Friday, 19 May 2017

Peak fertility increases satisfaction with ‘manly’ husbands....

Women feel more satisfied with masculine husbands when they are at their most fertile.
Psychologist Andrea L. Meltzer made this claim following her study of 70 newly married couples.
Each relationship represented the first marriage for both spouses involved. She asked the
participants to fill out a questionnaire every evening for 14 days. Wives were asked how happy
they were with their marriage as well as their “conception risk”. This risk was highest when they were ovulating. Meanwhile, the husbands were given questions about what extent they behaved in typically “masculine” ways. They were asked how powerful, assertive or dominant they had been during the course of each day.
The purpose of this research was to test a hypothesis Meltzer held about relationships. She
explained that previous research has shown that “women demonstrate ovulatory shifts in their
mate preferences in the context of short-term relationships”. Basically, this means that when a
woman is at her most fertile, she is most likely to find men who display manly qualities more
attractive. Meltzer wondered if this would carry over to long-term committed relationships –
specifically marriage – as well.
She found that women whose husbands displayed “behavioral masculinity” reported higher
levels of overall happiness with their marriage at peak fertility. Meanwhile, wives whose spouse
did not exhibit such traits did not see any significant change in their satisfaction.
Meltzer explained there was one caveat to her finding. As her study involved newlyweds it was
“unclear whether the results generalize to other populations of long-term couples such as dating
couples or couples who have been married for longer periods of time”. She suggested another
potential issue was that the men reported on their own levels of masculinity. As these claims
“may be subject to self-report bias, future research should consider using more objective
measures of men’s masculinity.
Now you know!
to read more click here

Friday, 21 April 2017

On the 20th April in 1534: Elizabeth Barton, traditionalist prophet, is executed for attacking Henry VIII's divorce


An article in yesterday's Telegraph caught my eye, Elizabeth Barton’s childhood is unknown. She was uneducated, and aged 19 was working in the household of Thomas Cobb, farm manager to the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Warham.
Barton’s fame increased when she prophesied her cure at a nearby chapel, then professed as a nun at St Sepulchre, Canterbury. Warham was closely involved, and even gave King Henry VIII a copy of her divine revelations.

At the convent, she became familiar with the visions of Saints Catherine of Siena and Bridget of Sweden, and perhaps started to see herself as similarly chosen. As news of her visions and prophecies spread, she received a constant stream of visitors eager for her guidance and intercession.

The stakes increased when Warham introduced her to Cardinal Wolsey, who was impressed by her, and met her several more times, before eventually arranging for her to meet the king. The two got on well, and Henry saw her on a number of further occasions.

When Henry began his programme of religious reforms, Barton came down strongly on the side of tradition, speaking out in favour of protecting the Church. Leading Protestants took against her.
Barton crossed a fateful line when she prophesied that disaster, war, plagues, and other calamities would afflict England if Henry abandoned Catherine of Aragon and married Anne Boleyn.

Her most serious statement predicted that if the annulment went ahead, “hys Majestie shulde not be kynge of this Realme by the space of one moneth after, And in the reputacion of God shuld not be kynge one day nor one houre.” Thomas More intervened, meeting her, and advising her not to stray into “thinges as perteyne to princes' affeirs, or the state of the realme”. However, Barton remained firm in her convictions, and even wrote to the Pope.

Thomas Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer, by now Archbishop of Canterbury, moved in to silence her. A number of Barton’s supporters were arrested, and by November 1533 she was in the Tower. Following numerous examinations, it was announced that she had confessed to heresy and treason. She was made to do public penance at St Paul’s Cross, and she then confessed publicly. The Spanish ambassador noted that the event was a pitiful comedy designed to lower her standing in public opinion. The spectacle was repeated soon after at Canterbury.

Taking care to avoid a trial, in March 1534 Cromwell arranged for Barton and six of her supporters to be convicted of treason by act of attainder.  On 20 April, they were all executed. Barton was hanged and beheaded.

