Family and Relationships
12 Mothers Share Their Best (and Funniest) Breastfeeding Stories
by Chrissie Russel
Click here to read the article: “12 Mothers Share Their Best (and Funniest) Breastfeeding Stories”
The Changing Face of the American Family
by Beth Ann Mayer
Click here to read the article: “The Changing Face of the American Family”
Column: Why Family Matters, and Why Traditional Families Are Still Best
by Jonah Goldberg
Click here to read this article: “Column: Why Family Matters, and Why Traditional Families Are Still Best”
The Domestic Violence Victim: Why Don’t They Simply Leave?
by N/A
Click here to read the article: “The Domestic Violence Victim: Why Don’t They Simply Leave?”
Foster Care: How We Can, and Should, Do More for Maltreated Children
by Sarah A. Font
Click here to read this article: “Foster Care: How We Can, and Should, Do More for Maltreated Children”
How Millennials Learned to Dread Motherhood
by Rachel M. Cohen
Click here to read the article: “How Millennials Learned to Dread Motherhood”
I Studied Buttons for 7 Years and Learned These 5 Lessons about How and Why People Push Them
by Rachel Plotnick
#systemanalysis, #reportinginformation, #research, #proposal, #descriptive, #logos, #science, #history
All day every day, throughout the United States, people push buttons – on coffee makers, TV remote controls and even social media posts they “like.” For more than seven years, I’ve been trying to understand why, looking into where buttons came from, why people love them – and why people loathe them.
As I researched my recent book, “Power Button: A History of Pleasure, Panic, and the Politics of Pushing,” about the origins of American push-button society, five main themes stood out, influencing how I understand buttons and button-pushing culture.
1. Buttons aren’t actually easy to use
In the late 19th century, the Eastman Kodak Company began selling button-pushing as a way to make taking photographs easy. The company’s slogan, “You press the button, we do the rest,” suggested it wouldn’t be hard to use newfangled technological devices. This advertising campaign paved the way for the public to engage in amateur photography – a hobby best known today for selfies.
Yet in many contexts, both past and present, buttons are anything but easy. Have you ever stood in an elevator pushing the close-door button over and over, hoping and wondering if the door will ever shut? The same quandary presents itself at every crosswalk button. Programming a so-called “universal remote” is often an exercise in extreme frustration. Now think about the intensely complex dashboards used by pilots or DJs.
For more than a century, people have been complaining that buttons aren’t easy: Like any technology, most buttons require training to understand how and when to use them.
2. Buttons encourage consumerism
The earliest push buttons appeared on vending machines, as light switches and as bells for wealthy homeowners to summon servants.
At the turn of the 20th century, manufacturers and distributors of push-button products often tried to convince customers that their every whim and desire could be gratified at a push – without any of the mess, injury or effort of previous technologies like pulls, cranks or levers. As a form of consumption, button pushing remains pervasive: People push for candy bars and tap for streaming movies or Uber rides.
Amazon’s “Dash” button takes push-button pleasure to the extreme. It’s tempting to think about affixing single-purpose buttons around your house, ready to instantly reorder toilet paper or laundry detergent. But this convenience comes at a price: Germany recently outlawed Dash buttons, because they don’t let customers know how much they’ll pay when they place an order.
3. Button-pushers are often seen as abusive
Throughout my research, I discovered that people worry that buttons will fall into the wrong hands or be used in socially undesirable ways. My children will push just about any button within their reach – and sometimes those not within reach, too. The children of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were the same. People often complained about children honking automobile horns, ringing doorbells and otherwise taking advantage of buttons that looked fun to press.
Adults, too, often received criticism for how they pushed. In the past, managers triggered ire for using push-button bells to keeping their employees at their beck and call, like servants. More recently there are stories in the news about disgraced figures like Matt Lauer using buttons to control the comings and goings of his staff, taking advantage of a powerful position.
4. Some of the most-feared buttons aren’t real
Beginning in the late 1800s, one of the most common fears registered about buttons involved warfare and advanced weapons: Perhaps one push of a button could blow up the world.
This anxiety has persisted from the Cold War to the present, playing prominently in movies like “Dr. Strangelove” and in news headlines. Although no such magic button exists, it’s a potent icon for how society often thinks about push-button effects as swift and irrevocable. This concept is also useful in geopolitics. As recently as 2018, President Donald Trump bragged to North Korean leader Kim Jong Un over Twitter that “I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!”
