NPR Article& Radio Clip: More Women Discover They Are Lesbians As They Grow Older.
‘Late-Life Lesbians’ Reveal Fluidity Of Sexuality
by NPR Staff
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129050832
August 7, 2010
A woman ends her marriage of 12 years, begins dating and finds love again — but this time, with another woman.
For many years, researchers assumed so-called “late-life lesbians” were simply repressed by society until they felt comfortable coming out. But that’s not entirely the case, says Lisa Diamond, a researcher at the University of Utah who is studying whether sexuality is fluid or fixed. Diamond has been studying a group of 79 women for 15 years to track changes in their sexuality.
“It does appear to be that women’s erotic desires are pretty tightly linked to their emotional feelings,” she tells NPR’s Guy Raz. “So for some of these women, they authentically did not feel attracted to women before they met one particular woman that they completely fell in love with.”
Take Macarena Gomez-Barris, an associate professor of sociology and American studies and ethnicity at the University of Southern California. She married her husband in her early 20s, but then, like more than half of married couples in America, they hit a wall. Her husband said she was working too much. She said that she knew she was but that she had to support their family. In 2007, they separated. She was 36.
“Then [I] started dating and soon found this person I was attracted to and began dating her,” Gomez-Barris tells Raz.
“The feeling of attraction was strong,” she says. “What made sense to me was this feeling of the magnetic pull of this person and realizing [that I had become] open to the possibility of being with another female-bodied person.”
The researcher, Diamond, says it’s hard to know whether the capacity for women to feel attracted to other women increases as they age.
“A safer conclusion to draw is that as time goes on, women have more opportunities to discover that capacity. They have more diverse relationships. Their life patterns change. Their careers change. They often become more expansive in their thinking, more open-minded,” she says. “And I think those sorts of things can create a context in which a woman might have always had that capacity to become attracted to women, but might never have had the opportunity until she reaches a certain stage in her life.”
Diamond also points out that a lot of the neurobiological pathways that are involved in sexual desire are similar — and in some cases identical — to the neurobiological underpinnings of romantic love.
Although we normally think about people becoming sexually attracted to someone first and then falling in love with them, she says, it can happen the other way around.
The women Diamond studied who became lesbians later in life were more confused than upset, she says. For a lot of the women, the experience was very satisfying.
“The women would say, ‘I don’t know what’s going on, but I love this woman. I’ve never felt like this before,'” she says.
Diamond and other researchers are now trying to understand why some individuals have more of a capacity for fluidity than others and why some individuals’ experience of their sexual orientation is so different than that of others.
“You can have a whole group of lesbian and gay and bisexual and unlabled individuals in the same room, and they all might be experiencing same-sex attractions for slightly different reasons and in slightly different ways,” she says. “Now the puzzle is to figure out why that is and how to explain it developmentally.”
Daily Mail Article: New Book Explores Can You Have A Serious Romantic Relationship Without Sex?
Why I chose a year of celibacy – and the surprising lessons it taught me about love
By Hephzibah Anderson
Last updated at 11:59 PM on 27th August 2010
The first date is with a colleague’s handsome friend. His name is Nick, he’s an architect, and he lives with his dog called Max. Aside from that, I know only one other fact about him: he knows everything about me. As much as some of my closest friends and family – my own mother even.
Let me rewind. A year ago, I published Chastened, a memoir detailing my decision to voluntarily spend 12 months living and loving without sex.
Now, depending on your outlook, a year is either an eternity or an insultingly brief spell – certainly not a book-worthy feat. But the time frame wasn’t the point.
Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder: Hephzibah Anderson took a year off sex – and found fulfilment
It was the choosing that counted – the stepping back and taking control of a part of my personal life that seemed to be increasingly shaped by other people’s expectations.
My life had not been promiscuous. I’d never had a one-night stand, and if you insist on talking numbers, my tally of partners was still in single digits – downright modest by the standards of the London media circles I moved in.
So quantity wasn’t the issue. Nor was quality, though looking back, one dimension was missing from the dating experiences of my 20s: love.
It was a chance encounter that brought it home to me. Shortly before turning 30, I was in New York visiting friends when I happened to bump into my university ex with his new fiancée, doing a spot of holiday engagement-ring shopping on Fifth Avenue.
