Cool Alternative Health images | Health and Fitness

Some cool Alternative Health images:

Appointment for Sin (1962) ? Can Sex ?Just for Fun? Be Emotionally Healthy?? ?owning your sexuality? (October 11, 2011) ?..item 2..When the Sweet Spot Becomes a Sore Spot ? friction-intensive sex (October 31, 2011) ?

Image by marsmet525
I?m not sure what the phrase ?owning your sexuality? means to you, but for me, one thing it entails is responsibility: doing my best to make sexual choices that are sound for me and a partner. (That?s also part of doing consent well.) If I am offering something sexually light and fun but anticipate that it will be emotionally or interpersonally complex?or if I?m feeling stressed, confused and worried about it?then I can know that easy-breezy is neither what I can expect nor earnestly offer.

??..***** All images are copyrighted by their respective authors ??..
.
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????..
.
?..item 1)?. Ms. Magazine blog ? msmagazine.com/blog/ ?

You are here: Home / Health / Can Sex ?Just for Fun? Be Emotionally Healthy?
.
???????????????..

img code photo ? Casual Sex ?

msmagazine.com/blog/files/2011/10/Casual-Sex.jpg

???????????????..
.

Can Sex ?Just for Fun? Be Emotionally Healthy?
October 11, 2011 by Heather Corinna

msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/10/11/can-sex-just-for-fun-?

This week?s installment of Heather Corinna?s sex-and-relationships advice column tackles the issue of casual sex.

?Q: So excited for this new blog spot! Can you discuss whether it?s emotionally healthy to have sex outside of relationships? I want to own my sexuality, but all of the advice around me seems to be no-sex-outside-of-relationships-or-marriage. I know this depends on the individual, but any insight would be great! I?ve been toying with asking an ex?whom I am friends with?to have sex just for fun. I?m 98 percent sure he?ll agree, but I am worried about emotional health consequences. He has always wanted a much closer relationship than I do. I?m worried I?ll feel guilty for possibly leading him (or myself) into wanting more.

You?re right: this is a very individual and situational decision. To give some context, a recent study found that, on average, for 20-year-olds, casual sex and committed relationships led to the same level of psychological health. But individuals aren?t averages. Not everyone wants or is comfortable with sex in the same kinds of relationships or scenarios (including committed relationships). Context and interpersonal dynamics factor in, too.

There are some guidelines, however, that everyone can apply. When a sexual situation is likely to be sound, we usually feel good heading into it, as does anyone else involved. If we feel uncertain or predict negative feelings on anyone?s part, those are strong cues not to proceed.

I?m not sure what the phrase ?owning your sexuality? means to you, but for me, one thing it entails is responsibility: doing my best to make sexual choices that are sound for me and a partner. (That?s also part of doing consent well.) If I am offering something sexually light and fun but anticipate that it will be emotionally or interpersonally complex?or if I?m feeling stressed, confused and worried about it?then I can know that easy-breezy is neither what I can expect nor earnestly offer.

Even when I?m having sex-for-sex?s-sake?which I would define as sex that takes place outside of a larger intimate relationship, without any agreed-upon, intended or implied commitment?that doesn?t mean I have zero responsibility for my emotional health or that of others. My partner (or wanna-be partner) and I still owe one another respect, care and consideration, which includes considering possible outcomes, even if we don?t intend to be there with each other for them.

It sounds like you?re on board with that, and you?ve already voiced your own sense that this specific situation probably isn?t sound for you or your ex. While he?d likely agree to sex, clearly some of this wouldn?t be fun for him or you, and could be an emotional landmine. While your romantic relationship may be over, you two are in a relationship: you have a history and a friendship, and it sounds like you have strong feelings for and about one another that are not only or primarily sexual. If what you want is just a roll in the proverbial hay, this isn?t likely to be it.

It also sounds like you?ve been curious about sex outside of romantic relationships, but you haven?t felt supported in or exposed to alternatives. So you might also want to give yourself more time to take a bit more stock of what you want and to find people to talk with who aren?t all saying the same things. If that?s not currently available to you, Sex & Single Girls is a great anthology with a diverse array of women writing about various sexual experiences. I also think Jaclyn Friedman?s new book, What You Really Really Want, could be just the thing for you.

My best advice is that you hold out for an opportunity to explore casual sex if and when you feel a lot better about it. That will also likely entail a partner or scenario you don?t feel so conflicted about; that feels more likely to be explosive in the ways you want, rather than the ways you don?t.

Check out last week?s advice about lube blues.