5. Not a lot has changed in more than a century
As I completed my book, I was struck by how much voices of the past echoed those of the present when discussing buttons. Since the 1880s, American society has deliberated about whether button pushing is a desirable or dangerous form of interaction with the world.
Persistent concerns remain about whether buttons make life too easy, pleasurable or rote. Or, on the flip side, observers worry that buttons increase complexity, forcing users to fiddle unnecessary with “unnatural” interfaces.
Yet as much as people have complained about buttons over the years, they remain stubbornly present – an entrenched part of the design and interactivity of smartphones, computers, garage door openers, car dashboards and videogame controllers.
As I suggest in “Power Button,” one way to remedy this endless discussion about whether buttons are good or bad is to instead begin paying attention to power dynamics – and the ethics – of push buttons in everyday life. If people begin to examine who gets to push the button, and who doesn’t, in what contexts, under which conditions, and to whose benefit, they might begin to understand buttons’ complexity and importance.
____________________
Rachel Plotnick is Assistant Professor of Cinema and Media Studies at Indiana University and the author of Power Button: A History of Pleasure, Panic and the Politics of Pushing. Her essay first appeared in The Conversation.
I Studied Buttons for 7 Years and Learned These 5 Lessons about How and Why People Push Them by Rachel Plotnick is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Is Polygamy Really So Awful?
by Libby Copeland
Click here to read the article: “Is Polygamy Really So Awful”
Mother Tongue
by Amy Tan
Click here to read the article: “Mother Tongue”
No, You Don’t Need to Go to Holiday Parties If You Feel Lonely
by Neha Gajwani
I was supposed to be happy.
The laughing, upbeat music, and endless cookies told me I should be. I sometimes think of myself as an entertainer at parties, waving my hands, poking fun at myself, and speaking in a voice that doesn’t sound like my own. And so when I told my friend I didn’t want to be friendly at this party, she rolled her eyes. “You love being friendly.”
I don’t. When I talk at parties sometimes, my mind feels hot and clouded, I’m suddenly aware of how often I’m swallowing, and I jump over silences like an Olympian. When I come home, I feel exhausted.
And so I felt frustrated when I read an article urging people who feel lonely during the holidays to go to parties and feel grateful for what they have.
I’ve spent the past two years researching and writing a book about connection and loneliness. I’ve learned a lot about what cultural practices cause disconnection, what happens in our bodies when we feel it, and what solutions people have pursued to feel connected. For instance, we now know that feeling disconnection from people affects the same part of our brain (the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex) as when we feel physical pain. Our brains process breaking up with someone and breaking a leg in similar ways. If disconnection feels like it hurts, it’s because it does.
Loneliness isn’t a misstep—it has a biological purpose. Humans evolved to feel lonely as a natural alert that we need more connection. We feel pain to get us to do things—just as we feel pain when touching a hot stove to tell us to move our hand, we feel loneliness to prompt connection. Evolutionarily, a group of people has meant safety for humans. The good news is that we’re all perfectly capable of forming connection.
Thankfully, loneliness is not connected to social ability. Dr. John Cacioppo, who studied loneliness, wrote that people who feel lonely “have the capacity to be just as socially adept as anyone else. Feeling lonely does not mean that we have deficient social skills. Problems arise when feeling lonely makes us less likely to employ the skills we have.” His research shows we are less likely to want to socialize when we feel lonely. This can cause us to not interact and feel lonelier. A most unfair cycle.
But forcing yourself to go out and smile doesn’t actually help you feel more connected. Pretending to be happy has a way of highlighting how you actually feel. When entrepreneur Tony Hsieh revamped Downtown Vegas, he created a culture where it was the norm to be “on,” where people celebrated being outgoing and happy. People praised his vision until they realized the Downtown Project had an unusually high suicide rate.
The expectation that everyone should be happy seemed to cause unhappiness. Kimberly Knoll, a therapist in the Downtown Project, explained, “Thinking that you have complete control over your emotions and if you don’t feel happy it’s your fault, that can make people feel shame. It’s anxiety inducing.”
Not only were people in the Downtown Project expected to be happy, but they were also encouraged to be outgoing. One anonymous citizen there said, “There is a danger of happiness as a goal. … It’s lonely. There’s a pressure to socialize and go out. There’s a pressure to party.” This made it seem like everyone else became happy after mingling, but you were a failure if you didn’t. Sort of like if social media came to life (shudder).
