By Judi Light Hopson, Emma H. Hopson, R.N., and Ted Hagen, Ph.D., McClatchy-Tribune News Service

Do you realize that over-giving can hurt your relationships with family and friends?

Doing too much for others can certainly wear you down. But, it can also weaken the bonding process between two people.

The give-and-take between two people creates mutual respect. It strengthens the relationship.

“I counsel men and women who are chronic people pleasers,” says a psychologist friend of ours we’ll call Dave.

“I coach these folks in how to speak up for their needs,” says Dave. “They have to learn that a spouse must be required to give. A child must be required to give. A friend must be required to give.”

Asking someone to help you run errands, clean the house, plan a party or scratch your back is a huge stretch for some people.

“Asking is crucial,” says Dave. “It tells the other person you have mutual dependency. It tells them you have a bond.”

Women, especially, have trouble asking for their needs to be met. Tradition has taught women to give much in relationships and expect little in return.

Consider a woman we’ll call Sandy. Sandy has been dating a man for seven years. Sandy cleans his house, watches his children on weekends, and pays some of his bills.

“This man,” says Sandy, “is leaving me.”

Sandy’s man has fallen for a woman at his church, it turns out.

Sandy gave too much for too long in the relationship.

For starters, Sandy did not create a true bond with the man she was dating. She gave so much of herself, she caused serious gaps in the bonding process.

Bonding for a male and female requires that each that each grows to rely on the other. This means emotional and physical reliance. By not setting standards for her own treatment, Sandy cheated her man of ways to bond with her.

A couple we know, whom we’ll call Connie and Jim, still argue after 12 years of marriage like young teenagers. Both of them stay totally frustrated. Connie is a champion over-giver in the relationship.

We advised Connie and Jim to do the following:

•Ask three things of each other daily. These should be small five-minute chores or errands. Doing for each other builds an understanding of each other’s needs.

Build friendships with three couples. Jim’s relatives visit Connie and Jack every single day. Instead, they need to bond with couples not related to them. Relatives coming over too much can wreck a marriage.

Discuss personal weaknesses. Jim is a perfectionist, so Connie is crippled in stating her anxieties or needs to Jim. Perfectionism is a form of abuse. Connie and Jim can’t bond if they don’t share personal vulnerabilities.

Another example of giving too much involves a man we’ll call Greg. Greg divorced his children’s mother five years ago.

“When my children visit, I try to make up for lost time,” says Greg. “I really spoil them. We see four movies in one weekend, and I let them buy tons of stuff.”

We advised Greg to stop giving so much. His children need unstructured time to just hang out with him. This can’t happen if they see four movies in two days.

The kids also need to do chores at Greg’s house. They need to know Greg depends on them for real input into his life. Greg is playing more of a Santa Claus role with his kids.

Children who have real roles to play in their families feel needed. While everyone wants to feel loved, we all bond with others who truly need us in their lives.

Source: orlandosentinel.com

Friday, November 20, 2009
By Yvonne Fulbright

The long-awaited breakthrough in women’s sexual dysfunction may be here. German drugmaker Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) GmbH claims to have made a pill that will awaken female sexual desire.

This Prince Charming of investigational compounds promises to arouse Cinderella by decreasing inhibitions. This experimental desire drug plays with her mind literally, working on the brain.

Known as Flibanserin, this magic pill has sexual medicine bracing itself for a Viagra-like reception of this first of its kind pharmaceutical treatment for her. With women likelier to report sexual problems than men, sales for the U.S. market alone are projected to surpass the $2 billion Americans spend on erectile dysfunction treatments.

Before the money starts rolling in, however, it will take the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 6-18 months to decide whether it will approve Flibanserin.

Still, should you be more concerned than hopeful over its promise to transform women’s sex lives?

Flibanserin was originally researched as a possible treatment for depression and not as a possible contestant in the race for a “female Viagra.” While it didn’t lift users’ moods, researchers noticed that sexual appetite was rated consistently higher on measures of well-being. This prompted BI to conduct three separate, 24-week clinical trials investigating its potential to treat hyposexual desire disorder, which in laymen’s terms translates to a low-libido.

The more than 5,000 female participants recruited in the U.S. and Europe were mostly professionals in their early 30s to mid-40s in stable, monogamous, communicative, heterosexual relationships with a sexually functional partner. They were concerned, bothered, or frustrated with their low desire or its negative impact on their relationships.

Upon starting the treatment, they were asked to gauge their “satisfying sexual events.” They were beeped once daily and asked to rate their desire, as well as note whether they had been sexually active that day and if it was enjoyable.

Findings revealed an increase in the number of satisfying sexual events and sexual desire while distress due to hyposexual desire disorder decreased. These satisfying events included sexual intercourse, oral sex, masturbation, or genital stimulation by one’s partner.

Sounds great, right? Before getting too excited, though, consider the controversial issues at hand.

Even prior to its press blast Monday, BI was finding itself in the middle of the debate on how to deal with low or no libido. Can it be as simple as popping a pill? Or do the often multiple and complex issues involved require a more thoughtful, holistic approach?