Have a sex, sexual-health or relationships question you want answered? Email it to Heather at sexandrelationships@msmagazine.com. By sending a question to that address, you acknowledge you give permission for your question to be published. Your email address and any other personally identifying information will remain private. Not all questions will receive answers.
Photo from Flickr user skampy under Creative Commons 2.0.
.
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
.
?..item 2)?. Ms. Magazine blog ? msmagazine.com/blog ?

You are here: Home / Life / When the Sweet Spot Becomes a Sore Spot
.
?????????????????.

img code photo ? lesbian pride ?

msmagazine.com/blog/files/2011/10/lesbian-pride.jpg

?????????????????.
.

When the Sweet Spot Becomes a Sore Spot
October 31, 2011 by Heather Corinna

msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2011/10/31/when-the-sweet-spot-b?

Q: I?m a 21-year-old lesbian. A problem has popped up in me and my girlfriend?s sex life. When we practice tribadism with just skin, after a while a very small raw spot will show up, bringing with it a sharp pain. Both of us have this problem. Neither of us is clean-shaven, but we do trim?would shaving help? Is there anything else we can do?

A: Ah, friction. Sometimes it feels so awesome. Other times it hurts. Part of what makes genitals so sensitive is that genital tissue is far more delicate than other kinds of skin on our bodies. With genital friction, there?s a tipping point after which a wowie can turn into an owie.

To avoid being rubbed raw, first make sure you and your partner are always very well-lubricated. Lube from a bottle tends to do the job better than our bodies? lubricant when it comes to friction-intensive sex.

Apply lube before you start and add more as needed throughout. Be generous and don?t skimp.

I checked in with Searah Deysach, the fantastic owner of Early to Bed, to see if she had any specific lube suggestions; she keeps up with brands and types like nobody?s business. She suggested a high-quality silicone lube, such as Uberlube or Sliquid Silver?they tend to be longer-lasting and slicker than water-based lubricants. But if you prefer water-based, she suggests glycerin-free brands such as Sliquid Sea or Liquid Silk (my fave), which are kinder to vulvas and vaginas than those with glycerin.
Searah and I are of one mind about hairy issues. She says, ?Hair that is growing back after shaving can be especially irritating, as stubble can be vicious on delicate tissues. ? I agree. Stubble from hair removal is more likely to irritate than the softer pubic hair we tend to have when we don?t shave. If all you do is trim, chances are hair isn?t the problem.

Consider positioning. I?d suggest experimenting with an eye for reducing how much weight is being put on each of your genitals. Try finding ways you can scissor without anyone really being ?on top? at all, like lying on your backs toe to head. Searah suggested straddling your lover?s thigh as an alternative. Similar feeling, less pain. If you do like a missionary-style V-on-V position, whoever?s on top can try to balance so less weight rests on the other person?s tender bits?e.g., by bracing their hands on a headboard. Mixing up positions often helps, too. And if and when either of you start feeling raw, don?t keep going with the activity that got you there?take a break from genital sex or at least consider that spot done for the day. If it remains raw the next day, lay off the intense pressure for as long as it takes to heal.

Now and then this still might happen, especially because, when we?re very aroused, pleasure can cause us to space out on signals of pain. But with these adjustments, you can probably make it a rarity instead of a norm.

Check out last week?s advice to a woman whose fianc? monitored her vagina?s size.

Have a sex, sexual-health or relationships question you want answered? Email it to Heather at sexandrelationships@msmagazine.com. By sending a question to that address, you acknowledge you give permission for your question to be published. Your email address and any other personally identifying information will remain private. Not all questions will receive answers.

Photo from Flickr user Gray Marchiori-Simpson under license from Creative Commons 2.0

Line drawing from Wikimedia Commons.
.
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????.
.
.

Like a well eaten arm unable to fly, our economy is in a constant state of flux ????? to be quite?.. ??????.

Image by Jon Haynes Photography
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ&feature=channel_page

images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hereticalideas?

Do you trust your government? There are many reasons for you to doubt your government.

this is how I believe the U.S. feels now? how I believe I feel now.

Bailout type Cost to taxpayers (Source: Reuters)
Financial bailout package approved this week up to or more than 0 billion
Bear Stearns financing billion
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac nationalization 0 billion
AIG loan and nationalization billion
Federal Housing Administration housing rescue bill 0 billion
Mortgage community grants billion
JPMorgan Chase repayments billion
Loans to banks via Fed?s Term Auction Facility 0 billion+
Loans from Depression-era Exchange Stabilization Fund billion
Purchases of mortgage securities by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 4 billion
POSSIBLE TOTAL .8 trillion+
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS PER U.S. CENSUS 105,480,101
POSSIBLE COST PER HOUSEHOLD ,064+

Last week, the Bush administration proposed a three-page bill to bail out Wall Street to the tune of 0 billion. It died in the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this week.

