Saturday, November 30, 2013

Relationships-Sleep positions decode relationships

Relationships-Sleep positions decode relationships
Sleep positions decode relationships


Hamburg April 15 Bonding in Bed
American Researchers Mark Goulston and Samuell Dunkell would probably see it differently. They say a couple’s sleep position reveals a lot about the state of the relationship.
The researchers have given names to different sleep positions and interpreted their meaning. Couples who sleep back to back with their bottoms touchin, for example, are bonded sexually and sensuously but might like independence. What is commonly known as the spoon position, in which couples snuggle up to each other front to back, betrays a dominance of one partner over the other.
Couples freshly in love often sleep intertwined in a love know, the researchers said.
A couple who don’t touch at all over night and who turn their backs towards each other, indicates tension, Goulston and Dunkell said.
Sleep specialists and relationship counsellors, however, warn not to read too much into the interpretations. “Sleep habits are very individual and therefore shouldn’t be over estimated.”
More than anything else they have to do with what a person is used to and it is known that they can chage sometimes easily and sometimes with difficulty. HT Patna April 16, 06


Relationships-What makes a woman happy with her marriage
What makes a woman happy with her marriage ?
Freud confessed that his “thirty years of research into the feminine soul” left him unable to answer one great question : “What does a woman want?” Modern feminists have been arguing for decades over a variation of it : What should a woman want?
This week, two sociologists from the University of Virginia are publishing the answer to a more manageable variation. Drawing on one of the most thorough surveys ever done of married couples, they’ve crunched the numbers and asked: What makes a woman happy with her marriage?
Their answer doesn’t quite jibe with current conventional wisdom. Three decades ago, two-thirds of Americans surveyed said it was better for wives to focus on homemaking and husbands to focus on breadwinning, but by the 1990s, only a third embraced the traditional division of labour. The new ideal, in theory, not in practice, became a partnership of equals who split duties inside and outside the home.
This new egalitarian marriage was hailed by academics and relationship gurus as a recipe for a happier union. As wives went off to work and husbands took on new jobs at home, couples would supposedly have more in common and more to talk about. Husbands would do more “emotion work”, as sociologists call it, and wives could be more fulfilled.
That was the theory tested by the Virginia sociologists, Bradford Wilcox and Steven Nock, who analysed a survey of more than 5,000 couples. Sure enough, they found that husbands’ “emotion work” was crucial to wives’ happiness. Having an affectionate and understanding husband was by far the most important predictor of a woman’s satisfaction with her marriage.
But it turns out that an equal division of labour didn’t make husbands more affectionate or wives more fulfilled. The wives working outside the home reported less satisfaction with their husbands and their marriages than did the stay-at-home wives. And among those with outside jobs, the happiest wives, regardless of the family’s overall income, were the ones whose husbands brought in at least two-thirds of the money.
These male providers-in-chief were regarded foundly by even the most feminist-minded women – the ones who said they believed in dividing duties equally. In theory, these wives were egalitarians, but in their own lives they preferred more traditional arrangements.
“Woman today expect more help around the home and more emotional engagement from their husbands,” Wilcox says. “But they still want their husbands to be providers who give them financial security and freedom.”
These results, of course, are just averages. Plenty of people are happy with different arrangements – including Nock, who makes less than his wife and does the cooking at home. He says that non-traditional marriages may be a strain on many women simply because they’ve been forced to be social pioneers. “As society adjusts to women’s new roles,” he says, “women may become happier in egalitarian marriages.”
But I’d bet there’s a limit to egalitarianism. Consider what’s happened with housework, that perpectual sore point. From the 1960s, through the 80s, wives cut back on housework as husbands did more. In the 1990s, though, the euqalising trend leveled off, leaving wives still doing nearly twice as much of the work at home.
That seems terribly unfair unless you look at how men and women behave when they’re living by themselves : The women do twice as much housework as the men do. Single men are much more likely than single women to leave the bed unmade and the ring around the tub. Those jobs just don’t seem as important to men.
Similarly, there’s a gender gap in enthusiasn for some outside jobs. Men are much more willing to take a job that pays a premium in exchange for long hours away from home or the risk of being killed. The extra money doesn’t seem as important to women.
In a more egalitarian world, there would be more wives mining coal and driving trucks, and more husbands scrubbing bathtubs and taking children to doctor’s appointments. But that wouldn’t be a fairer world, as Nock and Wilcox found.
The happiest wives I their study were the ones who said that housework was divided fairly between them and their husbands. But those same happy wives also did more of the work at home while their husbands did more work outside home. Nock doesn’t claim to have divined the ferinine soul, but he doeshave one answer to Freud’s question.
“A woman wants equity,” he says. “That’s not necessarily the same as equality.” (IHT)
Deccan Chronicle March 12, 2006

No comments: