s rare in our society, but in many primitive cultures, men are expected to show affection to their romantic partners at least once a month,” she notes. “Even here, fancy restaurants handle a dinner clientele that once-a-year romance doesn’t account for,” a phenomenon that she concedes probably also stems partly from culinary considerations.
Widler was unavailable for comment, as she was inexplicably ignoring her Incoming Text Message alerts as she remade the bed, a development of which experts were unable to fathom either element.
Berkeley, CA, February 5 – Investigators researching your family’s history have concluded that if not for your existence and behavior, your parents never would have divorced. The study’s outcome vindicates the sense of guilt that you have been carrying ever since their marriage began disintegrating four years ago.
A team of researchers looked at the events leading up to your parents’ estrangement, separation, and divorce, and found that none of the difficulties in the relationship existed in anything but potential until you arrived on the scene, several years into the marriage. Attending to your constant needs disrupted the intimacy that had existed between your parents until that point, and your evolving requirements for attention, affection, care, and support gradually sapped your parents’ relationship of the mutual attraction and supportiveness that had characterized it until then.
The conflict between your needs and the health of their marriage was accented by the initial infertility that marked your parents’ efforts to conceive you. Your mother’s reproductive system had very delicate calibration, and several times the fertilized egg was unable to implant. As a result, your mother felt a special sense of urgency in nurturing you, a sense that your father did not share as deeply because the problem did not lie with his physiology. He therefore viewed her attachment to you as a source of tension and jealousy despite his love for you, tension that confused him and further warped his experience of the marriage.
According to the study, as you grew you remained completely unaware of the havoc your neediness was wreaking on the marriage, to the point that, by the time you were a eight, you saw nothing wrong with refusing a babysitter so your parents could actually spend time alone, forcing them to spend all their together time in the context of household pressures and in the very location that was so fraught with complicated emotional associations.
Friends, therapists, and your parents themselves took great pains to reassure you that the disintegration of the marriage was not your fault, but you nonetheless developed searing guilt over the divorce. The new study conclusively demonstrates that your sense of shame and culpability are in fact perfectly justified.