Teaching students how to understand and avoid abusive relationships, part II

PROGRAM CONTENT
Session 1: Introduction

The session begins by identifying several purposes for the group: to help girls predict dangerous dating situations, to teach them strategies to avoid these events, and to promote the development of healthy, safe relationships. The boundaries and expectations of a psychoeducational model are discussed, reinforcing the goal of acquiring skills rather than participating in therapy. This generally leads to the development of group rules that should include confidentiality and respect for others’ opinions and the right to speak without interruption. Once the purpose and format of the group have been discussed, definitions of abuse can be solicited through a brainstorming activity. Responses are then written on the blackboard and grouped into five categories of abuse (verbal, emotional, mental, sexual, and physical). For homework, the girls are asked to bring to the next group examples of male and female stereotypes from the media, for example, from movies, television, print ads, commercials, and popular songs.

Session 2: Popular Culture–The Context for Abuse

The second session begins by reviewing examples from the homework assignment. Using the method outlined in Preventing Teen Dating Violence: A Three Session Curriculum for Teaching Adolescents (Sousa, Bancroft, & German, 1987), girls are asked to respond to the descriptors “masculine” and “feminine.” Characteristics such as muscular, powerful, and tall are likely to be ascribed to a man, whereas a woman is usually seen as pretty, quiet, and thin. The definition of stereotype is then introduced and the notion of stereotypes as limiting or “boxing one in” is presented. Participants are then encouraged to explore what happens when someone attempts to step out of the box or acts in a way that contradicts cultural expectations. For example, a soft-spoken boy who enjoys cooking may be subjected to ridicule and his sexual orientation questioned. The hypothesis can be developed that women are urged to be passive and acquiescent in dating relationships, a pattern that can place them at risk for abuse. For homework, the girls are asked to observe and record incidents of interpersonal abuse, as defined in Session 1, throughout the next week.

Session 3: Warning Signs and Risk Factors

This session focuses on the precipitants of dating violence and begins by asking the group to brainstorm for warning signs, including jealousy and possessiveness, poor control of temper, demeaning attitudes toward women, alcohol and drug use, and attempts to control personal freedom (e.g., choice of clothing and friends). The influence of a family history of violence, relating to both victim and aggressor, is usually raised and can be identified as a risk factor. Participants are asked to respond to a true or false exercise concerning popular misconceptions about teen dating violence, for example, alcohol causes a man to be abusive, or victims bring on the abuse themselves (Sousa et al., 1987). At this point in the group, leaders may solicit personal examples that help to illustrate theoretical principles. For homework, the girls are asked to respond to a questionnaire designed to identify risk factors in their current dating relationships.

Session 4: Date Rape–A Definition

In the fourth session, participants are shown a videotape designed for high school students on the topic of date rape (Sunburst Communications, 1990). The tape is stopped at various points for questions and discussion. Typical concerns include the victim’s responsibility in causing the attack, the occurrence of date rape in long-term relationships, and the difference between the popularly held and legal definitions of rape. For homework, the participants are asked to review a handout detailing local and national date rape statistics.

Session 5: Date Rape Prevention

The fifth session begins with a discussion of the homework and the videotape viewed in the previous session. An activity called “The Safety Game” is then introduced. Leaders read several dating scenarios, and participants are instructed to stop the story at crucial moments when decisions around safety can be made. They then generate several options, evaluating the possible outcomes of each. This represents an opportunity to use examples from current events in which date rape was alleged, for example, Mike Tyson and William Kennedy Smith. Practical strategies for prevention are discussed, including having an alternate way home, carrying money for a phone call or a cab, and avoiding drugs and alcohol. Emphasis is placed on identifying personal expectations and communicating them clearly to dating partners. The girls are asked to outline expectations for their current or future dating relationships as a homework assignment. For example, they should decide in advance how much physical intimacy they want.

Session 6: Conflict Management

This session begins by brainstorming the characteristics (healthy vs. unhealthy) of arguments and displaying them on a blackboard. These are expanded on in a handout listing typical factors that sabotage effective dialogue. The girls frequently cite name-calling and blaming as common obstacles. Participants are then asked to listen to an audiotape of couples arguing and to identify roadblocks to communication (Bunnell & Bunnell, 1990. The coleaders then solicit suggestions for more positive interactions. Asked to observe their behavior during the week, girls are told to bring examples of both positive and negative communication to the next group as a homework assignment.

Session 7: Building Communication Skills

This session starts by reviewing the homework. Girls typically share examples of negative communication and express frustration around changing rigid patterns of interaction. Group members are then introduced to the principles of active listening, followed by the use of “I” messages (Gordon, 1970) in establishing assertive behavior. Examples of real-life conflicts are then solicited from participants, and they are encouraged to role-play new skills. Girls are asked to give an “I” message at least once during the week as a homework assignment.