We can extract a lesson from this. When other people don’t know what you actually feel, then they can’t empathize with you. This can make you feel more isolated. Acting like a celebrity at an awards show at a holiday party hides what you feel and won’t provide connection.
An alternative is to volunteer. Look up volunteering at a soup kitchen in your area. No need to feign happiness and no need to go overboard and volunteer for days. Even a little bit helps. Giving to other people is one of the primary ways humans feel connected.
Research shows that volunteering weekly makes people as happy as moving from a $20,000 to $75,000 annual salary. It forces us to become someone’s ally, even briefly, and we’ve evolved to feel connection when we have allies. Volunteering helps others, but it also helps you feel more connected.
You can also find ways to soothe yourself. Think about the things that help you feel calmer, like writing, exercising, or talking to someone especially accepting. Finding effective ways to show yourself some love can hold you over during a time that’s particularly tormenting.
There is no universal, quick fix for loneliness. People have felt lonely through time and culture and it has also probably felt dejecting and painful for them. Ironically, you stand in good company when you crave connection to others. Jennifer Lawrence has said, “I am lonely every Saturday night.” Justin Bieber has said, “I feel isolated. … I would not wish this upon anyone.” If you feel like it’s just you, remember that it’s just you, Jennifer Lawrence, and Justin Bieber. So feel free to ignore the pressure to attend holiday parties. You may be better off volunteering—less entertaining, more giving.
____________________
Neha Gajwani is an entrepreneur and author. She has spent the last two years researching and writing a book exploring social connection in America, due to be published in fall 2019. This essay was originally appeared in Yes! Magazine.
No, You Don’t Need to Go to Holiday Parties If You Feel Lonely by Neha Gajwani is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Problems of Modern Families: Freedom and Responsibility
by Padraic Gibson
Click here to read this article: “The Problems of Modern Families: Freedom and Responsibility”
Think You Love Your Valentine? What’s Beneath the Surface May Be More Complicated
by Vivian Zayas & Yuichi Shoda
#research, #logos, #ethos, #systemanalysis, #cognitivebias, #reportinginformation, #descriptive, #argument, #artsandculture
Valentine cards are filled with expressions of unequivocal adoration and appreciation. That’s fitting for the holiday set aside to express love and reaffirm commitment to one’s romantic partner.
But what if there’s more going on below the surface of these adoring declarations? How might thoughts and feelings that people are not even aware of shape their romantic relationships?
We are two psychology researchers interested in how the mind works, and how it affects a variety of experiences, including romantic relationships. In our studies, we’ve found that how people feel about their partners at a nonconscious level may be a bit more complicated than the typical message in a Valentine. Even for those who consciously express only love and fondness, thinking about a partner can elicit ambivalence – both positive and negative responses of which they’re not consciously aware.
Reactions you don’t know you have
People need to quickly, effortlessly and continuously make sense of their world: Who is a friend and who is not? What is desirable versus harmful? Human beings are always evaluating people, places and things on basic dimensions of goodness and badness.
Psychology studies show that the mere thought of your partner – or the sight of their photograph or name – spontaneously activates nonconscious feelings you hold toward them. For most people in healthy relationships, thinking of their partner elicits a “good” response.
Research into these kinds of nonconscious evaluations suggests they can be a better barometer of relationship quality than what people explicitly say about their partner. For example, people who have stronger positive nonconscious partner evaluations tend to feel greater emotional commitment, security and satisfaction in their relationship. They are also more likely to have a brighter outlook about the future of their relationship and more constructive behaviors in interactions, and are less likely to break up.
But poets and songwriters have long lamented that those you love are also those who can hurt you most. Psychologists too have long recognized that lovers’ thoughts are complex. It seemed to us that when it comes to romantic partners, people may not have positive reactions only.
Accessing what’s beneath the surface
So how did we tap into that ambivalence people may not even be aware of having? In our work, published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, we used an indirect method. It assesses how people feel about their partner not based on what they say, but by inferring their feelings based on how they do on a word classification task.
Here’s how it works. Imagine that we were looking for evidence of how people felt about something that is clearly positive, like flowers. We would quickly flash the word flower on the screen, then replace it with a second word that is unambiguously good or bad in meaning, such as sunshine or garbage. Participants’ task is seemingly simple: ignore the first word and classify the second “target” word as good or bad.
Even though people are told to ignore flower, they can’t. Thinking of flowers brings to mind not just specific objective features – flowers have petals, a stem – but also feelings and attitudes about them – flowers are beautiful, good.