Almost a decade had passed since our breakup, yet he was the last man to have told me ‘I love you’. This realisation was a scathing indictment of my relationship choices since, and brought into sharp focus the emotional frustration that defined those years.
Relationships would begin well enough, but once we’d gone to bed, I would need something more from the guy in question, more than he usually seemed prepared to give – not the kind of commitment that’s sealed with a ring, but certainly some level of emotional investment.
Of course, the worst thing a girl can be is needy, and so, like my friends, I spent my 20s tiptoeing around commitment-phobes, hoping to coax them into a lasting relationship while bottling up my own need for meaningful emotional engagement.
By the time I turned 30, I couldn’t help wondering whether we women hadn’t traded sexual frustration for emotional frustration.
Most of us wanted relationships, but very few guys seemed prepared to go that far. The words ‘I love you’ carried the same forbidden frisson that sex once held for our grandparents.
Deciding to ban sex from my life for a year was a drastic response to the kind of dating woes plenty of women put up with. But after yet another heart-bruising break-up, that was precisely what made it so appealing.
We spend an increasing portion of our lives single – marrying later, divorcing in greater numbers. I wanted to find a fresh way of pursuing love into my 30s, one that was more personal, less of an emotional rollercoaster, and hopefully a little more romantic.
Flawed perspective? The women of Sex And The City had sex like men – but the entire show was based on their difficulty in finding love
As for physical intimacy, I wanted to reconnect with my own hopes and needs, and see if a more old-fashioned approach might be more enjoyable, not to mention successful.
As a culture, we mock the abstinent and stigmatise the dry spell, but for me, those 12 months turned out to be very fertile. Yes, there were plenty of challenges, yet how much there is to be gained by going without.
I discovered it’s easier to open up emotionally when you’ve drawn some physical boundaries.
I learned that when sex is off the menu, you become a more generous dater – you give people a chance. The hectic, sex-driven pace of modern courtship is rarely conducive to spotting quieter, potentially longer- lasting connections.
Once I’d stepped back from it all and embraced my temporary vow of chastity, I was able to appreciate the pressure that pop culture, from music lyrics to shampoo ads, puts on women to be sexual all the time. Even our hair has to be sexy. Not having to bother made that year relaxing.
As for the men I dated that year, some didn’t get it, but most did. In fact, they appreciated the chance to adopt a more old-fashioned role. They sent flowers and offered to cook me dinner. They even sent love letters.
Ironically, I garnered far more male interest that year than before or since.
The vow was a challenge to those who knew about it, but those who didn’t were responding to my newfound self-possession and reserve. Surrounded by silicone-enhanced, mass-produced sexiness, we forget the allure of mystery.
That chaste year reached its close with my deciding not to sleep with someone, even though the challenge was up.
I liked him a lot, and we’d been dating for several months, but he was heading out of the city for a while the very next day, so the timing didn’t feel right. If my year had been about anything, it was about listening to my heart.
Of course, when people ask how it ended, that’s not really what they mean. They want salacious details, they want to know whether sex after that year was different – was it better?
Almost three years have passed since those 12 months officially ended. In answer to the question I’m most frequently asked, yes, I have had sex since. In fact, I’ve had three relationships, all far more serious than any that preceded my 12-month experiment.
In each instance, I’ve taken my time before introducing a physical component. It hasn’t yet scared off a man I’ve been interested in. In fact, it’s a good litmus test. And yes, when you get there, the sex is invariably better.
The shortest of those relationships, at just four months, was with Nick, the handsome friend of my colleague. He knew everything about me precisely because he’d read my book. It was long distance, which made it easier to defer the physical side.
The other two lasted six and seven months respectively. One was with a divorced man in his 40s, who turned out to have had a similar flirtation with chastity in his 20s, before meeting his ex-wife.
The third was a fellow writer in his mid-30s. A few months before we met, he’d determinedly sworn off casual encounters. They made him feel lonely, he confessed.
If he’s scared off easily then he’s probably not The One
So why did those relationships end? In part, because of the success of my chaste year. It made me more assertive about what I’m seeking, and at 34, that’s not only emotional engagement, but the real thing: marriage, children, the full commitment-phobe’s nightmare.
