top of page

Friends and Family

Public·161 members
Christian Thompson
Christian Thompson

Couples !FULL!

Couples had a sanitized room to wait in until they were ready for us to take a covid test. In all it was a total of 10 min out of our day. They were friendly and informative. Now we are at the bar and heading to the beach. Ya mon. Thank you couples for making it so safe and easy. We will see you in April.


According to a recent study by researchers from the US and China, the experience of mingling domestic needs with career tasks poses very different challenges for the respective halves of heterosexual married couples.

The statistics revealed that everybody felt they got more done around the house when working from home alone. When dual-income couples were home together, men typically completed fewer household jobs. For women, having their husband home during work hours didn't lighten their domestic load at all.

Relationship resources for couples from the Gottman Institute: relationship and marriage advice, tips, products and a network of therapists. If you are just dating, newlyweds or newly committed, empty nesters, considering divorce or just looking for ideas to improve communication with your partner, the Gottmans 40 years of research can help.

The Gottman Relationship Adviser was developed using proven assessment and therapy methods created by world-renowned psychologists Drs. John and Julie Gottman. With the ability to complete it alone or with a partner, this unparalleled, accessible system to relationship building is proven to help you heal and strengthen your connection, right from the comfort of your own home. The Gottman Method has helped millions of couples build happy, healthy lifelong partnerships. What are you waiting for? Get started today!

Discover our popular relationship books and other resources for couples, including the New York Times bestseller, The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work, which has sold over one million copies in more than a dozen languages.

As psychologists, we've studied more than 40,000 partners about to begin couples therapy. We've also been happily married to each other for 35 years, so we know a thing or two about successful relationships.

While every partnership is unique, with its own set of challenges, there's one thing that all couples have in common: We want to be appreciated. To be acknowledged for our efforts. We want to be seen.

This is the first large-scale, paired-testing study to assess housingdiscrimination against same-sex couples in metropolitanrental markets via advertisements on the Internet. The researchis based on 6,833 e-mail correspondence tests conducted in50 metropolitan markets across the United States from Junethrough October 2011. For each correspondence test, two e-mailswere sent to the housing provider, each inquiring about theavailability of the unit advertised on the Internet. The onlydifference between the two e-mails was the sexual orientationof the couple making the inquiry. Two sets of correspondencetests were conducted, one assessing the treatment of gay malecouples relative to heterosexual couples and one assessing thetreatment of lesbian couples relative to heterosexual couples.This methodology provides the first direct evidence of discriminatorytreatment of same-sex couples compared with the treatment of heterosexual couples when searching for rental housingadvertised on the Internet in the United States.

The study finds that same-sex couples experience less favorabletreatment than heterosexual couples in the online rentalhousing market. The primary form of adverse treatment is thatsame-sex couples receive significantly fewer responses to e-mailinquiries about advertised units than heterosexual couples.Study results in jurisdictions with state-level protections againsthousing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation unexpectedlyshow slightly more adverse treatment of same-sexcouples than results in jurisdictions without such protections.This study provides an important initial observation of discriminationbased on sexual orientation at the threshold stageof the rental transaction and is a point of departure for futureresearch on housing discrimination against same-sex couples.

Background: Evidence on viral load and HIV transmission risk in HIV-serodiscordant male homosexual couples is limited to one published study. We calculated transmission rates in couples reporting condomless anal intercourse (CLAI), when HIV-positive partners were virally suppressed, and daily pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) was not used by HIV-negative partners.

Methods: In the Opposites Attract observational cohort study, serodiscordant male homosexual couples were recruited from 13 clinics in Australia, one in Brazil, and one in Thailand. At study visits, HIV-negative partners provided information on sexual behaviour and were tested for HIV and sexually transmitted infections; HIV-positive partners had HIV viral load tests, CD4 cell count, and sexually transmitted infection tests done. Viral suppression was defined as less than 200 copies per mL. Linked within-couple HIV transmissions were identified with phylogenetic analysis. Incidence was calculated per couple-year of follow-up, focusing on periods with CLAI, no use of daily PrEP, and viral suppression. One-sided upper 95% CI limits for HIV transmission rates were calculated with exact Poisson methods.