As a result, after seeing a positive word like flower, most people are faster at classifying targets, such as sunshine, as “good,” and slower at classifying targets, such as garbage, as “bad.” In fact, research shows that the first word, flower, triggers a motor response towards the “good” response. So, if the target word is also “good,” like sunshine, seeing flower facilitates the correct classification. But, when the target word is “bad,” like garbage, there is what psychologists call response competition; since flower triggers a motor response towards “good,” people need to override it to correctly classify a “bad” target.
Of course it works in the other direction too. If, instead of flower, the first word has negative connotations, such as cockroach, people are faster at classifying garbage as “bad” and slower at classifying sunshine as “good.”
Mixed emotions
We used this type of indirect method to assess the feelings that spontaneously come to mind when people think about their partners. So, instead of flower, imagine that the first word flashed was your nickname for your sweetheart.
Not surprisingly, people tend to be faster at classifying positive target words after seeing their partner’s name. But something very interesting happened when the second word was negative – people were also faster at classifying negative targets after seeing the name of their partner.
This boost in response speed to the negative targets was almost as big as when thinking about a cockroach! It’s as though thinking of one’s partner spontaneously brought to mind a negative evaluation.
So while the mere thought of a romantic partner whom you love is enough to spark a nonconscious positive evaluation, we also found that it may simultaneously elicit a nonconscious negative evaluation. Perhaps when thinking about romantic partners, people can’t help but think about both the good and bad.
Research like our study is just beginning to reveal the complexity of these nonconscious feelings toward partners. Why might someone simultaneously hold such conflicting emotions?
Our findings fit with both theory and intuition. Even in the most satisfying and secure relationships, partners experience disagreements, frustrations and misunderstandings. And even the most supportive and responsive partners aren’t always available. Experiencing a negative emotion or interaction is not necessarily an issue. In fact, it seems to be a normal part of relationships.
Psychologists have long considered ambivalence to be pathological, characterized by anxiety and internal conflict, experienced only by a troubled few. Such consciously experienced ambivalence may well be problematic. But the sort of nonconscious ambivalence revealed by our research does not seem pathological. Rather, it appears typical and may occur even when you very much love your partner.
Research has found that positive nonconscious partner evaluations can predict relationship quality and stability. Now we need to figure out how negative nonconscious partner evaluations work.
So if you are feeling at some level a tinge of ambivalence towards your partner, know that you are far from alone. Perhaps on this Valentine’s Day, consider honoring your relationship by fully embracing the complexity of your feelings.
____________________
Vivian Zayas is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Cornell University. Yuichi Shoda is a Professor of Psychology at University of Washington. Think You Love Your Valentine? was originally published at The Conversation
Think You Love Your Valentine? What’s Beneath the Surface May Be More Complicated by Vivian Zayas & Yuichi Shoda is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
“We Have No Right to Happiness”
by C. S. Lewis
Click here to read the article: “We Have No Right to Happiness”
What the Ban on Gene-Edited Babies Means for Family Planning
by Marie Menke
Technology surrounding the human embryo has moved out of the realm of science fiction and into the reality of difficult decisions. Clinical embryologists fertilize human eggs for the purpose of helping couples conceive. The genetic makeup of these embryos are tested on a routine basis. And today, we no longer ask “can we,” but rather, “should we” edit human embryos with the goal of implantation and delivery of a baby?
As a reproductive endocrinologist, I frequently encounter couples grappling with complicated reproductive issues. If one or both parents are affected by single gene disorders, these couples have the opportunity to first test their embryos and then decide whether to transfer an embryo carrying a mutation rather than finding out the genetic risk of their baby while pregnant. In some cases they may decide not to transfer an embryo that carries the mutation as part of the in vitro fertilization procedure.
These issues seem simple, but carry large consequences for patients. “Should we transfer an embryo affected with our genetic disorder?” “What should we do with our affected embryos if we do not transfer them?” Some patients will opt to skip testing altogether.
Clinical trials of GM embryos banned in the US
House Democrats this year considered, then backed away from, lifting a ban written into the budget of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that bars the approval of any clinical trial or research “in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include a heritable genetic modification.” The current gene-editing ban prohibits editing the genes inside the cell’s nucleus, as Chinese scientist He Jiankui did. He used the gene-editing tool CRISPR to modify the CCR5 gene in twin girls to give them immunity from HIV.
The current ban also prohibits so-called mitochondrial replacement therapy, or three-parent babies.
