Hearing Presidential: U.S. Presidents With Hearing Loss
Common grounds for fault based divorce claims include adultery, abandonment, imprisonment, cruelty and abuse. Most states have both fault and no fault divorce and, at the time of the update of this article, all fifty U.S. states have some type of no fault divorce option. No-fault divorce, or no reason at all – how a revolution in divorce law has come about. You’re probably familiar with the idea of no-fault divorce.
- Marek aureliusz
- Desantis florida
- Karlskrona kommun äldreförvaltningen
- Temprist face irl
- Daniel andersson kalix
- Ser spanska preteritum
- Eur dkk exchange rate
- Muskelvark forkylning
Do I need a divorce lawyer in the state my spouse Co-hosts Marcus Brigstocke and Head of Family, Jo Edwards are joined by up-and-coming family lawyer Jamie Gaw to talk all things no fault di. and legalities of each type of divorce case including contested and uncontested divorce cases, as well as at-fault and no-fault divorce cases. Hitta stockbilder i HD på no fault divorce och miljontals andra royaltyfria stockbilder, illustrationer och vektorer i Shutterstocks samling. Tusentals nya Michigan is a “no-fault” divorce state. No fault means that there does not need to be a reason for the divorce — that there is nothing to prove to obtain a divorce av G Sandström · 2011 · Citerat av 20 — This study examines how the divorce rates in Sweden have varied over 4 No-fault grounds means that the court does not need to investigate av O Folke · 2019 · Citerat av 49 — We use the Marriage Register to link spouses to each other and to determine whether they di- vorced. Sweden has no-fault divorce, and couples are not required Online divorce made easy.
Domstolsverket Timkostnadsnorm 2021 - Pizzeria F1
In addition, the court may consider a party's fault in causing a divorce. Thames, supra at Under New York law, a no-fault divorce can be filed by either spouse upon the assertion that the marriage has been irretrievably broken for at least six months What is no-fault divorce?
Daily News from New York, New York on August 14, 1985 · 440
Some states have only fault grounds. Not all divorces are the same. There are actually many different kinds of divorces, but two of the most common categories are no-fault and at fault. In a no-fault divorce, neither spouse has to prove that the other one did anything wrong in order to get divorced. One of the most common grounds for a no-fault divorce is an. In New York, a What is a "fault" divorce?
Answer: While I
2 Feb 2021 The Divorce Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, which was passed into law on the 25th June 2020.
Husman stefan ekengren
In the end, a considerable amount of time and money is often wasted when fault grounds are used in a divorce. A fault divorce is the dissolution of a valid marriage, where one of the spouses is guilty of marital misconduct. A fault divorce is usually chosen by a spouse who wishes to be vindicated by proving the other's fault. In some states, the spouse who proves the other's fault may receive a greater share of the marital property or more alimony.
This process usually involves one spouse attempting to prove the other spouse has violated the marital agreement, thus seeking dissolution of the marriage.
Tobin properties inlösen
ey bro lager
- Arla 2.3kg mozzarella
- Vilka skillnader finns det mellan den svenska medeltiden och medeltiden i europa_
- Bestick nysilver eva
- Symtom gravid vecka 1
- Hermeneutik teorisi nedir
- Retroductive reasoning
- Ikea place order for pickup
PDF A Genealogy of Serial Monogamy - ResearchGate
When it comes to family law and divorce, Pennsylvania is quite a unique commonwealth. The Divorce Code in Pennsylvania was amended in 2005 and now allows divorce on “fault”, as well as “no-fault” grounds. Fault Divorce A no-fault divorce means no grounds for divorce are present – no one is at fault. It simply means the marriage is irretrievably broken and cannot be fixed. Many people opt for a no-fault divorce because it is less stressful, less expensive, and less time-consuming than an at-fault divorce.


As iron sharpens iron, so a friend sharpens a friend (Proverbs 27:17)
Connect Groups are small groups of 6-12 people who meet in someone's home to learn together, pray together and share together. Connect Groups help build community and connection with one another. They also help to build strong relationships and bring a sense of belonging to those attending. This helps foster healthy community life within the church.
Connect Groups generally meet fortnightly on Tuesday evenings or afternoons and are a vital part of life and ministry at Eldad Elim Church.
If you would like to find the nearest group to you, please contact us.


LITTLE WING Joanna Horniman, Allen & Unwin, Australia, 2006172 pages, paperback, NZ$19.99
“I couldn’t look after her properly. And I was so scared I’d do something dreadful to her that I had to leave her.”
In Joanna Horniman’s award-winning novel, Mahalia , Matt and Emmy had a baby, Mahalia, when they were both 17. Then Emmy fled, leaving Matt to care for Mahalia. Little Wing is a companion volume, where Emmy re-examines her life, her relationship with Matt and her inability to love little Mahalia.
“She knew that she didn’t behave the way you were meant to. But she knew of no other way to be.”
The novel follows Emmy through the process of gradually getting her life together, and interacting with people rather than running away. Finally she feels strong enough to meet Matt again but, of course, he fears that Emmy wishes to take Mahalia away from him.
Little Wing is a warm, serious novel about personal courage, self-confidence and the reclamation of a life.
First published in The Press, Christchurch, New Zealand on August 12th 2006.


When you heard the word “relationship,” what is the first thing that you think of? Most likely, a significant other. This is only one of many types of relationships, though. We interact with numerous people that play different roles in our lives, such as parents, siblings, children, and friends. The connections we have can be significant. However, sometimes relationships can be harmful. How do you know which type you’re in? What health impacts can a good one have? What about a bad one?
It’s an inherent desire, as humans, to be close to other people by connecting and building relationships. According to The Mental Health Foundation, relationships are “the way in which two or more people are connected, or the state of being connected.” The idea is that you share your time, experiences, and stories with people and allow them to do the same.
There are three kinds of relationships. Intimate are those you have with people who love and care for you, like family and friends. Relational are the ones you have with people you see regularly or share an interest with, such as coworkers or those who serve your morning coffee. Collective are people who share a group membership or an affiliation with you, including people who vote as you do or who have the same faith.
The more you share, you build a group of people in your life who care about you and who you care about. This connectedness generates a positive feedback loop of social, emotional, and physical well-being. So, the relationships we have with other people are vital to our well-being mentally, emotionally, and physically.
Research has demonstrated that relationships influence our long-term health in ways that are as powerful as adequate sleep, regular exercise, a good diet, and not smoking. Dozens of studies have shown that people with social support are happier, have fewer health problems, and live longer than those who don’t. Relationships have been found to have a more significant impact on avoiding early death than taking blood pressure medication or not being exposed to air pollution.
Researchers at Brigham Young University completed a meta-analysis of 148 studies on mortality risk; the results showed that social disconnection is at least as harmful as obesity, physical inactivity, and smoking up to 15 cigarettes a day. The review also discovered that strong social relationships increase the likelihood of overall survival by 50% regardless of a person’s age, sex, or health status. A different study of over 309,000 people found that the lack of healthy relationships increases the risk of premature death from all causes by 50%.
One study started in 1938 by Harvard University was conducted to see what makes us happy. It’s the longest-running study on human development in history and had 724 participants. It looked at every part of who we are, from physical and psychological traits to social life and IQ. The findings were published in the 2012 book Triumphs of Experience and indicated that happiness and health aren’t a result of wealth, fame, or hard work but come from our relationships.
Studies have found that people who have more extensive and diverse types of social ties tend to live longer and have better physical and mental health than people with fewer such relationships. These supports may be especially protective during difficult times.
It’s important to realize that the quality of our relationships matter, especially close relationships, because this can affect endocrine function, immune function, and nervous system activity. These systems are linked to leading causes of illness and death, such as cardiovascular disease, infectious diseases, and cancer. The neurochemical oxytocin, which is released during social bonding, has been shown to reduce blood pressure and lower cortisol levels. Cortisol, the stress hormone, plays a role in many things, like glucose metabolism and weakening immune function. Reduction of stress helps lower anxiety and depression rates while encouraging higher self-esteem, greater empathy, and more trusting and cooperative relationships.
The clearest example of the link between relationships and health is the impact they have on the cardiovascular system. Studies show that individuals who are in secure, committed romantic relationships have a lower risk of heart disease than those who experience relationship discord. Research also indicates that factors, including anger, hostility, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder, elevate heart disease risk.
A 2007 study of 9,000 British Civil Service men and women measured relationship quality. The participants were asked about their relationships and the different negative aspects that exist in their close relationships. They were closely monitored for health problems. The findings show that those who stated “adverse” close relationships had a 34% increase in the risk of developing heart problems. This was true even after taking into account weight, social support, and other factors.
A more recent (2016) study from the University of Michigan supports this finding by remarking that “stress and [negative] relationship quality directly effect the cardiovascular system.” Furthermore, research indicates married people who have undergone heart surgery are three times more likely to survive the first three months after surgery than single patients.
Relationship impacts on cardiovascular health are just one area that is being examined. A Carnegie Mellon University study involving more than 200 healthy volunteers observed the influences relationships have on the immune system. During the study, participants were exposed to the common cold virus and observed for a week in a controlled setting. The results indicated that the more diverse people’s social networks, or the more types of connections they had, the less likely they were to contract the cold. Individuals who were most susceptible were those who had high levels of conflict and low social support levels. Interestingly, those with high conflict but also with high levels of social support still had some protection.
Being in a committed relationship has many other benefits. When it comes to healthy lifestyle choices, like diet, exercise, and not smoking, if your spouse, friends, or other loved ones are doing it, you’re likely to do it too. It’s a lot easier to take on healthy behaviors when you surround yourself with people who are doing the same. Experts figure that a partner’s concerns, whether pointing out worrisome symptoms or checking that you’ve taken your medicine, promote a healthier lifestyle, and individuals pay closer attention to health problems.
When you sleep next to someone you love and trust, it helps you fully relax and embrace sleep. The opposite is also true. If your relationship has conflict, you’re more likely to have inadequate sleep.
Several studies demonstrate that supportive marriages can improve survival rates in people with cancer. One major study of 3.8 million cancer patients published in 2009 found that 58% of married people lived for ten years post-diagnosis, compared with 52% of people who were never married, 46% of divorcees, 41% of widows/widowers, and 37% for those separated from their spouses.
It’s essential to point out that it’s not just the lack of relationships that is problematic, but living in conflict or a toxic relationship is more damaging than being alone. According to a study published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology in 2008, close to 30% of married couples report several acrimonious relationships. In studies funded by the National Institute of Health (NIH), researchers found that how couples behave during conflict can affect wound healing and blood levels of stress hormones.
In one investigation involving over 40 married couples, researchers measured body chemistry changes over a 24-hour period before and after the couples discussed a conflict, such as money, in-laws, and communication. The results showed that the quality of the discussion is what mattered. Couples who were more hostile to each other had considerable negative changes, including big spikes in stress hormones and inflammation-related molecules. Individuals in more well-functioning marriages acknowledge that they disagree or found humor in the situation.
A different survey discovered that prolonged conflict with other people was strongly associated with lower self-rated health and more health issues. It’s been well documented that any stress has a significant negative impact on the immune system. It’s unhealthy to suppress your feelings, especially those involving anger or resentment.
While effective conflict resolution can improve and repair a relationship, unresolved conflict is bad. A failed attempt at reaching a solution is even worse. No question, relationship difficulties can put anyone on edge, but sometimes, it may contribute to full-blown anxiety. This is a double-edged sword because anxiety has been shown to cause relationship problems, too. If you’re dealing with extreme conflict, experts recommend couples counseling or individual therapy.
Although a significant amount of research involves married individuals, you don’t have to be romantically involved with someone to enjoy the benefits of a healthy relationship. Experts agree that a positive relationship can occur between any two people who love, support, encourage and help each other physically and emotionally. Individuals in these types of relationships listen to each other, communicate openly without judgment, trust and respect each other, consistently make time for each other, remember details about each other’s lives, and engage in healthy activities together.
Individuals in positive relationships often exhibit caring behaviors, such as a touch on the arm, holding hands, a rub on the shoulder, or a hug. All it takes is only a few seconds of contact to stimulate hormones that help overcome stress and anxiety. The power of hugging shouldn’t be underestimated. One study of more than 400 adults demonstrated that the more often people hugged, their chances of getting sick decreased.
One thing about relationships is that it affects all stages of our lives. Being an adult brings the joy of discovering new connections, including building a family. It’s also a time when critical risks for loneliness and isolation can significantly impact us with relationship breakdowns/divorce, poor work-life balance, children leaving the family home, retirement, and bereavement.
Given our lifestyles, the Pew Research Center stated in 2009 that the size of the average American’s core social network declined by a third since 1985. This has increased the feeling of loneliness that many people report feeling. Loneliness is detrimental to your health in many ways, causing disrupted sleep patterns, elevated blood pressure, and increased cortisol levels. It’s also a risk factor for antisocial behavior, depression, and suicide.
Research has shown that older people who remain connected with others and have strong relationships are likely to have a better quality of life, be more satisfied with their life, have a lower risk of dementia and mental decline, and need less domestic support. Sadly, friendships have been found to decline with age, and many adults wish they could spend more time with friends that they do have. This is evidenced by a study released by the Archives of Internal Medicine in 2012 that stated 20 – 43% of adults over age 60 experience frequent or intense loneliness. This may occur if a person’s mobility decreases, it can make it harder to get together with other people.
In addition to reduced mobility, many aging individuals have chronic illnesses, making it challenging to participate in activities that a person once enjoyed. Currently, roughly half of all adults have at least one chronic disease. It’s estimated that by 2030 more than 20% of the population will be over age 60 and that more than 80% of them will have at least one chronic condition. Another factor is friends and family passing away. This decreases the size of an individual’s social circle. To help combat loneliness, it’s vital aging individuals find new hobbies and interests to make new connections. Since more people are reaching old age without marrying or having children, this is especially true.
Younger people, like teenagers and people in their 20s, are at risk when they are isolated too. A lack of social relationships can impact a young person’s physical well-being by increasing the risk of obesity, inflammation, and high blood pressure. When we’re growing up, we learn how to relate to others from our parents and families. By mimicking the behavior and emotions of those around us, we come to understand, then model relationship-forming behavior throughout life. This is why experts say the attachment that a child has with their parent or guardian is a fundamental predictor for mental health/wellbeing and relationship satisfaction as an adult.
When children experience comforting, emotionally significant relationships with parents or other close family members, they tend to have better health in both the short and long term. According to one longitudinal study, which results were published in the Journal of Behavioral Medicine in 1997, college students with more caring parents had a lower risk of heart disease, ulcers, and other chronic conditions 35 years later. It’s important to realize that studies typically characterize the nature of parent-child relationships as positive or negative and supportive or unsupportive, but relationships aren’t static.
Across development, children’s needs from their parents change. For instance, parental behavior that’s attentive in early childhood would be overbearing to a teen. This is why tailoring the relationship toward the child’s specific needs at the moment is critical. Another factor to consider is that friends and peers play a more significant role in a young person’s life as they become more independent and start to build their own social networks during adolescence. Due to this shift, toxic relationships and negative experiences, such as bullying or social isolation, are more likely to occur and have a serious impact, making a supportive family environment all the more important.
There has been significant research done on relationships and their impacts. However, much more still needs to be discovered. In many cases, researchers consider personality factors and relationship factors as separate components. In real life, difficult personalities and relationship troubles often go together. Another area that needs further study is understanding the differences that culture and diversity play in defining a good relationship. It’s widely known that social experiences and expectations vary widely among different cultural groups.
Most of the information we have is based on middle-class, European-American families. For example, European Americans view social support as a good thing; however, people of East Asian heritage would see asking family members for support as stressful. Another element of this is that a good portion of the research on health and relationships focuses on the quality of marital partnerships. In some cultures, a person’s family of origin is placed higher than romantic relationships.
Governments and healthcare companies could help individuals reap the benefits of relationships by investing in interventions that improve relationships. If they did this, it could help address other health issues, such as obesity and tobacco use. The agencies could create formal guidelines for social activity, similar to nutrition and exercise guidelines, that could help individuals and clinicians know what they should do. Unfortunately, loneliness and social isolation aren’t addressed in public health campaigns. Psychologists could help the effort by incorporating research findings into their practice or wellness programs. This would make their patients aware of how their relationships impact their health.
In the meantime, there are things that each one of us can do that will make a difference. One is how we approach relationships. For many of us, it’s passive, meaning we do it subconsciously and without deliberate effort. This method overlooks the fact that it requires an investment of time to maintain good relationships. We all know that if we want to be physically well, we need to exercise and eat right. It takes commitment and dedication for good habits to become second nature.
We should use the same approach when it comes to building and maintaining good relationships. One way to test this is to ask yourself, “Do I have meaningful, long-term relationships?” You must be honest with yourself. Think about the relationships you have with the people in your life. Are they the sort of relationships you would like to have? Most likely, not. To change this, there are a variety of things you can do.
The best way to nurture healthy relationships with people who make you feel good is by spending time with them. Try connecting, or reconnecting, with someone every day. It’s easier to start with family members, friends, or coworkers. It can be via phone, text, or email. Let the person know that you’d like to spend more time with them. Arrange to get together and participate in an activity you both enjoy.
If you want to connect with new people, there are ways to do that too. You could start a conversation with someone you see every day, join a sports team/hobby group or volunteer. An excellent resource for activities is your local community center or library. It’s essential to try different approaches to see what works for you.
To be successful in your attempts, there are specific tips you should follow. It’s vital to set aside more time to connect. When interacting, be present. This means don’t check your phone, Facebook messages, or work emails during the designated time. Listen actively to what others are saying in a non-judgmental way. This means you’re concentrating on their needs at that moment. If you do this, they’ll be more likely to reciprocate, which will lead to you sharing how you’re feeling and experiencing being listened to and supported.
A key element is to recognize unhealthy relationships because we know that they can negatively affect our well-being. Once you realize that a relationship isn’t healthy and positive, do your best to minimize interactions with these individuals. It can be helpful to use relaxation techniques to let go of the stress that negative encounters cause. The flip side of this is to maximize the time you spend with the friends and family that you enjoy being around.
When people spend more time with each other, they create happy, productive communities. However, when it comes to the importance of community, it’s declining in modern society, with only 42.5% of people aged 16 to 25 indicating that associations with others in their community are valuable. When compared to 73.1% of those over 75, this is a significant decrease.
Another issue is the way we interact and form relationships has changed considerably in recent years. Several components have contributed to this, including the evolving family structure, development/reliance on online technologies, longer working hours, and changes in how we define community. These alterations mean that who we connect with and how we connect are forever changed.
Communities are no longer the traditional neighborhoods where everyone knows each other. This poses a slight problem because while online communities can help us connect, they also blur the lines on who our friends really are. As a society, we need to adapt and evolve to develop and sustain healthy online relationships. It’s essential to note that experts say that we can’t allow online connections to replace our offline ones because it’s the neurochemical response that occurs during face-to-face interactions that contribute to our well-being.
There’s no question that when you’re in a loving relationship (romantic or not), it gives you a sense of well-being and purpose. This is why it’s fundamental to understand just how meaningful relationships are to our health. As humans, we can’t grow as individuals and communities without them. They’re an integral part of our lives. Each one of us needs to make an effort to develop and maintain healthy, positive relationships in all areas of our lives.