Findings: From May 8, 2012, to March 31, 2016, in Australia, and May 7, 2014, to March 31, 2016, in Brazil and Thailand, 358 couples were enrolled. 343 couples had at least one follow-up visit and were followed up for 5884 couple-years. 258 (75%) of 343 HIV-positive partners had viral loads consistently less than 200 copies per mL and 115 (34%) of 343 HIV-negative partners used daily PrEP during follow-up. 253 (74%) of 343 couples reported within-couple CLAI during follow-up, with a total of 16 800 CLAI acts. Three new HIV infections occurred but none were phylogenetically linked. There were 2322 couple-years of follow-up and 12 447 CLAI acts in periods when CLAI was reported, HIV-positive partners were virally suppressed, and HIV-negative partners did not use daily PrEP, resulting in an upper CI limit of 159 per 100 couple-years of follow-up for transmission rate.

In addition, we conducted these studies in only three major metro areas. We do not know whether selecting different metros, more metros, or smaller metros would have led to different results. These and other limitations might account for the differences between our findings and findings from earlier studies. Our more modest findings might reflect differences in study scale, study sites, or a change in how housing providers interact with same-sex couples and transgender people. Findings from this pilot and exploratory study are not generalizable beyond the metro areas where we conducted tests.

Intervention(s): The reasons for ceasing treatment were evaluated by scrutinizing the medical records for all couples (n = 288) who did not achieve live birth and who did not complete three stimulated IVF cycles. A questionnaire was sent to all patients for whom the reason for discontinuation was not obvious from the medical records (n = 211).

Result(s): Of 450 couples not achieving live birth, 208 completed their subsidized cycles, whereas 242 discontinued IVF. In 192 (79%) of the 242 cases, the reasons for ceasing treatment could be identified from records or questionnaires. The reason for discontinuation was psychological burden in 26%, a poor prognosis in 25%, spontaneous pregnancy in 19%, physical burden in 6%, serious disease in 2%, and other reasons in 7%.

Conclusion(s): An unexpectedly high percentage of couples who performed IVF discontinued the treatment before the three cycles that were offered to a majority of the couples. A majority of these discontinuations were due to psychological stress. This information is of importance when counseling patients during treatment.

At the center of the amourous round robin is Piet Hannema. His first affair is with Georgene but he dumps her for pregnant Foxy. At the same time the "Little-Smiths" swap partners with the Appleby couple. Harold and Janet keep their affair secret while they know about the affair of Frankie and Marcia. After Foxy gives birth to her son, Piet loses interest and has a fling with Bea Guerin. Foxy informs him that their last goodbye shag had unintended consequences. They try to arrange a discreet abortion and seek help from Freddy. He offers aid but, as revenge for Piets affair with his wife Georgene, demands a night with Piets wife Angela in return. Angela consents, but Freddy turns out to be impotent, at least for the act itself. The abortion is done in Boston; Foxy has a fit crying to keep Piets baby. However, Angela wants to leave Piet and suggests he should marry Foxy, who separated from Ken. Piet temporarily finds comfort but no satisfaction in the arms of Bea Guerin. Eventually Angela tells Piet to leave her house, and for a longer period he lives on his own, having become a pariah among the couples of Tarbox. His partner Gallagher suggests a separation too and pays him off. In a final scene Piet and the society of Tarbox witness a fire that destroys the local church. The following years are summarized in a short final passage: Angela took a job as teacher and got a divorce, shortly after Piet married Foxy and they moved to Lexington, where they found new friends.

The novel was widely and enthusiastically reviewed, landing Updike on the cover of Time magazine, a rare location for an author.[3] Time, while detailing similarities between real Ipswich and fictional Tarbox ("it is worth noting that the Updikes are the ringleaders of a group of like-minded couples whom the older Ipswichers call the Junior Jet Set. Updike has organized endless basketball, volleyball and touch-football games, led the jet set on skiing trips, and presided over countless intramural parties. Says one member of the set: 'What we have evolved is a ritual. It sets up a rhythm where we are all available to each other. It's rather as if all of us belong to a family.' Adds another friend without elaboration: 'You can't sustain that very long without its being very destructive'"), called the book "sensational". Critic and novelist Wilfred Sheed, in the New York Times Book Review, found Couples "ingenious" and "scorching...the games are described with loving horror." Addressing the novel's famous frankness about sexual manners, Sheed wrote, "If this is a dirty book, I don't see how sex can be written about at all. Updike's treatment of sex is central to his method, which is that of a fictional biochemist approaching mankind with a tray of hypersensitive gadgets."[4]


Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...


bottom of page