After a while, either I couldn’t see it with the man in question, or he couldn’t see it with me. There was some heartache, but those relationships turned out to have had an expiry date, and both parties had been honest with each other.
Some will say that a couple should figure all that out before going to bed. Perhaps they have a point, but the reason I wrote my book – and this article – is to try to bring sexual moderation back into the mainstream.
In a culture where it’s not uncommon for a first date to include breakfast the morning after, most women wouldn’t deem it feasible to leave sex until marriage. After all, physical compatibility does count for something.
But waiting until you feel a connection that isn’t purely physical – that should be something every woman feels is her right. Based on the feedback I’ve had from younger readers – women in their early 20s, say – this doesn’t appear to be the case.
The sexual revolution has left women with no reason to say ‘No’. Permissiveness has itself become restrictive. If you think we’ve attained complete sexual liberation, try telling someone that you’ve chosen abstinence. People – and women more so than men – often get defensive, angry even.
At some point in the torrid wake of the sexual revolution, we’ve been sold the idea that equality for women is the right to embrace the very worst aspects of male behaviour – to match guys hookup for hook-up, tequila shot for tequila shot.
The best way to demonstrate our independence, we mistakenly believe, is to love and leave like men.
My chaste year taught me that true equality is the right to be fully, unapologetically female. I’ve also realised that we tend to underestimate men – the right kind of men, that is.
And there’s nothing like telling guys that you won’t be sleeping with them for a while to help suss out the cads from the keepers.
Bidding goodnight to a date some months ago, I broke off a kiss to explain myself. ‘I’m not 16,’ he said, a little offended at the idea he might not want to see me again, just because I wouldn’t be sleeping with him any time soon.
Since the book was published, plenty of male readers have confided that when the right woman comes along, they’ll gladly wait – until marriage, if needs be.
There’s ample scope for misunderstandings in any relationship, but if you begin by being candid about your own desires – by admitting that it’s a meaningful relationship you’re craving, if that’s the case – I believe you’ll be rewarded with honesty in return.
I still have girlfriends who ask me if that scares a man off. They quickly realise how crazy the question sounds – if he’s going to be scared off, he isn’t the one. And beware the man in a rush: after all, why hurry unless you’ve somewhere else to be?
My year’s mission was to find a more successful way of pursuing love into my 30s, and I believe I’ve found that. The men I date are kinder, more considerate, more romantic.
While I remain single, I’m contentedly so. I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend a chaste spell to others as a way of feeling more confident and focused.
Equally, for those stuck unwillingly in a dry spell: try not to think of it that way. Try to focus on the opportunities – claim those months ‘without’ for yourself.
While I still cannot offer you that classic happily-ever-after to my own story, I do have a coda for you. A few weeks ago, a man I’ve known for several years, and have begun spending time with romantically, asked me to stay the night.
‘It’s not an easy question to ask someone who wrote your book,’ he added, seeing me hesitate. I laughed, and then reflected that if we want sex to be meaningful and thrilling, it’s not a question that should ever be asked or answered lightly.
I won’t reveal how I responded – you’ve heard far too much about me already – but I will say that in acknowledging the charged, delicious complexity of his offer, the man in question won a little piece of my heart.
Chastened: My Modern adventure In Old-Fashioned Romance is published by Vintage, £7.99.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1306900/How-year-celibacy-taught-true-meaning-love.html#ixzz0xrHa4I5Y
Blacklight Article: Jennifer Aniston’s Top Five Film Performances. Do You Agree With This Writer’s Choices?
BLACKLIGHT: Jennifer Aniston
There are a few reasons Jennifer Aniston is a household name and an adored dame, and none of them have anything to do with acting. Her break came in the early 90’s from the sitcom phenomenon Friends, which followed the lives of six 20-something New Yorkers trying survive the repressions they had from their wealth families- getting higher education, being beautiful and oversexed and living in an area of economic and political stability. Aniston quickly became a favorite in the cast and a star on the big screen because of the damsel qualities she showed as Rachel Green, a color she got used to seeing in her pockets with her then-record $1 million per episode price tag plus hair product endorsements. And hair was the second thing that launched her career, influencing female style for nearly a decade and earning her the cover of every magazine in tinsel town. The fame monster grew even larger once Aniston started a relationship and married movie star and mega stud Brad Pitt.