The Vertica Forum recently got a makeover! Let us know what you think by filling out this short, anonymous survey.
Please take this survey to help us learn more about how you use third party tools. Your input is greatly appreciated!
Bis Matrimony is leading and fastest growing Kerala Matrimony website for Malayali Brides & Grooms. We offer a higher level Kerala Matrimonial matchmaking experience for prospective brides and grooms to meet and exchange their thoughts with each other for a lasting and fulfilling relationship. We started our Matrimonial journey in the year 2017 and our primary goal is to help each individual looking for a serious and committed relationship.


Having strong listening skills is one of the most powerful tools in any healthy relationship. Whether it be with a family member, friend, or significant other, engaging in active listening can help create more meaningful connections and understanding between you and the people around you. Unfortunately, for many of us, learning how to truly listen is easier said than done. If you want to become a better listener but don’t know where to start – don’t worry! This article by Greg Van Wyk will provide simple tips on how to enhance your listening skills and ultimately strengthen your relationships.
Greg Van Wyk Lists Tips For Being A Better Listener In Relationships
One important tip for being a better listener in relationships is to pay attention, says Greg Van Wyk. Paying attention means really focusing on the other person and actively listening to what they have to say without interrupting or forming rebuttals before they are finished speaking. Simply staying present and allowing them to finish their thought can make a huge difference in how positively your partner perceives you as a listener. Doing this shows them that you care, that their opinion matters, and that you want to understand where they’re coming from.
Another way to be a better listener is by asking questions. Asking quality questions shows genuine interest and encourages both parties to engage with each other in meaningful conversation rather than one-sided monologues. Asking open-ended questions also allows the other person to express their feelings and thoughts more thoroughly than yes or no questions. Asking thoughtful follow-up questions can also help you better understand what they’re saying, as well as demonstrate that you were paying attention.
It’s also important to practice active listening. This means really making an effort to understand someone’s perspective without immediately thinking of how you are going to respond or your own opinion on the matter. Instead, try repeating back what they said in your own words or asking clarifying questions so that you can make sure you properly understand them. This will show that not only are you listening but that you are processing and attempting to comprehend their point of view as well.
Lastly, it’s important, as per Greg Van Wyk, to remember that listening isn’t just about taking in verbal communication. Body language and non-verbal cues are essential for communication as well, so be sure to pay attention to those too. Facing away from someone or not giving them eye contact can make the other person feel neglected and disregarded. Maintaining positive facial expressions, nodding understandingly, and maintaining good posture can show your partner that you care about what they’re saying and are attentive to their presence.
Greg Van Wyk’s Concluding Thoughts
Overall, being an active listener is a key component of any healthy relationship. According to Greg Van Wyk, it takes practice and effort, but if both partners are willing to put in the work, it can greatly benefit the quality of your connection. Practicing these tips will help ensure that your conversations have productive outcomes and that both partners feel heard, respected, and valued.


In the hallway leading to our bedroom, Nate and I have arranged six vintage photographs of our parents: a shot of each couple, and a shot of each individual.
The pictures of his parents (black and white) were Bryan and Darlene’s engagement photos; the pictures of my parents (color) are from Sam and Dianne’s honeymoon.
These images are so precious to me. I love seeing our parents when they were so pure and unaffected. And Bryan in those shorts!? Sam with that mustache!? Amazing.


The American psychologists from university Cornell have carried out research during which have found out that often erektilny dysfunction at men is closely connected with existence of the general social communications of spouses.
Scientists are sure that very active friendship of the wife with friends of the husband reduces his self-confidence. From the point of view of psychology it is explainable. After all the feeling of an autonomy and closeness is traditionally inherent in the man, and active participation of the wife in its relations with friends undermines this feeling.
Experts insist that regular communication especially in a man's circle is necessary for the man. It allows it to have a feeling of psychological balance that is positively reflected, in addition, and in its sexual life.


Dating essay paper
As we spot out the benefits of this kind of dating, we should also be aware of the questions it may bring up.How deep can you know about a new person with a conversation that lasts only for 7 minutes? The most evident problem speed dating may create is that communication is too little for you to understand a stranger in such a short period.However, you can’t tell he is a good person or not.The organizer can not ensure the participant are all good people with no bad intention.For a few years, online dating seemed like the bastion of the geeky and desperate, but the stigma passed. couples who formed relationships between 20, 22 percent of them met online, one academic study found.By 2005, 37 percent of single, American Internet users had used online dating sites, according to the Pew Research Center. It was second only to “meeting through friends” as a way of finding a partner.“The problem is that the way online dating is implemented undermines some amount of its goodness.” People have always needed help looking for love.
Some people say courtship avoids the pain and pitfalls of dating by offering a safe environment and keeping parents involved in the lives of their children. When he describes the people as having a "prairie twang and a ranch-hand nasal ness- and men wearing high-heeled boots with pointed toes- it automatically makes me picture an old out of date redneck town. The idea of changing times brings us, the reader, to his climax of the introduction. I think Truman Capote's introduction is exciting, something that is needed for a successful introduction.– vezi istoric – funcţiona o catedră de Geografie condusă de Terner Adolf si, mai târziu, de eminentul geograf Cholnoky Jenö.Speed dating, a matchmaking process which allows people to talk with each other within 7mins and then change to another one, is considered as the most effective manner for singles to meet their dream men or women.A new analysis of 400 academic studies explores whether online dating represents a dramatic shift in the way people seek mates (it does) and whether it is ultimately a good thing for daters (eh . Some sites claim to have developed scientific algorithms that can help people find soul mates, an assertion the study’s five authors say is not possible and could be damaging. Finkel, an associate professor of social psychology at Northwestern University and the study’s lead author.
The nearly 200-page report, published Monday in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest, found that the main advantage that dating Web sites offer singles is access to a huge pool of potential partners.Going out in groups is a common practice of preadolescents that allows boys and girls to spend time together outside the school setting with little pressure or anxiety. Porter (2008) The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. If the document you are referring to has a date this should be used in the reference in the text.


Today is Father’s Day. I want to do something meaningful for him.
First, I will cook a meal for him. My father is very busy but he often makes delicious food for me. So I want to thank him and let him have a rest. Also, I plan to make a special gift by myself. I think he will like it. Last, I am going to take a walk with him. I can tell him interesting stories to make him happy.
All in all, I really love my father. And I really want to say: “I love you, dad.”


Reflection for Today ▶ ⏩ ⏹
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
— Ephesians 5:22
Taken in isolation, as it frequently is by those who seek to discredit Christianity, this verse appears horribly sexist, declaring women as inferior to men, and almost asking them to worship their husbands as gods! Given everything else Paul writes about idol worship this is clearly not what is meant. Taken in context of the whole chapter, a different narrative emerges. Firstly, it is worth noting that both Jesus and Paul treat women as equal members of the church, and this is clear from all four gospels and the majority of the genuine Pauline letters.1 This chapter is no different. This verse, and its surrounding text is not about women as second rate citizens but about both men and women as being subjects of God. The chapter goes on to command Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it...So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies.2
These verses speak of the power of a loving relationship, where there is give and take, love and strength in both directions. The man-woman/woman-man relationship is the earthly implementation of the human-God/God-human relationship. As we both subject ourselves to, and love God, so we do the same towards one another. A strong marriage bond allows us to then extend such love towards others, neighbours and strangers alike.
The chapter ends with this: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.3 Asking a man to surrender himself to a woman, to become as one flesh with her, surrendering himself completely unto her, is surely the opposite concept of a man as ruler of women. This may be apologetics here, and of course I would like Paul's letters to offer me a Christianity I can embrace wholeheartedly, but even so, there is much to learn from absorbing this whole chapter rather than pulling out a single line here and there to justify a position. Scripture can be mysterious, but then, so was Jesus, and so indeed is marriage!
This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. 4


Saturday, March 23, 2013
What you think about Arab women?
What you think about Arab women? you looking for a wife Arab Arab women?
The Arab women to be sensual, caring, emotional and better in all aspects, and other nationalities / ethnicity , Arab women are by far the best women in the world.When you see Arab women walking on the street, on the commercial market or other places, you will see the erotic oriental beauty of them. Arab women are so sweet and charming that you rarely see in other Western girls. Most Arab women are small and skinny body types and they have yellow skin.
The most best part that makes the women stand out from other Arab women are honesty and loyalty. Arab women are generally shy in public, to hide their feelings, especially when it comes to men as Arab or Arab American men, you will know that the timidity of Arab women right after talking face to face with them in the first place. In general, they do not disclose their feelings to their men the first time.
Shyness of Arab women when talking to men the first time does not mean they are not friendly. It should be noted that Arab women are shy and not disclosed their secret feelings with you until you know really well. This is the traditional custom that Arab women have their mothers.
Some Arab wives are still timid with their husbands. Arab women usually let their husbands to lead the family. women have the Arab heart of gold, they are soft, royal, and faithful to their husbands. It has been said that Arab mothers take care of their children the best. You can see that most Arab women who live in America or other Western countries, work full time, cook daily meals, doing laundry, cooking, etc. After the wedding, brides think Arab not to other men more, but more attention to the man they love and completely put their mind to raise their children. So they do not go wild for other trips, but just stay with their husbands.


Here's to all those girls who used to be his number one. The ones who waited all night for him to call, only to check the caller ID the next morning and be disappointed. The ones who made it through that bitter break up, dried your own tears, and moved on with your life, only to have him walk back in it months later like nothing ever happened. Those of you who cried on the first day you talked again because you knew exactly where this phone call was going. The ones who listened to him say, I only want to be your friend, one day, and the next, listened to him say how much he loves and misses you. We deserve something, and this is our tribute. Here's to the ones that took him back, hoping that maybe this time, he was different, hoping that maybe people really do change. We listened to our friends tell us that we were stupid for even thinking about giving him another chance, caught shit from our parents, and even snuck around to see him for a while. We went through the great stage with no fights all over again. We started this out thinking it would be just friends, and ended up falling in love with him again. We wanted nothing more in the world than to hear him tell us he loved us too, that even though things were bad in the past, they would be different this time. And when we finally heard it, it was like we were dreaming. This is for us. Here's to the ones who believed what he said, sat around all over again waiting for a phone call that might come in a few hours, or a few days. Here's for the tears cried and dried all over again. We wanted so desperately to believe that he was really busy, he couldn't possibly call us at that moment, or even that he fell asleep early. We trained ourselves to believe the lies because we wanted to believe we had found the one for us. We learned to SETTLE for someone who didn't treat us the way we should be treated. Here's to the ones who never believed it when people told us there might be someone else. We just couldn't believe that he could do this to us again. This is for those great girls, who loved him more than words can say, and took him back no matter what happened last time because they couldn't bear to look back on their lives one day and wonder "what if". This is for the girls that stayed up all night long listening to him whine about an ex girlfriend who cheated on him, and cried during the entire conversation. The ones who hoped he would realize that he deserved better, that he deserved us. When he said that he loved you, but he was in love with her, he didn't mean it. This is for the ones that held on to something that was never there to begin with...this is for us!!


My husband sold his bike when we got married (pheewww…lol), and so to celebrate his 30th birthday I rented him a Harley Davidson. It was soo cool being a biker girl for a day…heeehee! It was all kinds of fun! I was kinda sad when it was time to say goodbye. He apparently was relieved…lol…something about being happy that we were still in one piece. LOL!
And I must say, my husband makes that bike look hot 🙂


This guest post was written by Verbum Director Kevin Bagley, DMin.
I pray that your Lent was productive. The forty days of Lent are our opportunity to examine closely our relationships with each other and our relationship with God. Our interpersonal relationships reach across boundaries and peoples. They reach out to those on the margins of society. They reach out to our loved ones, to strengthen and improve our relationships with those closest to us. These are our horizontal relationships.
During Lent we should have worked on our relationship with God as well. Praying, fasting, making sacrifices, and striving to understand how blessed we truly are. Since we refer to Heaven as being “up there,” this is the vertical relationship.
When we place our horizontal relationships together with our vertical relationships, we have the image of a cross. What is at the center of the cross? Jesus, who lovingly paid the ultimate price for our sins, by sacrificing his life for us. Where do we find true love? Hanging on the crucifix, in Jesus, our Lord.
As you think about the sacrifice and the love God has for each of us, think also about the great gifts he left behind: the Sacraments. These outward signs of His love give us the grace to be more like Him. The more often we receive the Sacraments, the more loving, kind and compassionate we become. We become more like Jesus when we receive the Sacraments.
Together we experience the saving and redeeming power of our Lord and share in the Eucharistic celebration that brings us the grace to become more like Christ. The more we receive the Eucharist the more we grow in our belief, our trust and our love for God and our neighbor. Alone we cannot achieve the greatness as a person nor as a Catholic. We need each other to share in our joys and our sorrows.
This Easter season, may you feel the love and compassion God has for you. May you receive that love into your hearts and homes. May you share that love with everyone you encounter. Peace be with you! Alleluia, Alleluia!


Interpersonal Factors associated with Condomless Anal Sex with Online Partners
Submitted Draft; Final Version in AIDS Education and Prevention
The interpersonal determinants of condomless anal sex (CAS) within online-initiated sexual relationships remain poorly understood. Therefore, respondent-driven sampling was used to recruit a prospective cohort of sexually-active gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM), aged >16 years in Vancouver, Canada. Follow-up occurred every six months, up to seven visits. At each visit participants reported their last sexual encounter with their five most recent partners. Stratified by self-reported HIV-status, individual-level, interpersonal, and situational covariates of event-level CAS with partners met online were modeled using generalized estimating equations. CAS was reported during 32.4% (n=1015/3133) of HIV-negative/unknown men’s events, and 62.1% (n=576/928) of HIV-positive men’s events. Social (i.e., collectivism, altruism, network size, social embeddedness) and situational (i.e., number of encounters, location, comparative age, seroconcordance, substance use) factors were identified as important correlates of CAS. Implications include the need for HIV prevention addressingsocial contexts associated with CAS.
In Canada, gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are over 70 times more likely to be infected with HIV than other men (PHAC, 2014). Responding to this epidemic, public health leaders have relied heavily on community-based organizations to establish broad safe-sex norms within gay communities (CDC, 2006). As a frequent endpoint of these efforts, condoms have become one of the most well-established prevention technologies for stopping the transmission of HIV. However, over the last two decades condom use among MSM has declined (Paz-Bailey et al., 2016) resulting in the resurgence of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections within key subgroups.
As the waning in gay men’s use of condoms has been temporally correlated with the emergence of the internet, researchers have sought to determine what role online social venues might play in facilitating HIV risk (Grov, Breslow, Newcomb, Rosenberger, & Bauermeister, 2014). Meta analyses of these studies suggests that men who seek sex online are more likely to report engaging in CAS (Lewnard & Berrang-Ford, 2014; Liau, Millett, & Marks, 2006). However, the causal mechanisms underlying increased risk observed among these men remain unclear. Further, within-person studies have been inconsistent in reporting whether condom use is actually less likely during online-initiated sexual encounters compared with those initiated via other venues (Melendez-Torres, Nye, & Bonell, 2015). The lack of a consistent association between CAS and meeting partners online suggests that this relationship may be influenced by other important factors.
In examining which factors might underlie the association between CAS and online sex seeking, we have previously compared men who seek sex online with those who do not (Card, Lachowsky, Cui, Shurgold, et al., 2016). These earlier findings indicated that online sex seeking MSM tended to be younger, had more Facebook friends, spent more social time with other gay men, and had higher collectivism. Contrary to dated narratives regarding the social isolation of internet users, these findings support research which suggest that online sex seeking MSM exhibit a variety of social attachments (Shilo & Mor, 2015).
We hypothesize that these social attachments might also play an important role in shaping their sexual behavior. After all, the social construction of individual’s attitudes, risk perceptions, and behavior is well documented, both within the context of HIV and more broadly in the study of human anthropology, epidemiology, psychology, and sociology (Amirkhanian, 2014; Choi, Ning, Gregorich, & Pan, 2007; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2011; Fisher, 1988). Applying social perspectives to the examination of sexual behavior between men who meet online may therefore help us to (i) identify the underlying causes of risky sexual behavior between men who meet online and (ii) understand how social influence can be leveraged to promote sexual health in online environments.
With the aim of identifying the social factors predicting event-level CAS between online-met partners, the present analysis used prospective cohort data collected between February 2012 and August 2015 as part of the Momentum Health Study. As described elsewhere (Lachowsky et al., 2016; Moore et al., 2016), this cohort used respondent driven sampling (RDS) to recruit men from Vancouver’s gay community. Eligibility criteria included gender self-identified men (including trans men), aged >16 years, who lived in Metro Vancouver, reported sex with a man in the past six months, and were able to complete a questionnaire written in English. Participants provided written informed consent prior to enrolling in the study. At baseline and six-month follow-up visits participants completed a computer-administered questionnaire, reported event-level data regarding their most recent sexual encounter with up to five of their most recent male sexual partners in the past six months, received an HIV rapid-test or had HIV-relevant bloodwork, and were screened for hepatitis C and syphilis. Participation in the cohort was optional and some participants chose only to participate in the cross-sectional (baseline) visit. Participants were given an honorarium of $50 CAD for each completed study visit and $10 for each RDS participant they recruited. Ethics approval was obtained from the research ethics boards at Simon Fraser University, the University of British Columbia, and the University of Victoria.
Independent variables. The explanatory variables examined in the present study were selected as they were considered to approximate the social and interpersonal experiences of MSM. These variables included demographic factors (which approximate the socio-structural experience of individuals), factors approximating connectedness to or participation in the gay community, and scales assessing emotional attachment to the gay community. Specifically, we assessed: age (in years), sexual identity (gay, bisexual, other), education (completed at least high school versus not), annual income (<$30,000, $30,000-59,999, >$60,000 CAD), employment status (employed or unemployed), the number of MSM participants knew in the Vancouver area (continuous), the number of MSM whom they “knew well” (continuous), the number of reported male anal sex partners within the past six months (continuous), the amount of social time participants spent with other MSM (≤25%, 26-75%, ≥76%), the frequency with which they visited gay bars/clubs, read gay news media, used apps and websites to find sexual partners, and attended gay-led group meetings; and their level of participation in the most recent annual pride parade (spectated, participated, did not attend). Frequency items assessing participation in the gay community were reported on an ordinal scale (“not in the past 6 months,” “less than once per month,” “about once per month,” “more than once per month”) that captured the period of time between each follow-up period (six months). Scales measuring important dimensions of emotional connectedness included: collectivism, social support (Lubben et al., 2006), loneliness (Gierveld & Tilburg, 2006), and communal sexual altruism (O’Dell, Rosser, Miner, & Jacoby, 2008).
In addition to the primary explanatory variables of interest in this analysis, we also included scales accounting for the possible confounding effects of sexual sensation seeking (Kalichman & Rompa, 1995), cognitive escape (McKirnan, Vanable, Ostrow, & Hope, 2001), treatment optimism (Van de Ven, Crawford, Kippax, Knox, & Prestage, 2000), negative self-esteem (Herek & Greene, 1995), and anxiety and depression (Snaith, 2003). These were included as they have previously been identified as important predictors of sexual behavior among MSM (Neville & Adams, 2009). Likewise, variables assessing substance use (i.e., use of alcohol, marijuana, poppers, erectile dysfunction drugs, crystal meth, GHB, or ecstasy/MDMA) during or within two hours prior to sex were included as these to have been identified as important predictors of event level condom use (Rendina, Moody, Ventuneac, Grov, & Parsons, 2015; Shilo & Mor, 2015). Finally, as the present analysis was conducted using event-level data, we also assessed event-level characteristics including the number of times the respondent had ever had sex with their partner, the number of months since they first met their partner, their certainty regarding their partner’s serostatus (Did not know partner’s HIV status; Knew he was HIV-negative: Thought he was HIV-negative, but not 100% sure; Knew he was HIV-positive; Thought he was HIV-positive, but not 100% sure), where they had sex with their partner (at home of either partner, other), and their comparative age to their partner (younger, same, older).
Dependent Variable. To assess the primary outcome of interest we used event-level data asking each participant: “What sexual activities did you do with the partner named above the most recent time you had sex?” Participants were then presented with a list of several sexual behaviors (i.e., “He fucked me in the ass and he did not use a condom,” “I fucked him in the ass and I did not use a condom,” “He gave me a blow job,” “I gave him a blow job,” “Rimming,” “Masturbation,” etc.). From the list of behaviors, participants were asked to “check all that apply.” Events in which participants indicated either penetrative or insertive CAS were classified as “Events with CAS.” Events in which neither check-box was selected were classified as “Events without CAS.”
All statistical analyses were conducted in SAS v9.4. The present study restricted analyses to events in which sexual partners were first met online. As a first step to model building, we used principal component analysis (PCA; Jolliffe, 2002) to construct an appropriate measure for community and social involvement that captured patterns in gay community participation, rather than attendance at a single activity or event. Based on the resulting component structure, these two principal components were identified as relating to social embeddedness (PC 1) and community engagement (PC 2)—two important dimensions of attachment (Herek & Greene, 1995).
Recognizing that the rationale for condom use differs significantly according to HIV status, our data were stratified by self-reported HIV serostatus, and separate analyses were conducted for HIV-negative/unknown and HIV-positive men with online-met partners. General estimating equations (GEE) were used to model the bivariable and multivariable associations of event-level CAS (versus no CAS) with an online-met partner. This allowed us to account for observations over the course of participants’ <7 study visits and multiple observations within each study visit (Liang & Zeger, 1986). Final multivariable models were used to identify the most salient covariates of CAS. Backwards elimination was used to construct multivariable models by including all factors of interest with bivariable associations that were significant at p < 0.20 and then manually removing variables with the highest Type-III p-values until the Quasi-Akaike Information Criteria (QIC) were optimized (minimized).
At the time this analysis was conducted a total of 774 participants completed the baseline visit, 519 completed the second visit, 469 completed the third visit, 413 completed the fourth visit, 321 completed the fifth visit, 173 completed the sixth visit, and 56 completed the seventh visit. Of the 774 participants, 760 reported at least one sexual encounter across their < 7 study visits (baseline and follow-up). Approximately 74% of men (n = 558/759, 1 missing) reported at least one sexual event with an online-met partner, and 39% (n = 219/558) of those participants reported CAS with an online-met partner. In terms of study visits, our analysis considered data from a total of 2,725 visits (Median = 4, Q1-Q3 = 1-5); 2,488 of which included at least one reported sexual partner’s event, 946 reported data for five sexual partners (the maximum allowed); though only a minority of these (n=171/946) were reported by individuals who had reported no more than 5 sexual partners in the past six months. As participants could report up to five sexual encounters at each visit (one for each of their five most recent partners), of the 2,488 study visits, a total of 8,137 events were reported—an average of 3.3 events per study visit. Stratified by HIV serostatus, 53% (n = 3133/5909) of events reported by HIV-negative/unknown men and 42% (n = 928/2210) of events reported by HIV-positive men were with an online-met partner. Of these, 32% (n = 1015/3133) of events reported by HIV-negative/unknown men and 62% (n = 576/928) of events reported by HIV-positive men included CAS.
HIV-negative/unknown men. In multivariable GEE modeling of events reported by HIV-negative/unknown men, CAS was more likely among men with incomes between $30,000 to $59,999 (compared with those who made <$30,000), and those who reported knowing more MSM well. On the other hand, CAS was negatively associated with collectivism, communal sexual altruism, and social embeddedness PCA scores. In addition to these primary factors of interest, CAS was associated with the use of apps and websites to seek sex, lower Negative Self-esteem scores, higher treatment optimism, higher sexual sensation seeking, and having had more recent sexual partners. On the event-level, CAS was associated with having had more sexual events with the partner in the past six months, having sex at home (compared to some other location), increasing certainty of a partner’s HIV status and of a partner’s HIV-positive serostatus, and use of alcohol, poppers, and crystal meth prior to or during sex.
HIV-positive men. In multivariable GEE modeling of events reported by HIV-positive men, CAS was negatively associated with age, having a non-gay identity (vs. gay), communal sexual altruism, and use of ecstasy/MDMA prior to sex. CAS was positively associated with having a greater than high school education (vs. no greater than high school), higher sexual sensation seeking, having had more sexual events with the event-level partner, being more certain of their partner’s status, knowing or believing their partner was HIV-positive, and use of poppers or erectile dysfunction drugs prior to or during sex.
In the present study we analyzed 1,298 sexual events between MSM who first met online. Of these, 38% (n = 490/1298) included condomless anal sex—with a significant proportion (60%, n = 292/490) of CAS events among MSM who were “100% sure” of their partner’s HIV status. These findings support previous research which indicate that MSM have the potential to achieve high levels of risk reduction through serodisclosure and other risk management strategies (McFarland et al., 2011). As research efforts continue to explore the rationale for sexual risk occurring within these contexts, our findings support previous evidence suggesting that behavior during these encounters is explained by the confluence of individual-, social-, and encounter-level factors, requiring a multi-level approach to addressing the risks found in online environments (Neville & Adams, 2009).
Beginning with individual-level factors, we note that among HIV-negative/unknown men, event-level CAS was associated with higher sexual sensation seeking (which was also significant for HIV-positive men), increasing frequency of online sex seeking, and having more recent male anal sex partners. As greater sexual sensation seeking and partner frequency have been associated with online sex seeking (Card, Lachowsky, Cui, Shurgold, et al., 2016), these factors likely moderate the relationship between internet dating and CAS (Horvath, Beadnell, & Bowen, 2006; Matarelli, 2013). Likewise, higher treatment optimism and substance use have also been associated with both online sex seeking and risky sexual behavior (Grosskopf, Harris, Wallace, & Nanin, 2011; Rendina et al., 2015; Shilo & Mor, 2015). This evidence reconfirms these factors as salient predictors of CAS during online-initiated sexual encounters.
We also observed that higher annual income for HIV-negative/unknown men, and greater formal education and younger age among HIV-positive men, were associated with higher odds for event level CAS. The significance of these factors may suggest that the social stratifications of peer groups play an important role in shaping normative sexual behavior within these groups. Indeed, previous research has shown how sexual expectancies, norms, and behaviors vary between gay sub-cultures (Adam, Husbands, Murray, & Maxwell, 2008a). It would therefore be unsurprising that fundamental social stratifications such as age and social class (represented by educational attainment and annual income) likewise shape the sexual norms of individuals in these strata. In addition to these normative pressures, men with greater affluence also have greater access or exposure to health information and social opportunities (CIHI, 2008)—providing them with the knowledge, skills, and resources needed to safely navigate condomless sex with their online-met partners. Indeed, research on the efficacy of treatment as prevention (Rodger et al., 2016), pre-exposure prophylaxis (Grant et al., 2010), and other seroadaptive strategies (Vallabhaneni et al., 2012) highlights that the risks of CAS can be successfully mediated given that individuals are able to employ these strategies appropriately.
The present analysis also highlights the degree to which social embeddedness in the gay community might also influence sexual behavior. In the present analysis we observed that for each 1-point increase in social embeddedness there was a 13% reduction in the odds for CAS among HIV-negative/unknown MSM, suggesting that social attachments with other gay men may have a significant protective effect against CAS. Meanwhile, the effect of community involvement, though significant in univariable analyses, was not selected as an independent covariate for CAS suggesting collinearity between community involvement and other social attachments. With consideration to the existing literature on social and sexual behavior, we suggest that the protective effects observed in the present analysis are likely the product of greater exposure to prevention messaging (CIHI, 2008) and social norms which encourage risk management behavior (O’Dell et al., 2008). For instance, we observed that each one-point increase in communal sexual altruism and each one-point increase in collectivism were associated with a 38% and 7% reduction in the odds for CAS among HIV-negative/unknown men, respectively. Noting that altruistic and collectivist feelings themselves are fostered within communities and through social attachments (O’Dell et al., 2008), this finding highlights altruism and collectivism as potent mechanisms by which social attachments can be leveraged to promote risk management.
With these effects in mind, we also note that the impact of normative influence depends on whether or not peer norms are consistent with risk reduction (Fisher, 1988). For instance, we found that, among HIV-negative/unknown men, knowing more MSM well was associated with a 3% increase in odds for event-level CAS. Likewise, among HIV-positive men, identifying as gay (versus “other”) was associated with a 60% increase in the odds for CAS. While it is unclear why these associations contradict those with collectivism, communal altruism, and social embeddedness, it is important to note that the social norms underlying these measures may not operationalize or diffuse using the same social mechanisms or within the same social networks (Adam et al., 2008a; Amirkhanian, 2014; Choi et al., 2007). For instance, men who know many gay men, but do not often participate in gay events or with gay organizations may experience distinct normative influence from those who are participating in their community more regularly. These findings therefore reinforce the importance of broad community-based prevention, reaching sub-groups of varying levels of community connectedness, to establish consistent norms throughout the gay community.
With that said, the influence of social factors was not universal. In particular, CAS among HIV-positive men was not predicted by the number of MSM they knew, their level of social embeddedness, or whether they were involved in the community. In fact, on both the univariable and multivariable levels, CAS was predicted by a smaller subset of factors for HIV-positive men. In considering why social influence seems to have less potent impact on the sexual behavior of HIV-positive men, we note that previous research has found that an HIV-diagnosis is akin to a wake-up call—promoting deep introspection, heightened cognition, and greater sensitivity to the risks of transmitting HIV (Chown et al., 2015; Gorbach, Drumright, Daar, & Little, 2006; Lawson & Flocke, 2009; Prochaska, Redding, Harlow, Rossi, & Velicer, 1994). It is possible that this experience over-takes the influence that other social forces might otherwise have in shaping behavioral intentions. Alternatively, HIV-positive men’s heightened awareness of treatment options, and the role these have in preventing the spread of HIV (Rodger et al., 2016), may also have a significant impact on how these men view the necessity or relative efficacy of condoms. If reflective of the disposition HIV-positive men have towards condoms, this may explain the relatively higher rates of CAS observed among HIV-positive men, as well as the apparent null-effect of social influence in shaping their sexual behavior. Another explanation for the dampened association between social factors and CAS among HIV-positive men is that these men are merely influenced by different social forces not measured in our analysis, such as internalized HIV stigma and HIV specific social support (Burnham et al., 2016).
In addition to the individual- and social-level factors associated with event-level CAS, encounter-level dynamics, such as substance use and partner serostatus, were also highlighted as important determinants of CAS. For example, both HIV-positive and HIV-negative/unknown men were more likely to engage in CAS with partners whose HIV status they knew and with whom they had more previous sexual encounters. This suggests that some of the risk for CAS with online-met partners can be attributed to the development of greater trust and intimacy between partners (Greene, Andrews, Kuper, & Mustanski, 2014). While condom abandonment may not be a public health concern within monogamous seroconcordant relationships, or within relationships where the sero-positive partner is virally-suppressed, condom use in open relationships or among single men remains an important prevention message, especially in environments where biomedical interventions, such as PreP, are unavailable or difficult to access.
We also note that for both HIV-positive and HIV-negative/unknown men, CAS was more likely with partners whom the respondents knew were HIV-positive. In context of previous research which shows that MSM, and especially high-risk MSM, are actively managing their risks (Card, Lachowsky, Cui, Sereda, et al., 2016), this finding may highlight the use of seroadaptive risk management strategies, such as serosorting, strategic positioning, and viral load sorting, by those seeking to reduce the risks of HIV transmission while also engaging in CAS. Indeed, previous research has shown that online venues promote serodisclosure and seroadaptive behavior (Berry, Raymond, Kellogg, & McFarland, 2008), and may even ease the process of disclosing one’s undetectable viral-load (Newcomb, Mongrella, Weis, McMillen, & Mustanski, 2016). This may be especially true in Vancouver where the benefits of treatment as prevention are widely publicized (Carter et al., 2015). Alternatively, these finding may also be the result of small counts, as only 60 out of 995 baseline events among HIV-negative/unknown men were with partners whom the respondents knew or believed were HIV-positive. It is also possible that these relatively few instances of serodiscordant CAS may represent encounters between individuals who, for various reasons, are less concerned about the risks for HIV acquisition during CAS (Hallal et al., 2015; Stolte, Dukers, Geskus, Coutinho, & de Wit, 2004).
Implications for HIV Prevention
As other researches have noted that the internet may pose significant risk by bringing together individuals from sub-groups with incompatible sexual norms (Adam et al., 2008a; Adam, Husbands, Murray, & Maxwell, 2008b), our analysis highlights the internet as a prime target for socially-driven HIV-prevention. The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has identified a number of high impact strategies that might potentially be adapted to online settings (CDC, 2015). As we observed that condom use among HIV-negative/unknown men with online-met partners seems to be influenced by social norms, we suggest that social network strategies, in particular, such as those endorsed by the CDC, should be used to strengthen and leverage social and sexual relationships in order to establish broad safe sex, testing, and treatment norms. Further, our data highlight the need for targeted and holistic interventions which can address multiple endpoints—including teaching participants how to navigate condom negotiation and serodisclosure, both when sober and when under the influence of alcohol and drugs. Such prevention campaigns should be crafted in such a way that they are attractive and acceptable to men with high sexual sensation seeking and a history of other risk behaviors (i.e., substance use). Such sex positive campaigns might include a focus on risk reduction strategies (e.g., seroadaptation, PrEP), rather than traditional prevention goals (e.g., condom use).
Implications for Future Research
Our results highlight the value in examining how social factors shape prevention related behaviors. However, additional qualitative studies are needed to explain why some social factors are associated with greater sexual risk while others appear to have a protective effect. Further, additional quantitative analyses should aim to better understand relevant psychosocial (e.g., sexual sensation seeking, treatment optimism, communal altruism) and behavioral constructs (e.g., partner number, seroadaptation), and how these constructs might arise from socially driven processes. These proposed analyses will provide evidence-based rationale to support, focus, and fine-tune HIV-prevention messaging for online-engaged MSM. Further, while the data presented here were collected over several years, longitudinal analysis of these and other data sources are still needed to provide further information on the changing patterns of sexual behavior among MSM. Future analyses are also needed to help us understand how the internet can be used to facilitate safer sex practices, establish safe sex norms, and promote a sense of community among MSM who engage in online-based interactions.
Strengths & Limitations
The present study is strengthened by its use of event-level data, which allows us to better draw associations between key factors of interest, increase accuracy of reporting, and reduce recall bias. While studies comparing event-level data and period-prevalence data suggest there is substantial agreement in these data types (Glick, Winer, & Golden, 2012), Mustanski (2007) reported that retrospective and event-level diary reports of CAS between online-met partners can result in contradictory results. However, event-level results are generally shown to produce more precise estimates of sexual behavior (Glick et al., 2012). Our study is also benefited by collecting information regarding multiple events over time, which improves the robustness of our results by increasing the number of observations per individual.
The present study is not without limitations. The use of respondent-driven sampling and unweighted measures limits the generalizability of this study to urban MSM accessible through MSM social networks. This limitation is exacerbated by small counts in some categorical items and by unique contextual factors associated with HIV treatment and risks (Moore et al., 2016). Further, our analysis included events between partners who initially met online and may not necessarily represent “typical” online initiated events (i.e. casual partners). As the nature of the relationships between partners in our event level data is unclear, we cannot determine whether respondent condom use is consistent across partner type, or whether they engage in CAS selectively—perhaps with committed partners only. Indeed, previous research has shown that condom use is less frequent with committed partners than with casual partners (Lachowsky et al., 2015). Further, because participants only reported their most recent sexual event with each of their five most recent partners over the last six months, it is possible that the events sampled are not representative of their typical behavior. Our data structure is also limited by the fact that we are unable to determine whether events reported at different study visits are with the same partner or with different partners. Additionally, the exclusion of variables which might also predict condom use subject our study to omitted variable bias.
Despite these limitations, our findings indicate that condomless anal sex among MSM with online-met partners is associated with many diverse and inter-related factors concerning sexual partners, social groups, and communities—broadening the scope of HIV prevention priorities. Future HIV prevention efforts should aim to strengthen and leverage these relationships in order to best respond to the social and situational predictors for context-dependent condom use. By using these relationships to empower individuals as they navigate the experience of meeting sexual partners online, prevention campaigns can respond to the root causes of sexual risk in online environments.
Adam, B. D., Husbands, W., Murray, J., & Maxwell, J. (2008a). Circuits, Networks, and Hiv Risk Management. AIDS Education & Prevention, 20(5), 420–434.
Adam, B. D., Husbands, W., Murray, J., & Maxwell, J. (2008b). Silence, assent and HIV risk. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 10(8), 759–772.
Amirkhanian, Y. A. (2014). Social Networks, Sexual Networks and HIV Risk in Men Who Have Sex with Men. Current HIV/AIDS Reports, 11(1), 81–92.
Berry, M., Raymond, H. F., Kellogg, T., & McFarland, W. (2008). The Internet, HIV serosorting and transmission risk among men who have sex with men, San Francisco. AIDS (London, England), 22(6), 787–789. https://doi.org/10.1097/QAD.0b013e3282f55559
Burnham, K. E., Cruess, D. G., Kalichman, M. O., Grebler, T., Cherry, C., & Kalichman, S. C. (2016). Trauma symptoms, internalized stigma, social support, and sexual risk behavior among HIV-positive gay and bisexual MSM who have sought sex partners online. AIDS Care, 28(3), 347–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2015.1096894
Card, K. G., Lachowsky, N. J., Cui, Z., Sereda, P., Rich, A., Jollimore, J., … Roth, E. A. (2016). Seroadaptive Strategies of Gay & Bisexual Men (GBM) with the Highest Quartile Number of Sexual Partners in Vancouver, Canada. AIDS and Behavior, 1–15.
Card, K. G., Lachowsky, N. J., Cui, Z., Shurgold, S., Gislason, M., Forrest, J. I., … Hogg, R. S. (2016). Exploring the role of sex-seeking apps and websites in the social and sexual lives of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men: a cross-sectional study. Sexual Health. https://doi.org/10.1071/SH16150
Carter, A., Lachowsky, N. J., Rich, A., Forrest, J. I., Sereda, P., Cui, Z., … Hogg, R. S. (2015). Gay and bisexual men’s awareness and knowledge of treatment as prevention: findings from the Momentum Health Study in Vancouver, Canada. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 18, 20039.
CDC. (2006). Evolution of HIV/AIDS prevention programs--United States, 1981-2006. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 55(21), 597–603.
CDC. (2015). Effective Interventions: HIV Prevention that Works. Retrieved July 14, 2016, from https://effectiveinterventions.cdc.gov/
Choi, K.-H., Ning, Z., Gregorich, S. E., & Pan, Q. (2007). The Influence of Social and Sexual Networks in the Spread of HIV and Syphilis Among Men Who Have Sex With Men in Shanghai, China: JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 45(1).
Chown, S., Jollimore, J., Kwag, M., Lim, E., Steinberg, M., Grace, D., & Gilbert, M. (2015). Understanding the impact of HIV among recently diagnosed gay men in Vancouver. Vancouver, Canada: CIHR Team in the Study of Acute HIV Infection in Gay Men.
CIHI, C. I. for H. I. (2008). Reducing Gaps in Health: A Focus on Socio-Economic Status in Urban Canada (text). Retrieved from https://secure.cihi.ca/estore/productFamily.htm?pf=PFC1090&lang=fr&media=0
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2011). Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. Taylor & Francis.
Fisher, J. D. (1988). Possible effects of reference group-based social influence on AIDS-risk behavior and AIDS-prevention. American Psychologist, 43(11), 914–920.
Gierveld, J. D. J., & Tilburg, T. V. (2006). A 6-Item Scale for Overall, Emotional, and Social Loneliness Confirmatory Tests on Survey Data. Research on Aging, 28(5), 582–598.
Glick, S. N., Winer, R. L., & Golden, M. R. (2012). Web-Based Sex Diaries and Young Adult Men Who Have Sex with Men: Assessing Feasibility, Reactivity, and Data Agreement. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(7), 1327–1335.
Gorbach, P. M., Drumright, L. N., Daar, E. S., & Little, S. J. (2006). Transmission behaviors of recently HIV-infected men who have sex with men. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes (1999), 42(1), 80–85.
Grant, R. M., Lama, J. R., Anderson, P. L., McMahan, V., Liu, A. Y., Vargas, L., … Glidden, D. V. (2010). Preexposure Chemoprophylaxis for HIV Prevention in Men Who Have Sex with Men. The New England Journal of Medicine, 363(27), 2587–2599.
Greene, G. J., Andrews, R., Kuper, L., & Mustanski, B. (2014). Intimacy, Monogamy, and Condom Problems Drive Unprotected Sex among Young Men in Serious Relationships with Other Men: A Mixed Methods Dyadic Study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(1).
Grosskopf, N. A., Harris, J. K., Wallace, B. C., & Nanin, J. E. (2011). Online sex-seeking behaviors of men who have sex with men in New York City. American Journal of Men’s Health, 5(5), 378–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988310372801
Grov, C., Breslow, A. S., Newcomb, M. E., Rosenberger, J. G., & Bauermeister, J. A. (2014). Gay and bisexual men’s use of the Internet: research from the 1990s through 2013. Journal of Sex Research, 51(4), 390–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2013.871626
Hallal, R. C., Raxach, J. C., Barcellos, N. T., Maksud, I., Hallal, R. C., Raxach, J. C., … Maksud, I. (2015). Strategies to prevent HIV transmission to serodiscordant couples. Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia, 18, 169–182.
Herek, G. M., & Greene, B. (1995). AIDS, Identity, and Community: The HIV Epidemic and Lesbians and Gay Men. SAGE Publications.
Horvath, K. J., Beadnell, B., & Bowen, A. M. (2006). Sensation seeking as a moderator of internet use on sexual risk taking among men who have sex with men. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 3(4), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1525/srsp.2006.3.4.77
Jolliffe, J. (2002). Principal Component Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/b98835
Kalichman, S. C., & Rompa, D. (1995). Sexual sensation seeking and Sexual Compulsivity Scales: reliability, validity, and predicting HIV risk behavior. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65(3), 586–601.
Lachowsky, N. J., Dewey, C. E., Dickson, N. P., Saxton, P. J. W., Hughes, A. J., Milhausen, R. R., & Summerlee, A. J. S. (2015). Habitual condom use across partner type and sexual position among younger gay and bisexual men: findings from New Zealand HIV behavioural surveillance 2006–2011. Sexually Transmitted Infections.
Lachowsky, N. J., Lal, A., Forrest, J. I., Card, K. G., Cui, Z., Sereda, P., … Hogg, R. S. (2016). Including Online-Recruited Seeds: A Respondent-Driven Sample of Men Who Have Sex With Men. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 18(3), e51.
Lawson, P. J., & Flocke, S. A. (2009). Teachable moments for health behavior change: a concept analysis. Patient Education and Counseling, 76(1), 25–30.
Lewnard, J. A., & Berrang-Ford, L. (2014). Internet-based partner selection and risk for unprotected anal intercourse in sexual encounters among men who have sex with men: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 90(4), 290–296.
Liang, K.-Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/73.1.13
Liau, A., Millett, G., & Marks, G. (2006). Meta-analytic examination of online sex-seeking and sexual risk behavior among men who have sex with men. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 33(9), 576–584. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.olq.0000204710.35332.c5
Lubben, J., Blozik, E., Gillmann, G., Iliffe, S., Kruse, W. von R., Beck, J. C., & Stuck, A. E. (2006). Performance of an Abbreviated Version of the Lubben Social Network Scale Among Three European Community-Dwelling Older Adult Populations. The Gerontologist, 46(4), 503–513. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/46.4.503
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1991). Self-esteem and intergroup comparisons: Toward a theory of collective self-esteem. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 211–234). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Matarelli, S. A. (2013). Sexual sensation seeking and Internet sex-seeking of Middle Eastern men who have sex with men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(7), 1285–1297.
McFarland, W., Chen, Y.-H., Raymond, H. F., Nyugen, B., Colfax, G., Mehrtens, J., … Truong, H.-H. M. (2011). HIV seroadaptation among individuals, within sexual dyads, and by sexual episodes, men who have sex with men, San Francisco, 2008. AIDS Care, 23(3).
McKirnan, D. J., Vanable, P. A., Ostrow, D. G., & Hope, B. (2001). Expectancies of sexual “escape” and sexual risk among drug and alcohol-involved gay and bisexual men. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13(1–2), 137–154.
Melendez-Torres, G. J., Nye, E., & Bonell, C. (2015). Internet sex-seeking is inconsistently linked with sexual risk in men who have sex with men: systematic review of within-subjects comparisons. Sexual Health, 12(3), 183–187.
Moore, D. M., Cui, Z., Lachowsky, N. J., Raymond, H. F., Roth, E., Rich, A., … Hogg, R. S. (2016). HIV Community Viral Load and Factors Associated With Elevated Viremia Among a Community-Based Sample of Men Who Have Sex With Men in Vancouver, Canada: JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 72(1), 87–95.
Mustanski, B. S. (2007). Are sexual partners met online associated with HIV/STI risk behaviours? Retrospective and daily diary data in conflict. AIDS Care, 19(6), 822–827.
Neville, S., & Adams, J. (2009). Condom use in men who have sex with men: a literature review. Contemporary Nurse, 33(2), 130–139.
Newcomb, M. E., Mongrella, M. C., Weis, B., McMillen, S. J., & Mustanski, B. (2016). Partner Disclosure of PrEP Use and Undetectable Viral Load on Geosocial Networking Apps: Frequency of Disclosure and Decisions About Condomless Sex. JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 71(2), 200–206.
O’Dell, B. L., Rosser, B. R. S., Miner, M. H., & Jacoby, S. M. (2008). HIV prevention altruism and sexual risk behavior in HIV-positive men who have sex with men. AIDS and Behavior, 12(5), 713–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-007-9321-9
Paz-Bailey, G., Mendoza, M. C. B., Finlayson, T., Wejnert, C., Le, B., Rose, C., … NHBS Study Group. (2016). Trends in condom use among MSM in the United States: the role of antiretroviral therapy and seroadaptive strategies. AIDS (London, England), 30(12).
PHAC, P. H. A. of C. (2014, October 23). Population-Specific HIV/AIDS Status Report: Gay, Bisexual, Two-Spirit and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men - Public Health Agency of Canada. Retrieved August 4, 2015, from http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/aids-sida/publication/ps-pd/men-hommes/index-eng.php
Prochaska, J. O., Redding, C. A., Harlow, L. L., Rossi, J. S., & Velicer, W. F. (1994). The transtheoretical model of change and HIV prevention: a review. Health Education Quarterly, 21(4), 471–486.
Rendina, H. J., Moody, R. L., Ventuneac, A., Grov, C., & Parsons, J. T. (2015). Aggregate and event-level associations between substance use and sexual behavior among gay and bisexual men: Comparing retrospective and prospective data. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 154, 199–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2015.06.045
Rodger, A., Cambiano, V., Brunn, T., Vernazza, P., Collins, S., van Lunzen, J., … PARNTER Study Group. (2016). Sexual activity without condoms and risk of hiv transmission in serodifferent couples when the hiv-positive partner is using suppressive antiretroviral therapy. JAMA, 316(2), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.5148
Shilo, G., & Mor, Z. (2015). Seeking sex online: social and sexual risk factors among adolescent and young gay and bisexual men. Sexual Health. https://doi.org/10.1071/SH14229
Snaith, R. P. (2003). The Hospital Anxiety And Depression Scale. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 1, 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-29
Stolte, I. G., Dukers, N. H. T. M., Geskus, R. B., Coutinho, R. A., & de Wit, J. B. F. (2004). Homosexual men change to risky sex when perceiving less threat of HIV/AIDS since availability of highly active antiretroviral therapy: a longitudinal study. AIDS (London, England), 18(2), 303–309.
Vallabhaneni, S., Li, X., Vittinghoff, E., Donnell, D., Pilcher, C. D., & Buchbinder, S. P. (2012). Seroadaptive practices: association with HIV acquisition among HIV-negative men who have sex with men. PloS One, 7(10), e45718.
Van de Ven, P., Crawford, J., Kippax, S., Knox, S., & Prestage, G. (2000). A scale of optimism-scepticism in the context of HIV treatments. AIDS Care, 12(2), 171–176.