On Friday, though, the House approved a far bigger, broader, and beefier version of the bill?which has ballooned to a remarkable 442 pages. The vote was 263 to 171, with the bulk of the opposition coming from Republicans. Because the Senate already approved the measure, it immediately went to President Bush, who signed it into law.

On the theory that this would be a way to convince previously skeptical Democrats to approve the measure, one large chunk of the bailout bill is devoted to renewable energy, energy-efficient appliances, and so on (the "Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008"). The authors lured Republicans with protections from the alternative minimum tax (via the "Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008").

That includes, as the New York Post pointed out, millions in tax breaks and related pork for kids? wooden arrows, Puerto Rican rum producers, auto race tracks, and corporations operating in American Samoa. (The likely explanation for the latter: StarKist has a large tuna-canning operation in American Samoa. And StarKist?s parent company happens to be located in the district of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.)

The bill has become, in other words, something almost unrelated to the business of bailing out Wall Street. The Beltway term for this is a "Christmas tree bill," meaning everyone gets to hang their favorite spending projects on it?though by the time Congress gets it through, it more closely resembles a slop bucket.

"We will not Christmas-tree this bill," Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat promised a few days ago. "The times are too urgent. Everyone has their own desires and needs. It?s going to have to wait."

So much for that idea.

Here?s a look a some of the green-tech measures:

? One-year extension for wind and refined coal energy tax credits. A production credit for electricity produced from renewable marine energy sources (meaning through wave power and river power, or by exploiting the differences in ocean temperature). Energy credits for "small wind properties," geothermal heat pump systems, and energy-efficient residential properties.

? New renewable-energy bonds. Up to 0 billion in energy bonds may be offered to the public, with a third from "public power providers," a third from governments, and the remainder from "cooperative electric companies."

? Tax credits for "cellulosic biofuels" and for "carbon dioxide sequestration." An extension of an alternative fuel credit. Tax credits for "new qualified plug-in electric-drive motor vehicles." Bicycle commuters get a nod, as do regulations aimed at "residential top-loading clothes washers."

IRS undercover operations: Privacy invasion?
The bailout bill also gives the Internal Revenue Service new authority to conduct undercover operations. It would immunize the IRS from a passel of federal laws, including permitting IRS agents to run businesses for an extended sting operation, to open their own personal bank accounts with U.S. tax dollars, and so on. (Think IRS agents posing as accountants or tax preparers and saying, "I?m not sure if that deduction is entirely legal, but it?ll save you ,000. Want to take it?") That section had expired as of January 1, 2008, and would now be renewed.

Starting with the so-called Anti-Drug Abuse Act in 1988, the IRS has possessed this authority temporarily, with occasional multiple-year lapses. A 1999 internal report said the IRS had 126 "trained undercover agents" working in field offices at the time. This is the first time that such undercover authority would be made permanent.

Sens. Max Baucus (D) and Chuck Grassley (R) have been pushing to make it permanent for a while, claiming (PDF) in April that: "Undercover operations are an integral part of IRS efforts to detect and prove noncompliance. The temporary status of this provision creates uncertainty, as the IRS plans its undercover efforts from year to year."

There?s another section of the bailout bill worth noting. It lets the IRS give information from individual tax returns to any federal law enforcement agency investigating suspected "terrorist" activity, which can, in turn, share it with local and state police. Intelligence agencies such as the CIA and the National Security Agency can also receive that information.

The information that can be shared includes "a taxpayer?s identity, the nature, source, or amount of his income, payments, receipts, deductions, exemptions, credits, assets, liabilities, net worth, tax liability, tax withheld, deficiencies, overassessments, or tax payments, whether the taxpayer?s return was, is being, or will be examined or subject to other investigation or processing, or any other data received by, recorded by, prepared by, furnished to, or collected by the Secretary with respect to a return."

That provision had already existed in federal law and automatically expired on January 1, 2008.

What?s a little odd is that there?s been little to no discussion of the IRS sections of the bailout bill, even though they raise privacy concerns. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said this week: "I will continue to work with congressional leaders to find a way forward to pass a comprehensive plan to stabilize our financial system and protect the American people by limiting the prospects of further deterioration in our economy." He never mentioned the necessity of additional IRS undercover operations.

The bailout: Details, controversy, and loopholes
As my colleagues over at CBSNews.com reported on Friday, the law authorizes the Treasury Department to create a so-called Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as a separate insurance fund.

The TARP program permits the Treasury to purchase mortgage-backed bonds or any other "troubled assets" from financial institutions. The idea is that because banks have become so hesitant to lend to each other, this law will help unstick the gears of the modern financial economy.

Some loopholes exist. It?s possible for a bank to buy 0 billion of bad debt?perhaps in the form of subprime mortgages that are becoming quickly worthless? declare bankruptcy, and sell it to the Treasury Department for 0 billion, or 0 billion. In other words, although the Treasury Department is supposed to look out for the best interests of taxpayers, there?s no law forbidding such profits in the case of firms involved in bankruptcy, receivership, or mergers.

The Treasury Department is authorized to "guarantee" home mortgages, essentially becoming a kind of co-signer, to reduce the number of foreclosures. If the home owner stops paying his or her mortgage, taxpayers would be on the hook. The Treasury Department can also eliminate a "reasonable" amount of a home owner?s mortgage debt, under section 109 of the new law, which would likely delay the process of house prices falling.

In response to grassroots pressure from Americans upset about Wall Street executives cashing in, Section 111 is titled "Executive Compensation and Corporate Governance."

It does not include, however, any statutory dollar limit on how high executive salaries of TARP bailout recipients can be. Instead, it lets Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, come up with "appropriate standards." In addition, only the top five executives will have their golden parachutes limited; all the rest will remain untouched, even if their second-tier salaries and bonuses happen to be in the millions or tens of millions of dollars.

Bear Stearns CEO James Cayne made .3 million from selling his shares a day after the JP Morgan bailout. Daniel Mudd, CEO of Fannie Mae, was replaced last month; he made .6 million in 2007. Richard Syron was chairman and CEO of Freddie Mac from 2003 until last month. He made .8 million last year. Martin Sullivan was ousted as president and CEO of AIG this summer, and was paid a million severance package.

While salaries of failed executives will have no statutory limit, TARP-participating companies will lose a tax deduction if they pay their top executives more than 0,000 a year. The 0,000 limit only kicks in if the company offloads over 0 million in assets through TARP.

Section 115 of the law says that the administration can, after notifying Congress and waiting 15 days, purchase and hold 0 billion of assets "at any one time." (It can buy and hold 0 billion without waiting.)

This, too, is a potential loophole. It permits the Treasury Department to buy up, say, 0 billion in 2008, sell those assets off gradually over the next year at a (probable) loss, and repeat the same process in 2009. Losses to taxpayers, in other words, could exceed 0 billion. Although the Treasury Department is instructed to try to avoid losses, the text of the law does not forbid that scenario.

If the TARP ends up costing taxpayers money, the president may ask Congress to consider enacting a law to recoup "from the financial industry an amount equal to the shortfall," presumably through higher taxes. But Congress is under no obligation to do anything; a mechanism to cover the shortfall does not exist in this law.

Even though FDIC coverage will be boosted from 0,000 to 0,000 per account through December 2009, premiums to banks may not take "into account" the higher account coverage. In other words, premiums can?t increase for that reason.

Also:

? This may be just the beginning of bailouts. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Thursday that the state may need a billion loan from the U.S. Treasury, according to a report in the Los Angeles Times. That?s because the state has spent more than it takes in through tax revenue, with an annual budget deficit of billion or more, even though its individual income tax rate is arguably the highest in the nation.

? CBS News? John Bentley reports from Arizona that Republican presidential candidate John McCain is taking some credit for the bailout?s passage: "I?m glad I suspended my campaign and went back to Washington to bring, and help bring, House Republicans to the table," he said on Friday. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama described the law as "absolutely necessary to prevent an economic catastrophe."

? Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who correctly predicted in 2003 that taxpayers would be "forced to bail out investors," said in a speech on the House floor that the legislation would "only further harm the economy" and was actually worse than the previous version. In a CNN interview, the former Republican presidential candidate said his colleagues are refusing to deal with the underlying problems and spending more tax dollars even though "this country?s bankrupt."

? The Dow Jones Industrial Average (-22 percent year-to-date) and the Nasdaq composite index (-27 percent) closed on Friday down 1.5 percent, despite the bailout. Gold ended at 4.80 an ounce, slightly up for the day and the year. Crude oil futures ended at .88 a barrel, slightly down for the day.

? U.S. jobs fell by 159,000, a decline of 760,000 this year. Technology firms have also contemplated hiring freezes and some, including Hewlett-Packard and Dell, have already laid off employees, as my colleague Ina Fried reports in a separate article.

Updated at 10:40 a.m. PDT to reflect the House of Representatives? approval of the bill.

Updated at 3:30 p.m. PDT to add more details.

uc berkeley harrison barnes brett ratner stevie nicks anchorman capybara duggars