Though Friends earned her an Emmy and a Golden Globe, Aniston’s work on the show was nothing special or remarkable. Soaking up the fame from the show, the hair and the arm candy, she starred in whole series of films before the show ended in 2004, none of them an Aniston fan could name by title sans Office Space or Bruce Almighty, the former being a critically acclaimed indie hit, the latter being a lame financial smash with the aid of Jim Carey. Since, she’s made a whole slew of cheesy, conventional and forgettable romantic comedies like Management, Love Happens and The Switch where she plays versions of her character in Friends, only without the great writing to make her as adorable as her fans would hope.
Office Space
Easily the best movie she has done and chances are half the Aniston tabloid worshipers haven’t seen it. Office Space is a cult classic from the late 90’s, a true genius work of comedy that influenced a few new tricks into our culture. Jennifer doesn’t just stand back and watch, instead she jumps in and plays her role with enough flair and grip for us not to gripe.
Along Came Polly
For a film that is only mildly funny and completely forgettable, it is easily Aniston’s best romantic comedy role. Because it doesn’t have the same recycled plot structure, sexist joke conventions or poor acting, Along Came Polly is at least tolerable to watch. With Stiller, Baldwin and Hoffman in it Aniston still manages to hold her own comedic chops, playing a flaky, scatter brained nut with a few different notes than we’ve seen her play before.
The Good Girl
With the exception of Derailed it is really her only dramatic role to date, and it is a good one at that. In a story of cross-aged lovers, Aniston plays a Wal-Mart type employee having an affair with a young man that gets complicated when their boss finds out and demands sex not to tell, which really adds some mystery to the ‘who’s the daddy’ suspense. It’s certainly a gimmick, but it’s a good gimmick.
Derailed
It’s Clive Owen’s movie, but Aniston surprises people with her willingness to play a darker role. In fact it is probably the only role where Aniston performs any kind of villainy. With a moderately decent twist and some shocking scenes, Derailed gets a little twisted and Aniston easily gets caught up in that, even if it is nearly the same movie and character as The Good Girl.
Rumor Has It
In what was promised to her as the next The Graduate, Aniston played in a film that played off of The Graduate. Next to Kevin Costner nonetheless, how could she not shine?
Article From Desi Hits Blog: The Amazing Frieda Pinto Is On The Cover Of New York Times Magazine!
Slumdog Millionaire actress Freida Pinto is definitely making a name for herself in the West! The L’Oreal model graces the cover of The New York Times Style Magazine’s Women’s September Fashion issue and she looks stunning!
Since starring in the 2008 Oscar winning box office hit Slumdog Millionaire, Freida has kept busy with various Hollywood and independent movie projects. After starring in Woody Allen’s You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger alongside Hollywood stars like Naomi Watts, Josh Brolin, Anthony Hopkins, Antonio Banderas and Anupam Kher, the pretty actress is slated to appear in Tarsem Singh’s new movie Immortals alongside some of the most hottest actors around.
Pinto portrays a Greek priestess in the movie that tells the story of warrior Theseus and his fight against the Titans. Freida is set to appear in the Greek action drama alongside tinseltwon stars like Mickey Rourke who portrays King Hyperion, Twilight star Kellan Lutz who plays Poseidon and Henry Cavill who portrays Theseus.
For a while there were also rumors swirling about a potential role for Freida in the next Bond movie! Directed by Sam Mendes and starring Daniel Craig as Bond, James Bond, the next 007 movie does not have a release date yet and either camp has confirmed that the Indian actress will take on the coveted role as Bond’s main squeeze.
As a former model, being on the cover of a magazine is nothing new for Freida, and the cute actress doesn’t hesitate to share her beauty tips with fans: “Drink lots of water and eat fruits and vegetables to have a glowing skin,” Dev Patel’s girlfriend said.
“I don’t have too many beauty tips because I am not fond of wearing too much make-up but the first would be to drink a lot of water because water really cleanses your system and it keeps you fresh and your eyes looking fresh. I also recommend adding a lot of fruit and vegetables to your diet and not making it too meat centric,” she added.
So check out Freida Pinto on the cover of The New York Times Style Magazine’s Women’s September Fashion issue and share your thoughts.
Fan House Article: Media Believe Maria Sharapova Is The Favorite To Win The US Open.
In Lackluster Women’s Draw, Sharapova Shines as Favorite
- 2Comments
- Say Something »
8/26/2010 10:19 PM ET By Greg Couch
-
- Greg Couch
- National Columnist
Maria Sharapova was the credible Anna Kournikova. That’s how it started. It was embarrassing watching Kournikova become the most popular player in tennis, but never able to win a tournament.
So what was everyone looking at, anyway?
Sharapova was a supermodel who wins Wimbledon. Not bad. With her, women’s tennis could keep its credibility as selling its sport, and not something else.
But her career path has been broken, mostly from a bum shoulder. She landed the biggest endorsement contract ever for a female athlete, $70 million from Nike, at the same time she was on an embarrassing streak of futility in the major championships.
She still hasn’t broken the streak. But it’s about to end.
Sharapova is going to win the U.S. Open, which starts Monday in New York. You heard it here first. She’s ready.
Well, almost ready. Just when women’s tennis is desperate for a superstar, it’s second-biggest marketing tool — after Serena Williams — is about to return.
Williams is out with some mysterious foot injury that apparently involved broken glass. Justine Henin is out hurt, too, and you wonder if her comeback might be over.
Venus Williams hasn’t played since Wimbledon. She can still play at 30, but not win majors anymore, though this is probably her last, best chance.
The women’s game is a mess, with a player most people couldn’t identify as the No. 1 seed at the Open. That’s Caroline Wozniacki, who will lose to Sharapova in the fourth round.
What we’re going to see these next two weeks is an example of life after the Williams sisters. Venus still wants to play in the 2012 Olympics, and Serena has a few years at the top left.
But their careers, especially Venus’, are well past the midway point. And life without them threatens to be life in hiding for women’s tennis.
Sharapova can fix that.
This is going to get to Serena Williams fans. Williams has won far more than Sharapova, yet Sharapova gets the bigger endorsement dollars. Why?
This has been source of hard feelings, as a giant, blonde, white Barbie Doll gets more attention than Williams, a black woman who does not have the typical white ideal shape.
If Sharapova does take back the spotlight while Williams is out, though, that might give women’s tennis a great rivalry over the next few years.
The Open draw was announced Thursday on ESPN2, and if you watched it, then you have no idea who is playing or when. It was the worst show like this, in any sport, in history. Analysts Brad Gilbert and Mary Jo Fernandez were fine, but ESPN kept putting the draw on the screen, and you couldn’t see the left two-thirds of anyone’s name.
Sharapova drew Jarmila Groth in the first round. On the ESPN graphic, it would have looked something like this: Pova vs. Roth.
I’ll take Pova, but it’s actually a tough one. Earlier this year, Sharapova would have lost that match.
Eventually, ESPN adjusted, shrinking names to fit on the screen. They went overboard, and you can’t follow a draw in fine print.
Truth is, in women’s tennis, the draw doesn’t seem that important now. Most of the women play the same style — bashing away — with no one standing out. Meanwhile, at last year’s Open, there was a choking epidemic. Remember?
So it’s not easy to say one player has a good draw, or one a bad one.
The good news is that defending champ Kim Clijsters, who will be everyone’s favorite, is on the opposite side of the draw from Sharapova. That means they wouldn’t meet till the finals.
Victoria Azarenka has started to reach her potential, and Gilbert picked her to win. Sam Stosur has been struggling since reaching the French Open final, but has the athleticism and marketable looks to become a star. Elena Dementieva is always close, and figures to stay there.
The irony about Sharapova is that publicly, she’s now only keeping up the supermodel side of the equation, not the tennis player side. But it’s her determination on tennis that is truly defining her.
At the U.S. Open last year, she panicked on her serve, having changed her motion to relieve pressure on her shoulder.
Tiny Melanie Oudin out-toughed her.
That doesn’t happen often to Sharapova.
She lost in the first round of the Australian Open, just after signing the Nike contract, but then started to win matches in February. Still, she wasn’t beating any top players.
The turning point came at the French Open in May, when she nearly beat Justine Henin on clay. At Wimbledon in July, she was the only player to push Serena Williams.