What a perfect post Malone girlfriend interview. So much juicy information and so much to share! I’ll spare you the details, but it is fun to be able to talk about my experiences and feelings.
I’ve always been a bit of a romantic romantic, but this particular interview didn’t seem to have a big impact on my personality. A couple of weeks ago I started dating the guy who looked like him a couple of years ago. He looked kind of cute too, but I thought he was just a regular guy. He was just a cute guy, but it just wasn’t really that easy to love.
That’s what I keep thinking. How do we love a man we cant even imagine enjoying being with? I think it’s really important to look at what makes someone attractive (or not attractive) to you. In my case, I dont even know what makes him attractive to me, but I’ve always found him to be a sexy guy who I’d enjoy being with.
As it turns out, post Malone is also a pretty attractive guy, but he’s actually not a sexy guy. He’s sort of a bad guy. What makes him attractive to me though, is the way he makes me laugh. It wasnt really until I was in a movie theater playing with my friends that I realised he was a funny guy. I felt like a real friend when we were together. He was very very nice to me and he made me laugh all day.
The thing that makes post Malone a good guy though is that he has a pretty awesome personality. He’s also very good at keeping secrets. He knows a lot about me, and even when I was a little girl he used to tell me that he was going to find the source of my pain and that was why he was so nice to me.
I’ve always thought that being an asshole was a big deal in a relationship. But that’s not true. I think one of the things that really defines a good asshole is that he is willing to put his needs above those of the relationship. Not only that, but he is willing to let his needs be the only thing that matters to him. Post Malone is a good asshole because he has a strong need to be liked. He also has a strong need to be admired for who he is.
Post Malone is also a good asshole because he has a strong need to be cared for. You see, he has a girlfriend who is the epitome of a good asshole. And she has a lot of needs, both real and imagined. She never asks him to do anything that she doesn’t want to do herself. And if she asks him to do something he doesn’t want to do, then he knows that he’ll do it anyway.
Post Malone has a strong need to be liked. Which means that he doesn’t really have a problem with being liked. Which means that he has a strong need to be admired for who he is. Which means that he has a strong need to be cared for. Which means that he has a strong need to be cared for. Which means that he has a strong need to be cared for. Which means that he has a strong need to be cared for.
I dont know about you, but I think that post malone girlfriend interview is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen. And that is saying something.