Regardless, is a lack of interest in sex a true medical condition? Is there even a disorder to treat to begin with? Decreased desire may serve an evolutionary purpose, for example, enabling females to take care of their offspring.

Female sexual dysfunction has been criticized for being a “disease” created by pharmaceutical companies to make healthy individuals believe they have a problem requiring medicine. Who is to say that it’s dysfunctional, especially when there can be other factors at play?

A person’s relationship, beliefs, values, feelings, comfort level, and motivations, as well as a host of other issues, may be to blame — not the body or brain.

Proponents for the drug argue that decreased female desire is all in her head — a brain dysfunction of sorts.

Regardless of which side you’re on, there are other unavoidable issues that must be attended to, like:

BI researchers don’t know how Flibanserin works. They don’t know why it failed as an antidepressant. They’re guessing on why it helps female libido. Relying on a model of sexual excitatory and inhibitory structures in the brain, they’re unable to pinpoint how or where Flibanserin acts.

What we do know is that Flibanserin is a serotonin drug, with the same 5-HT1A chemistry as Buspar (buspirone), an anti-anxiety drug that functions differently than traditionally anti-anxiety meds like Valium and is said to be nonhabit-forming. Flibanserin works by blocking the release of serotonin, a brain chemical which regulates mood, memory, sleep and appetite.

After 3-6 weeks of daily 100 milligram use, the brain’s production of the neurotransmitter dopamine should increase, stimulating desire. While that sounds fancy and seems to make sense, nobody knows what this drug is treating exactly. We also don’t know the implications, including the brain altering effects, of this psychoactive drug.

The difference in research findings between continents hasn’t been explained. While significant differences were found between those taking the drug versus those using the placebo in North America, the European trials found no significant increase in sexual satisfying events between its two comparison groups. Answering this question stands to open a whole can of worms, including how an individual measures desire.

Even the researchers involved in the studies admit that sexual desire is difficult to define. What is “normal” sexual desire? Right now, there is no baseline by which to define low desire disorder.

Why didn’t sexual desire diminish post-trial? BI has yet to explain why participants who took the drug reported that sexual desire didn’t diminish after the study concluded. This begs questions like did Flibanserin permanently affect participants’ brain chemistry? Or was brain chemistry not a significant factor in most low desire cases?

The drug’s long-term safety and potential withdrawal problems are unknown. Right now, we don’t know the safety of the drug beyond 6 months of use. Side effects in the first two weeks of trials included dizziness, fatigue, anxiety, nausea, daytime sleepiness, dry mouth, and insomnia. The majority of these were resolved with continued treatment, though it’s worth noting that 15 percent of participants discontinued treatment because of the side effects.

Despite studying the drug for over a decade, BI has yet to publish clinical test results proving the drug’s effectiveness. It does, however, need to wrap up its research, and may be able to respond to the red flags being raised.

With most women in the study stating that low desire had “crept up” on them over time, you or your partner may want to keep that in mind if chronic low desire is ever experienced.

Instead of reinforcing the “it’s all in her head” stereotype about females, consider drug-free strategies to get to a better place. These may include becoming more sexually informed, evaluating one’s contraceptive use, therapy, and/or cultivating better communication and a healthier relationship (or getting out of one).

Dr. Yvonne K. Fulbright is a sex educator, relationship expert, columnist and founder of Sexuality Source Inc. She is the author of several books including, “Touch Me There! A Hands-On Guide to Your Orgasmic Hot Spots.”

Source: www.foxnews.com

Two Marie Claire writers weigh in with male and female perspectives on whether or not they feel a woman who brings home the bacon is a good or a bad thing.

By Diana Vilibert and Abraham Lloyd

Source: Lifestyle.msn.com

She Said: I grew up in a single-parent home with my mother who, by default, was (and remains) the breadwinner. She went on to date and marry, and in every relationship, she brought home the bacon and fried it up, with no complaints from the lucky men she was with. For me, the breadwinner wife “trend” (according to the New York Times) is just the norm.

That’s not to say that I’m ignorant to the fact that some men would have a problem with it. Money is not just money, after all, and to many it represents success, power, and strength … all qualities that, I must add, are not exclusively male ones. Am I being naive? Perhaps. But I’m not sure I’d want to date someone who would squirm uncomfortably every time I brought home a paycheck. I want someone who celebrates all of my successes, monetary ones included.

When I asked a select few ex-boyfriends for their opinion, they enthusiastically agreed that it’s completely acceptable for women to be breadwinners. Granted, their answers were perhaps a bit self-serving considering my streak of dating not-exactly-employed struggling musicians, but even my most alpha-male breadwinning ex, when questioned, asked, “Where can I find one?”

Like the New York Times article pointed out, the unemployment rate for men is 10 percent, compared to 7.6 percent for women, so whether it’s “okay” or not, reality is in favor of women as breadwinners. Now is not the time to let ego get in the way of paying rent and putting food on the table.