Session 8: Going on–Personal and Community Resources

This session offers girls an opportunity to provide feedback for the group leaders, evaluating positive and negative aspects of each session. Suggestions for future groups can then be explored. A handout describing the Abuse Prevention Act of 1978 and its practical application (for example, restraining orders) is distributed. The value of networking and peer support is emphasized to the girls as a means of advocating for themselves and others.

EVALUATION STRATEGIES
Although no outcome studies have been completed to date on the Dating Safely group treatment model, plans are underway to conduct a pre- and posttreatment assessment of information and attitudes regarding dating violence. On intake into the group, girls will be administered a brief questionnaire (see Appendix). This same questionnaire will be re-administered at the end of the group. It is expected that girls who participate in the full 8-week course will demonstrate improved scores, indicating a greater understanding of abuse in relationships and strategies for self-awareness and protection. Retention of information over time may be examined by giving the same questionnaire 6 and 12 months after termination of the group.

A more difficult dimension to study is the change in behavior among group participants. Although items regarding dating habits and involvement in abusive relationships are included in the questionnaire, girls may be reluctant to admit to unsafe practices, thus creating a falsely positive outcome. Guaranteeing anonymity or adding a personal interview component to evaluation procedures may be helpful in obtaining reliable reports.

CONCLUSION
The topic of dating violence can raise anxiety in those who have experienced such trauma, either first-hand or as a witness. Because of this potential, it seems advisable to address the subject within the safe structure of a psychoeducational model. Providing students with an outline of topics, handouts of didactic material, and homework assignments reassures them that there are limits to the group and that they need not recall their private pain to participate. In fact, if students are allowed to relax their boundaries and reveal highly personal material in a school-based group, they may find it difficult to compose themselves before returning to class. Moreover, in some cases, agitated students may later act out their feelings inappropriately. Those who become overwhelmed, even within the framework of the group, can be referred for therapy outside of school.

Although this group model seems to be successful in raising awareness of dating violence among young women, it deals with only half of the problem. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice (as reported in Sousa et al., 1987), 95% of reported dating assaults are committed by men. Many young men need to be taught nonviolent methods of handling anger, as well as how to behave respectfully within a relationship. It seems as if current popular concepts of manhood, locked in media stereotypes, leave little room for the notion of compromise and shared power. At an early age, perhaps as first graders, boys can be exposed to an ideal of manhood that encourages them to develop empathy.

The Dating Safely model has been replicated in settings throughout the Quincy Public School System. The psychoeducational format is easy to follow, even for inexperienced practitioners and is a safe, contained vehicle for addressing a potentially explosive topic.

Teaching students how to understand and avoid abusive relationships, part I

Domestic violence has become the focus of growing national concern. In Massachusetts alone, statistics indicate an 80% increase in domestic violence between 1986 and 1990 (Grossfeld, 1991). Research suggests that interpersonal violence is not limited to adults (Makepeace, 1981). Slapping, pushing, emotionally threatening language, and intense possessiveness are common among teens, and it is estimated that 12% to 25% of teenagers experience some form of violence in their dating relationships (Edwards & Moscaritolo, 1989). In a survey of three midwestern high schools, 15.7% of students reported being physically abused in their relationships, with a similar number reporting sexual abuse (Roscoe & Callahan, 1985).

According to Bethke and DeJoy (1993), dating violence seems to begin at age 15 or 16, and teens tend to minimize the severity of abuse as their relationships grow more serious. Teens themselves are aware of this pattern and, when surveyed, recommended intervention before dating occurs (Jaffe & Reitzel, 1990). Jaffe, Suderman, Reitzel, and Killop (1992) provided further justification for early preventive education, citing the costliness of treatment for domestic violence victims as well as the lack of appropriate resources.

Recognizing the need for early intervention, high school guidance departments in many communities are developing school-based strategies. Several early studies (Roscoe & Callahan, 1985; Rosenbaum & O’Leary, 1981) suggested that education is most effective in changing abusive behavior when it emphasizes that violence is not a normal or necessary part of interpersonal relationships. Group treatments based on this theory focus on teaching anger control, assertiveness, and responsible communication. School provides an ideal setting for this type of education, because a large number of young people can be reached at one time. Furthermore, school is perceived as a more socially acceptable venue for counseling services than either mental health centers or shelters for battered women. Bergman (1992) postulated that teenagers are most likely to respond in psychoeducational settings that offer them information about violence, an environment for processing their experiences, and support for making decisions about their relationships. Although there is little data published on the outcome of such interventions in the United States, Canadian researchers report changes in attitude, knowledge, and behavioral interactions in high school students who are exposed to information and discussion of interpersonal violence (Tontodonato & Crew, 1992).