Dogs are neither toys nor cuddly animals. If you take that into account, you have already laid the foundation for a harmonious human-dog friendship. With a loving but consistent dog training you also show your four-legged friend that you are a reliable partner. This is how your dog learns that he can trust you.
For a wonderful dog-and-dog friendship, it is helpful if you put yourself in your quadruped from time to time. In this way, you can better understand how your own behavior arrives.
1. Understand the dogs correctly
A dog perceives its environment quite differently than a human. While humans rely primarily on their sense of sight, in dogs sense of smell, hearing and sense of touch are more pronounced. In addition, a dog communicates differently than a human - he focuses primarily on the body language. For dog training, it is therefore important that you do not confuse your dog with unclear signals.
Choose a set of unique basic commands to teach your dog from an early age and be patient. The human-dog-friendship could be torn if your four-legged friend does not understand what you want from him, and you may also punish or yell at him for this lack of understanding.
2. Trust between man and dog
If you succeed in keeping calm, the dog will trust you. He knows that he can rely on you at all times and that he finds security and security with you. Basically, the friendship between man and dog hardly differs from the friendship between two people. So always stay clear, unambiguous and consistent - but fair. The four-legged friend usually listens to you automatically, if he trusts you. After all, he does not doubt that you know what's good for him.
3. Friendship needs respect
Just as important as understanding and trust is respect in human-dog-friendship. These three things overlap; Respect requires understanding and generates trust. Never surprise your dog with your affection and do not force him to cuddle or play when he's not ready. The behavior of the dog tells you whether he is just in cuddling and playful mood - or not. If he takes a nap or is busy with something, leave him alone. He'll come back to you if he wants.
For humans, it is not always understandable, which arouses the interest of dogs. Maybe he has just discovered an exciting smell that he wants to explore. Let your dog be a dog. If you have children, it is especially important to teach them this rule. Because the little ones have yet to learn that the friendly Wuschel is a living thing and neither a toy nor a cuddly toy. Explain this to your children, however, lovingly and clearly, the little ones learn a lesson in life in terms of empathy, compassion and friendship.
4. Joint ventures
Finally, the fun between man and dog must not be neglected. Joint ventures and experiences strengthen the friendship. Take long, exciting walks and choose a different route from time to time. At the dog playground, your four-legged friend also gets to know their fellow species and when playing with their master or mistress, the relationship can be strengthened.