He Said: Let me start by stating that I am about to reveal one of the dirty little secrets men have and lie about constantly. The reality is that it takes an exceptionally confident and self-assured man to be comfortable with a woman being the breadwinner in a relationship. As a gender we don’t admit this. “Of course!” we say. “I wish my wife was so that I could stay home,” we boast. “How great would it be to not have to work?” we ponder smugly, as if having a partner who lived up to this would solve all our problems. But most of us who say these things are lying through our collective grinning teeth.

The truth is that, while most men are attracted to women with power (and money is a vehicle for power), we do not want powerful women for partners. The idea of a woman who desires, earns, and achieves more is scary. Most men simply do not want to compete with their partners for power. Our partners can earn, do, and achieve slightly more than us and we’re fine with it. It’s a fun and friendly competition, and it helps keep us honest and focused. If, however, you eclipse us to the point that we can’t out-earn or success you, we’ll lose interest faster than you can say “corner office.”

For those of you who watched Sex and the City, remember Steve breaking up with Miranda because she wanted to buy him an expensive suit for an event at her law firm? He said, “No way. I’ll start to think of you like my mother … You need to be with someone more on your level.” Now, I realize this is horribly unfair. The reality, though, is that most men would rather reach down than up economically. It’s safer, less stressful, more comfortable, and ultimately sad.

This is why it takes an exceptional man to be in a relationship with a breadwinner. Exceptional men don’t measure themselves solely against their partner’s income or success. They measure themselves by knowing who they are, understanding the difference they make in their partner’s life, and by celebrating their partner’s success instead of being jealous of it.

Is he truly incapable of putting down the toilet seat? Can he really have passionate sex and not even think about calling you again? We go exploring for answers

By Carol Mithers

Source: lifestyle.msn.com

The more science learns about how men are different from us (right down to the structure of their brains), the more we find ourselves hoping it will finally explain some age-old mysteries. For instance:

Why do men keep their cars spotless but live like pigs at home—while for women it’s the other way around?

According to Simon Baron-Cohen, Ph.D., author of The Essential Difference: Male and Female Brains and the Truth About Autism, men’s neurological wiring tends to make them better at systems, while women are superiorly rigged for empathy. Which could help explain why — although the culture is changing — guys still take such pride in their machines, while women often care more about maintaining a clean home.

Another clue comes from a 2007 study (conducted for BMW by a British team that included Oxford psychologists), which found that male drivers actually view their cars as extensions of themselves. Women, whose self-image is tied more directly to their bodies, are likely to think of their vehicles as separate entities, the authors suggest. But because men are less tuned-in to their bodies, they easily project their identity onto an object. If only that object were a sink full of dirty dishes.

Why do men like to watch violent sports, while a good number of women would rather do almost anything else?

The truth is, football has a lot of female fans (44.3 million women watched the 2009 Super Bowl, for example). But guys are drawn to football (and boxing and wrestling) in ways that women aren’t. Men tend to be more aggressive, says Lucy L. Brown, Ph.D., a professor in the departments of neurology and neuroscience at Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. The difference likely involves hormones (like testosterone) and sensitivities to those hormones in parts of the brain such as the hypothalamus — which, in animals, is associated with aggression. Fine, but does he really have to shriek “Kill him!” when the other team’s quarterback is about to get sacked? Yes, he does: If you’re a guy, watching your team win increases testosterone levels, according to a 1998 study in Physiology & Behavior. Viewing combative sports also helps men identify with traditional ideals of masculinity like domination, risk taking, and competition, explains Douglas Hartmann, PhD, associate professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota. “In fact,” he says, “the less physically competitive his daily life is, the more sports can become a means toward achieving those ideals, at least in his mind.”

Why can a man enthusiastically (very enthusiastically) sleep with a woman he knows he’ll never see again?

Well, there’s the old Evolution Did It theory: Men are hardwired to spread their seed; women, to find a mate who will protect the children she may bear. Physical differences may play a role, too. According to Lisa Diamond, Ph.D., an associate professor of psychology and gender studies at the University of Utah, not only do female rats have more extensive brain circuits for oxytocin — which helps mammals to bond — than males but in humans, women show greater release of the neurochemical during sex (especially orgasm) than men.

Also, biological anthropologist and Rutgers University professor Helen Fisher, Ph.D., notes: “The two brain hemispheres are less well connected in men than in women. This gives men the ability to focus on one thing at a time and be very goal oriented, whereas the female brain is built to assimilate many feelings at once, and to connect sex and love much more rapidly.” Interesting, plausible theories all, but Lucy Brown cautions that we’re still really just guessing. And in the end, the fact that men forever remain a bit of a mystery may be part of what keeps us intrigued.

By Olivia Smith
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Monday, July 20th 2009

Source: nydailynews.com

Some say married couples grow more alike over the years. But a recently engaged pair is already perfectly in sync in one unusual respect - they have exactly the same name.

Kelly Hildebrandt, female, age 20, went searching last February for people who shared her name on Facebook.

She found Kelly Hildebrandt, male, of Lubbock, Texas, with a sexy shirtless photo as an added bonus.

The female Kelly sent her male counterpart a brief message.

“I just told him that I saw that we had the same name and I thought it was kind of cool, and that I just wanted to say Hi. It was a sentence, the whole thing was only one sentence,” she told the “Today” show on Sunday. continue reading