The following is a psychoeducational group model for teenage girls, designed and implemented over 3 years by school psychologists at Quincy High School, a large institution (approximately 1200 students) located in a predominantly working-class city bordering Boston. The goals of the group are to help students define and avoid abusive relationships, as well as to understand long-term effects on self-esteem and decision making. We believe participants will be able to recognize behaviors that constitute abuse, identify risk factors for involvement in abusive relationships, distinguish between myths and facts of dating violence, generate specific strategies to protect themselves in dating situations, increase awareness of effective communication tools, and reflect on dating values.

GROUP COMPOSITION AND FORMATION
Referrals were solicited from various sources, including teachers, administrators, and security guards, as well as from the caseloads of counseling staff members. Given the possibility of a link between violence in the family of origin and involvement in abusive relationships, girls with a positive history for family violence were given priority (Makepeace, 1981; Roscoe & Callahan, 1985; Smith & Williams, 1992; Tontodonato & Crew, 1992). Girls with a personal history of complaints against dating partners were also afforded special consideration. Once a list was compiled, potential participants were interviewed individually. During this interview, counselors briefly described the group and assessed the students’ interest and readiness to participate. Among the guidelines to be considered were the following: (a) ability to tolerate a group setting, (b) willingness to verbalize thoughts and feelings, (c) emotional stability, and (d) parental permission. If a girl admitted to current involvement in an abusive dating relationship, she was referred to community agencies for immediate assistance.

A group comprising 6 to 8 girls is considered optimal in establishing a comfortable and safe environment for discussion. Although the Quincy High School groups used two female coleaders, the use of a male/female team creates opportunities for modeling respect and equality between the two sexes. Groups included girls from grades 9 through 12, providing a forum for sharing diverse experiences and knowledge. Older students tend to be less inhibited, and their example may encourage younger members to participate. To ensure maximum attendance, it is advisable to hold the group during the middle of the week and alternate meeting times across class periods. This avoids Monday and Friday holiday schedules and reduces the amount of time missed in a single class.

Changing a partner’s behavior: some college student data

One-hundred-and-twenty-seven undergraduates at a large southeastern university completed a confidential anonymous 33 item questionnaire designed to assess the degree to which undergraduate college students expect to change the behavior of their dating partners. The data revealed that changing a partner’s behavior is normative and had been learned by observing their parents and friends attempting to change behavior in their respective relationships. The data also revealed that females, particularly those who had been involved in a previous meaningful relationship, were significantly more interested in changing their partner’s gender role attitudes than vice versa. Implications of the data are suggested.

“I’ll change my partner after we get married” is a common thought among persons contemplating marriage. The thought carries three assumptions- that a deliberate attempt to induce the partner to change behavior is in the future for the relationship, that the partner will actually make behavioral changes, and that the partner will benefit/enjoy such changes.

Previous research on changing behavior has focused on conflict management styles (Greeff and DeBruyne, 2000), factors involved in behavior change (Franklin, 2000), and adaptation in long term relationships (Mackey and O’Brien, 1998). This study sought to identify the degree to which undergraduate college students expect and/or experience behavioral and attitudinal change to be operative in a dating relationship.

Sample
The sample consisted of 127 undergraduates at a large southeastern university who responded to an anonymous 33 item questionnaire designed to assess the prevalence, attitudes and behavior toward changing one’s partner in a current or past relationship. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents were female; forty-two percent were male. Most (88%) were White, 8% were Black, 3% Hispanic, and 1% Asian. The median age of the respondents was 18 with a range of 17 to 41 (only one respondent was 41). In regard to classification, most (69%) were first year students with 18% sophomores, 10% juniors and 5% seniors. About half (54%) were either not involved or casually dating, 40% were emotionally involved, and 6% were living together, engaged, or married.

Findings
Analysis of the data revealed that changing one’s partner is part of one’s socialization and is viewed as normative and pervasive.

Parents and Change.
In regard to the family in which the respondents grew up, half the women and one fourth of the men reported having observed their mother attempting to change their father. In addition, 30.4% of female students and 25% of male students reported that they observed their fathers trying to change their mothers’ behavior. The data also indicated that the respondents felt that their parents were trying to change their (the student’s) behavior with female students feeling greater pressure for behavior change (75.3% compared to 66% for males). However, males felt greater pressure from parents to change their (the student’s) attitudes than females (75.4% compared to 64.4%).
Partner, Friends and Change. Eight in ten respondents reported that their partner (in their most enduring relationship) had tried to change some aspect of their (the respondent’s) behavior. They also observed behavior change attempts in the relationships of their friends, as over three fourths (77%) had observed their friends trying to change their respective partners. Everywhere the respondents looked…parents, partner, friends- attempts at change were common.
Importance of Change. These undergraduates felt that it was important to change a partner’s behavior, particularly if the behavior was considered serious. For example, over 90 percent (93%) of the respondents reported that if their partner abused drugs they would try to change his or her behavior. On the other hand, only 39% reported that they would try to change their partner’s religious values.