She was playing well again, but needed a big win. Since then, she has gone 5-2 against players in the top 20, including a win over Dementieva. And she has gone back to her old serve motion.
“I’m hitting bigger serves,” Sharapova said. “Maybe I’m missing a few more first and second serves, but I’m not hitting second serves (just) 70 miles an hour.
“I mean, I’m going to win tournaments by going for my shots … rather than waiting for my opponents to miss. That’s not my game.”
She’s going for it again. But I did say she’s only “almost” ready.
The thing about Sharapova is her mental toughness, certainly not her speed. She fights to the end, and I used to call her Killer Barbie.
But lately, you can see doubts. Against Clijsters in Cincinnati, Sharapova had the match won, then lost the second set. Her coach, Michael Joyce told her she couldn’t go to the third set with the attitude that had crept in.
He was trying to get her confidence back.
Sharapova, ranked No. 16, lost that match. The demons are fading, but still there.
She’s not a lock. But it’s time for Killer Barbie to return. Take Pova over Isters in the final.
Reuters Article: The US Open Women’s Competition Is Wide Open Since Serena Williams Withdrew Due To An Injury!
Serena’s absence gives others real US Open hope
By Julian Linden
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Line judges can relax, Serena Williams will not be gunning for her fourth U.S. Open title when the last grand slam event of the season starts next week in New York.
Her withdrawal after slicing her foot on a piece of broken glass in July will allow match officials to breathe a little easier safe in the knowledge that there will no repeat of her foul-mouthed outburst of last year.
But rather than detract from the tournament, the American’s absence has unwittingly laid the foundations for one of the most wide-open women’s grand slam events in years.
The depth in women’s tennis has rarely been stronger and while Williams has been the dominant player for most of the past decade, there are many players willing to step up.
At least a dozen players hold genuine hopes of winning the August 30-September 12 tournament, but the favourite with oddsmakers and sentimentalists is Belgian’s Kim Clijsters, a two-time winner in New York and this year’s second seed.
She won her first title in 2005, but it was her inspiring victory last year after taking a break to start a family that will be the enduring memory of her career.
After sweeping aside younger opponents to become just the second mother to win a grand slam title, Clijsters celebrated by bringing her infant daughter on to centre court.
But time could be running out for Clijsters, who has won three WTA Tour events this season including Cincinnati earlier this month. She has spoken about her desire to have a second child, which she said will probably lead her into retirement, while a niggling hip injury has raised fitness concerns.
“Perfection doesn’t exist but we can try to get close,” she told Reuters.
PEAK FORM
Denmark’s Caroline Wozniacki, who lost to Clijsters in last year’s final, returns as the top seed and looks to be hitting peak form at the right time.
She won in Montreal this month and if she wins her first grand slam title this year at the U.S. Open could overtake Serena Williams as the world number one.
“Of course I would like to be number one in the world but Serena is a great champion, she’s won so many grand slams,” she told reporters after winning in Montreal. “My goal for now is just to try to win a grand slam and the number one spot is secondary to that.”
Wozniacki was promoted to top seed after Serena withdrew and the draw did her no favors, putting her in the same quarter as two Russian former U.S. Open champions, Maria Sharapova and Svetlana Kuznetsova.
Serbia’s Jelena Jankovic, a U.S. Open finalist two years ago, looms as a possible semi-final opponent in a tricky top half of the draw, but it is Sharapova that poses the first big hurdle with the pair due to meet as early as the fourth round.
Sharapova has already won three of the four grand slam titles — only the French Open has eluded her — but her career has been stalled by shoulder problems.
She made a comeback at the start of this year and while she has not added to her grand slam collection she has been making steady progress and made the final at Cincinnati and had three match points before going down to Clijsters.
Sharapova, Clijsters and Kuznetsova are three of four players in the field who have already won the U.S. Open. The other is Venus Williams, who won in 2000 and 2001.
While Venus has not played in a grand slam final outside Wimbledon in seven years, she can never be overlooked.
She has been placed in the same quarter as Italy’s surprise French Open finalist Francesca Schiavone and in the same half as Australia’s Samantha Stosur, a runner-up in Paris this year and a contender in New York because of her powerful serve.
Gayblackcanada 