Mitochondria replacement therapy, in which mitochondria carrying defective genes are replaced by healthy mitochondria from a third party is more palatable to some as mitochondrial DNA only carries a handful of genes that provide cellular energy production.
These scenarios of a three-parent baby involve transfer of the nucleus – containing the 23 chromosomes – from the egg of the mother with the defective mitochondria into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed but the healthy mitochondria remain. The actual genetic material is changed because there is DNA from two women. However, the DNA has not been cut, pasted or otherwise modified. Although testing the safety of three-parent babies will be allowed in some countries such as the United Kingdom, the U.S. ban includes this procedure.
What is germline editing?
At the heart of the issue is making genetic changes to cells that could be passed on to the next generation. These are called germline cells, and changing them is called germline editing. This brings these questions to the next level, with little information to support these heart wrenching choices.
Germline editing can happen at different phases of fertilization. If we change the genetic makeup of a human egg or sperm, fertilize it, and transfer the resulting embryo into the womb, the result is a heritable genetic modification. Similarly, genetic changes to the embryo itself within the first few days after fertilization will be inherited by the embryo’s offspring. Both of these actions are currently banned.
Is there any DNA that is OK to edit?
Our genetic material is made up of DNA. This DNA is found in two locations within our cells – the nucleus and mitochondria. The DNA, which makes up our 23 pairs of chromosomes, is found inside the nucleus of every cell is a combination of the DNA from the biological mother’s egg and biological father’s sperm. Genes composed from this nuclear DNA provide the basis of most of our biologic functions and appearance including our height, eye color and our overall predisposition to diseases such as diabetes, heart disease and cancer. These traits are often the product of multiple genes working in tandem. The products of these genes work together throughout our lives, which makes the impact of editing at the embryonic level impossible to predict.
He Jiankui performed gene editing on nuclear DNA. This action provoked calls for regulatory oversight of gene-editing techniques. The concern lies in the long-term effects. In addition to their constant interaction, most of genes in the cell’s nucleus serve multiple functions. “Fixing” one aspect of a gene’s function may therefore result in unintended consequences.
Those diseases caused by a single gene mutation in nuclear DNA are more obvious candidates for gene editing because they are more likely to result in a cure. These include cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy and sickle cell anemia.
Are three-parent babies different?
Mitochondrial DNA is located outside the cell’s nucleus and passed down directly from the female egg to the embryo. Genes composed of mitochondria DNA enable mitochondria to produce energy for the whole cell. Mutations in mitochondrial genes have been associated with severe disorders such as Leigh syndrome and mitochondrial complex III deficiency that can affect the brain, kidney and heart.
Just as nuclear DNA modification may remove the risk for single gene disorders, mitochondria replacement therapy would replace these mutated mitochondrial genes with mitochondria from a donor egg – a change that will passed to future generations.
Throughout this discussion, I try to maintain a sense of empathy for those families for whom this could be their only hope of having a healthy biologically related child. I also try to convey that we are at the beginning of a long road that will require a thoughtful approach to anything we do. The technology is here, but we know so much less about its effects than we should.
These editing therapies will permanently change all the descendants of a couple. In some cases it could rid a family of a genetic disease. In others, the unintended effects may be worse than the disease itself. This is the purpose of ethically appropriate research with careful oversight. The ban does not change the need for discussion. If anything, it brings the debate back to the reality of patients seeking care for diseases that currently have no cure.
____________________
Marie Menke is an Assistant Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh. She is a reproductive endocrinologist whose research focuses on the effect of obesity and lipids on infertility. Her essay was originally published in The Conversation.
What the Ban on Gene-Edited Babies Means for Family Planning by Marie Menke is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
We Are Family: The Struggles of LGBTQ+ Family-Making, and How It’s Changing
by Emma Specter
Click here to read the article: “We Are Family: The Struggles of LGBTQ+ Family-Making, and How It’s Changing”
What Is Your Purpose as a Father?
by Jeremy Adam Smith
Click here to read the article: “What Is Your Purpose as a Father?”
Why Sex Gets Better in Older Age
by Miri Forbes, Nicholas Eaton, and Robert Krueger
#reportinginformation, #research, #sharedvalues, #systemanalysis, #cognitivebias, #logos, #health
Aging is generally associated with improvements in our quality of life: We become more proficient in our work, learn how to manage our finances better and our bonds with loved ones deepen. With time and practice, most of the core domains of our lives improve as we develop skills and strategies to manage our lives with more mastery. An exception to this pattern is the quality of our sex lives, which has consistently been reported to deteriorate with age.