Possession of any of Barton’s writings was made an imprisonable offence, and most materials relating to her life and proclamations were destroyed, so it is difficult to reconstruct the real person. Writers of the period enjoyed extremes. Protestant authors portrayed her as a cunning, manipulative, and dishonest charlatan. Catholic writers saw her as a sincere mystic and a martyr. All that is certain is that she was an English mystic who profoundly impressed many, including Henry VIII, Cardinal Wolsey, Thomas More, and Archbishop Warham.

In other circumstances, she may have ended up remembered alongside other medieval and early-modern women visionaries and mystics like Julian of Norwich, Margery Kempe, St Catherine, St Bridget and St Joan of Arc.

As it is, she is remembered as the only English woman ever to have had her head skewered on a spike on London Bridge.

How things have changed...

For more information click here

Wednesday, 5 April 2017

Former Spice Girl Mel B claims estranged husband Stephen Belafonte brutally abused her, got the nanny pregnant

Clearly all that glitters is not gold, as reports in the press today reveal that the latest marriage of spice girl, Melanie Brown was abusive and controlling.

Yet on Sunday on Instagram she claimed "My hubby never would lay a hand on me."

The former girl band member who was known as Scary Spice, detailed the alleged abuse in a bombshell court filing that won her a temporary restraining order Monday against Stephen Belafonte.

She said Belafonte's brutal attacks often coincided with her career success, such as her finale 
on "Dancing with the Stars" and her judging work on the UK and Australian versions of "X Factor."

Brown, 41, said it was shortly after she placed runner-up on the fifth season of "DWTS" in 
November 2007 that Belafonte — her husband of only five months at that point — pounced on her 
minutes before a live television interview.

He was in a rage and I had no idea why," she wrote in her statement. "He placed both of his hands
around my neck and began choking me. He then slammed me down onto the hardwood floor."

She said Belafonte punched her with a closed fist in July 2012, causing her lip to split and 
swell, after she and recording artist Usher taped a promotional segment in New York for the 
Australian version of "X Factor."

She said Belafonte accused her of triggering his furor by flirting with Usher and threatened to 
release sex tapes if she reported him.

"He told me that no one would believe me because everyone thinks I'm crazy. He called me a 
'f---ing monkey,' told me I was dumb and said that I was a 'derelict,'" 
she wrote.

For more information click here

Friday, 3 March 2017

PC brigade declare the end of mankind: University bans lecturers from using series of phrases that could be deemed sexist

A step too far perhaps?
An article in The Mail this morning informs us that Lecturers have been banned from using the
phrases ‘mankind’ and ‘man-made’ as part of a university’s clampdown on ‘gendered language’.

Cardiff Metropolitan University says the ‘politically correct’ words should be used to ‘promote
an atmosphere in which all students and staff feel valued’.

The rules are laid out in the institution’s Equal Opportunities Policy, which warns
contraventions could result in disciplinary action.

It says ‘inclusive language’ must be used throughout all academic programmes to comply with the
Equality Act as gendered words could be considered discriminatory.
Other rules include using ‘forename’ instead of ‘Christian name’ to avoid offending people of a
diverse range of faiths.

And staff should avoid using the phrase ‘wheelchair bound’ because it is ‘patronising and
pitying’, while ‘wheelchair user’ is ‘empowering’.

The document states: ‘Should individuals consider that in the course of interaction with
students or staff that this code has not been adhered to and that further action is required,
there are two courses of action.
‘For students please refer to the Bullying and Harassment Policy. For staff members the
Disciplinary procedure applies, as it does in the event of students talking inappropriately to
staff.’

It says that ‘politically correct terminology can change’ but lists a range of examples of words
and phrases which staff should avoid.
These also include ‘best man for the job’, ‘forefathers’, ‘housewife’, ‘man in the street’,
‘manpower’ and ‘right-hand man’.

Even terms such as ‘headmistress’ and ‘headmaster’ as well as Mrs and Miss are considered
offensive, according to the guide.
It also says staff should avoid ‘falling into the trap of making assumptions based on your own
cultural background.’

And it advises alternating the order of the genders when talking about women and men, he or she,
mother and father so that neither are given undue importance.
It adds: ‘If the gender of the person is unknown, don’t make an assumption, but use “he or she”
or, where appropriate, use the plural “they”.