16. For the first time in his life, he found himself imagining a future together with someone. He was embarrassed to tell her this but he had never really been in love with the women he had dated. “Well who would play me in this rom-com of your life?” she teasingly inquired. “You have such beautiful olive skin,” he crooned, “so you can be a person of color or racially ambiguous in the book but definitely a white woman in the movie.”
Don't miss the whole article here!


Sometimes the corporate-charity link is as obvious as a signpost, as in the CIBC Run for the Cure or the HBC Summer Brain Gain program. Not so obvious are the ways in which partnerships between corporations and the non-profit sector are formed in the first place and how the two entities relate to each other.
Dr. Gloria Tian, an associate professor of finance at the University of Lethbridge’s Calgary campus, wants to know more about the relationship between the two sectors and how it enhances economic and social welfare in a country.
Tian, together with Dr. Ebenezer Asem, a U of L finance professor, and Dr. Olubunmi Faleye, a finance professor at Northeastern University in Boston, have been awarded an Insight Grant through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada worth almost $95,000 over four years to investigate the impact of corporate-charity connections in Canada.
“Corporations are the economic engine of a country but non-profit organizations also make important contributions to the overall economy,” says Tian. “If we don’t understand how the sectors relate to each other, we are missing important information as to how the relations could be enhanced.”
The research team proposes three related studies. One study will look at the relation between corporate-charity connections in Canada, measured through corporate directors’ affiliations with registered charities, corporations’ philanthropic activities and the effect of corporate governance.
The second study will examine whether companies that regularly give are less likely to engage in financial misconduct and, if they are sued by investors, how they modify their corporate policies in response.
The third study will look at the non-profit sector to determine whether corporate connections help improve the operational efficiency and growth prospects of local charities.
“These studies will address important questions of interest to businesses, charities, policy makers and other public and private stakeholders,” says Tian. “Canadian corporations and registered charities face unprecedented challenges in today’s global context. Strengthening the collaboration between these two sectors will help improve corporate decision making and benefit society at large.”


Put the Relationship Back in Selling Insurance - Kelly Grisham, ITC
From ITC Agent Conference 2015... Since the beginning of the Internet, price, service, and support are often the only contact points with the consumer. Are you making your point of contact an important one? Are you building a relationship with your clients? Or are you acting like a robot? Learn how to put the relationship back into selling insurance. Don't be a robot.


Confira logo abaixo lindas Frases de amor em inglês
Frase: You make me cry, you make me smile, you are everything to me.
Frase: You taught me to love, cannot live without you.
Frase: My life has no meaning without you by my side.
Frase: I think about you all the time, I love you so much that it is impossible to forget you.
Frase: I want to be everything to you, your love, your peace, your best company.
Frase: You’re the best thing that happened to me already.
Frase: I will love you all the days of my life.
Frase: My life was complete while you were part of it. Now I do not know do not live a day without knowing that I have you with me.
Frase: Look into my eyes, all that love is yours.
Frase: I want your kiss, his smell, his embrace, his voice tell me things that comfort me. I want you.
Frase: You changed my way of seeing life, everything in me was more complete after you arrived.
Frase: You are my reason to smile every morning.
Frase: The stars in the sky will prove to you that I was born to love you.
Frase: I was born to you and you were born for me. Our souls are completed.
Frase: All I did was to have you by my side. I’m sorry for not being perfect love. If I made a mistake of loving you for so much.
Frase: You’re my air, my floor is my peace. Without you I’m nothing, I cannot be happy. Please stay with me baby.
Frase: I knew I loved you since the first time I looked into your eyes. You’re all I ever wanted. It’s my love.
Frase: His fate was traced along with mine, that love is the gift that God gave me. I’ll only be happy if I have you with me.
Frase: Look at me, do not do so, say you love me, I am also whom you have always dreamed.
Frase: There will never be a greater love than this.
Frase: My angel, back to me. You’re all I want. I need you to live.
Frase: Learned from you that love is the most beautiful thing there is. I do not want to lose you ever, you’re the air that makes me breathe.
Frase: You is gorgeous, your face is gorgeous, your way is gorgeous, your voice me encanta. Each piece has its a bit of me, I need it all to survive.[
Frase: My love, our love is the most beautiful of the universe. Love you all my life, until death can separate us.
Frase: Nothing can change what I feel for you, you know why? I love you baby.
Frase: Our love is written in the stars baby.
Frase: You inspire me, I hallucinate, delights me. You make me want to live follies, inspires me every freedom.