While this fits with the messages we receive from popular culture, which tell us that sex is a young person’s domain, it is somewhat at odds with the fact that older adults continue to explore and enjoy sexuality well into old age. The majority of men and women over 60 in the U.S. are sexually active, most at least two to three times per month (more often than many younger adults). They also rate sex as an important part of life.
So, if there is no epidemic of age-related frigidity, why would sexual quality of life take a nosedive in later life? A common answer to this question cites declining physical health and sexual functioning with age. Another answer might be: The quality of our sex lives doesn’t decline with age.
Studying sex and aging
There is a key element missing from nearly all studies of sex and aging: studying change over time. If we ask a group of people how satisfied they are with their sex life, and the younger people are more satisfied than the older people, does that mean that aging is responsible for this difference? What if instead the apparent age difference is because people born in the 1930s have different attitudes toward sex than people who grew up after the sexual revolution of the ‘60’s and ‘70’s?
To get to the bottom of how aging affects sexual quality of life, we analyzed patterns in longitudinal data collected from over 6,000 individuals followed over a period of 18 years, spanning ages 20-93. In 1995, 2004 and 2013, the representative sample of English-speaking Americans completed extensive self-administered survey questionnaires in private and returned them by mail.
A key question for our study was: How would you rate the sexual aspects of your life these days, from the worst possible situation (0) to the best possible situation (10)?
The basic trends in the data suggested that – without taking any other factors into account – sexual quality of life declines with age. But as people in the study aged, they placed more emphasis on the quality – not quantity – of sexual encounters. For example, frequency of sex became less important with age, and the amount of thought and effort invested in sex became more important.
These changing priorities were key predictors of sexual quality of life for older adults, and appeared to buffer its decline. When we matched older and younger adults on key characteristics of their sex lives – along with sociodemographic characteristics, and mental and physical health – older adults actually had better sexual quality of life.
For example, if we compared a 40-year-old man and a 50-year-old man with the same levels of perceived control over their sex life, who invest the same amount of thought and effort in their sex life, have sex with the same frequency and had the same number of sexual partners in the past year, we would expect the 50-year-old to report better sexual quality of life.
This is consistent with the improvement we see in other life domains with age, and highlights the benefits of life experience for sexuality as people learn more about their sexual preferences and their partners’ likes and dislikes. The positive relationship between sexual quality of life and aging was strongest in the context of good-quality romantic relationships, where sexual exploration and a focus on partners’ pleasure is more likely to take place.
Life experience related to a better sex life
Together these findings suggest that as we age, our sexual priorities change and we develop knowledge, skills and preferences that protect against aging-related declines in sexual quality of life. Since wisdom is “the quality of having experience, knowledge and good judgment,” our study suggests that life experience is fostering sexual wisdom.
This is great news, as a satisfying sex life has been found to be important for health and well-being, regardless of age. For older adults in particular, being sexually active predicts a longer and healthier life.
We now know that age-related declines in sexual quality of life are largely related to modifiable factors, so we can target sexual skills, beliefs and attitudes in clinical interventions. Given that our life expectancy continues to grow, this research highlights the opportunity to facilitate positive sexual experiences across the lifespan.
____________________
Miri Forbes is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Psychiatry and Psychology, University of Minnesota. Nicholas Eaton is Assistant Professor, Clinical Psychology, Stony Brook University (SUNY.) Robert Krueger is Professor of Psychology, University of Minnesota. Their article first appeared in The Conversation.
Why Sex Gets Better in Older Age by Miri Forbes, Nicholas Eaton, and Robert Krueger is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Why We Shouldn’t Demonize Formula Feeding
by Claire McCarthy
Click here to read the article: “Why We Shouldn’t Demonize Formula Feeding”
Attributions
88 Open Essays – A Reader for Students of Composition & Rhetoric, edited and compiled by Sarah Wangler & Tina Ulrich is licensed under CC BY 4.0
Image Credits
“Viljakuskliinik Fertility Clinic Nordic” by Merlilindberg is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0
“0312 Animal Cell and Components” by OpenStax is licensed under CC BY 4.0
“Mitochondrial DNA lg” by National Human Genome Research Institute is in the Public Domain
“Old Couple” by Ian MacKenzie is licensed under CC BY 2.0
.jpg){kind=link}