‘Sexuality can be a minefield too, according to the policy, which advises against the terms
‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ because they are ‘laden with the values of a previous time’.
The new words to use are ‘same-sex’ and ‘other-sex’ relationships, the documents advises.

For disability, ‘the disabled’ is advised against and instead staff should refer to ‘people with
disability’.

I think I may be lost for words!

To read the full article click here

Tuesday, 21 February 2017

Be careful what you wish for......

A recent article by Patrick Foster of The Telegraph informs us that the Wife of a millionaire
farmer may have to live next door to him for three years and pay a six-figure legal bill before
they can split.

A woman whose attempts to divorce her multi-millionaire mushroom farmer husband were blocked by a judge has been left with a £100,000 legal bill.

Tini Owens, 66, who is living in a farmhouse only yards from her estranged husband’s Cotswold
home, must wait another three years before she is able to divorce Hugh Owens, 78, after a judge
turned down her petition to end their “intensely unhappy” marriage last year.

It is understood that she was told to pay £20,000 towards her husband’s costs, and faced legal
fees of her own of around £80,000.

Mrs Owens, who has been married for 39 years, this week asked the Court of Appeal to overturn
the “extraordinarily unusual” ruling, claiming that it constituted an “unreasonable and
disproportionate restriction” of her human rights.

Three appeal judges - led by Sir James Munby, the most senior family court judge in England
and Wales - analysed the case at a hearing in London on Tuesday.

They are expected to publish a ruling soon.

Click here for more information

Sunday, 29 January 2017

Women share the shocking reasons why they're addicted to cheating on their husbands as it emerges only HALF regret having an affair


An article by STEPHANIE LINNING FOR MAILONLINE today, informs us
 - Wives and girlfriends shared the reasons why they are addicted to cheating
 - One said she was afraid of being alone while others loved male attention
 - Comes as a poll reveals that only half of women regret having an affair

Women have shared the reasons why they are addicted to cheating on their partners.
Writing on anonymous confessions website Whisper, wives and girlfriends said the fear of being
alone, the need for attention and wanting more sex drove them to being unfaithful.
Others could not let go of previous relationships. One woman said: 'I can't stop cheating on my
boyfriends with my ex because I am still in love with him.
It comes as a new survey by Mirror Survation revealed that nearly half of women who have had an
affair did not regret their decision.

But the poll of 1,000 people did reveal their were repercussions to cheating, with more than 30
per cent of women saying it led to the end of their marriage or relationship.
A further 10 per cent said they were socially excluded by friends.  
Relationship expert Dr Pam Spurr told the newspaper middle-aged women might consider cheating
because 'the daily grind wears things away'.
Read More

Thursday, 15 December 2016

Ex-husbands who don't pay up after divorce could face lose their driving licenses or passports



  • The only penalty a wife can ask for now is for husband to get prison sentence
  • Proposals mean husbands who don't pay could be banned from driving for a year
  • It was also recommended that judges have powers to confiscate passports
  • Justice Secretary Liz Truss will decide if these should form the basis of new laws


Reports in The Mail today, inform us that divorced men who try to wriggle out of paying off their ex-wives could face a driving ban.
Law reformers yesterday called for fresh sanctions against those who avoid paying divorce 
settlements ordered by the courts.
Among the penalties should be 12-month driving bans and the confiscation of passports, 
the Law Commission said.
The plan for husbands, and some wives, follows complaints that 'family financial orders' imposed 
in a divorce are frequently ignored, and that those who fail to pay cannot easily be punished.
At present the only penalty a wife can ask for if her former husband fails to pay up is a prison
sentence, but judges need a criminal standard of proof before they will send an unco-operative 
divorcee to jail, so the punishment is rarely enforced.

The Commission's recommendations mean a husband who has not paid could be disqualified from 
driving for a year. A court would return his licence if he handed over the money.
However, the report said, it would be self-defeating to impose a driving ban on someone who 
needed to drive to earn a living, because they would lose the ability to make the money to pay 
their former spouse.
So, it also recommended that judges should have powers to confiscate passports. Only UK 
passports should be taken, the report said, and they should be given back when the erring spouse 
pays up.