Significant findings. Aside from the percentages just identified, analysis of the data revealed two significant findings.

a. Gender Role Attitudes. Females evidenced greater interest in changing their partner’s gender role attitudes (86% vs. 72%); the significant level of P<.02

b. Need for Change. Women who have been involved in a previous meaningful relationship were significantly (P < .004) more likely to report (72.9% versus 49% or men) that they wanted to change their current partner's attitudes.

Discussion
In regard to the finding that these respondents observed their parents and friends attempting to change their partner’s and friend’s behavior respectively, it is not surprising that these respondents also reported trying to change their partner’s behavior. Social learning theory emphasizes that interpersonal norms, values, and behaviors are learned (White and Klein, 2002). To have parental and peer models for behavior change is to create the context to learn that attempting to change one’s partner is normative. Shumway and Wampler (2002) also emphasized the link between positive behavior in a relationship and relationship satisfaction.

The finding that women were significantly more likely than men to be interested in changing the gender role attitudes of their partners reflects the preference women have for such egalitarian relationships. While traditional gender role relationships are entrenched (Laner and Ventrone, 2000) women sometimes assume they can change their partner if need be. Indeed, women who had been in a serious relationship revealed that they would not settle for less. Almost three-fourths reported that they wanted to change their partner’s current attitudes.

Implications
Implications of these data suggest that both women and men have been socialized that attempting to change the behavior of someone in a family, peer, or intimate relationship is normative. Women may be particularly attuned to attempt to change the behavior of a male partner to help ensure that she is treated as an equal. Males might be aware that, increasingly, women might expect an egalitarian relationship and to expect her to attempt to change him if he does not treat her as an equal.

Intercouple dating on a college campus

Four-hundred-eighty-six university students completed a confidential questionnaire designed to assess a multitude of aspects of their current and past dating relationships. The 24-item questionnaire was designed to highlight the prevalence and rate that individuals were involved in InterCouple relationships; these being interfaith, intercultural, and/or interracial romantic relationships. 66% of the participants reported being involved at some time in an InterCouple relationship. The overall results of the survey and the importance to college personnel and students are given.

The issue of interracial (and other types of cross-cultural) dating has been an increasing topic on college campuses. Rates of inter-dating are increasing, leading some institutions to examine their policies and services for their students. Recently, Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian University just dropped its controversial ban of interracial dating of its students. Russo (2001) reported that interracial couples occur most frequently in university towns, cities, and large states with diverse populations.

This paper will explore the issue of interracial, interfaith, and intercultural dating on college campuses. Further the results of a university-wide questionnaire exploring the dating practices of undergraduate students will be given.

College Student Dating

Meeting potential dates and mates occurs quite readily on college campuses (DeGenova & Rice, 2002). There has been a change on college campuses from that of segregation of the sexes to one of increased contacts in classrooms, residences, and social centers. Dating is also done more informally today than it once was. However, the college romance frequently leads to engagement and marriage. Moore (1999) suggests that “college dating should be taken seriously as potentially leading to marriage” (p. 120).

In a study done at East Carolina University, ¼ of the students surveyed reported having dated interracially (Knox, Zusman, Buffington, & Hemphill, 2000). Of the students answering the questionnaire, almost half of them expressed an openness to become involved in an inter-racial relationship. These authors suggest that one of the reasons for the increase in interracial dating is that there has been a greater minority enrollment in colleges and universities. This then engages people from different races into more frequent contact with each other leading to more approving behaviors among college students regarding the topic of interracial relationships.

Prevalence of InterCouple Relationships

For the purposes of this study, InterCouple relationships will be defined as those that have any or all of the following types of relationships: interfaith; intercultural; interracial.

Black-White interracial marriage has not been readily accepted by mainstream American society. Until recently, many states prohibited through legal means this type of relationship. On June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the Loving v. Virginia decision, ruled that laws which prohibited interracial marriage were unconstitutional. At that time, there were 16 states which had these miscegenation laws (Davidson, 1992; Foeman & Nance, 1999).

The Black-White couple is usually the most visually identifiable, yet there are other types of interracial relationships (i.e., Hispanic-Asian; Asian-Caucasian; etc.). Before 1980 the U.S. Census Bureau did not distinguish between interracial relationships other than Black-White (Mok, 1999). In the last thirty years there has been an increasing trend toward interracial relationships. Orbe (1999) reported that 60% of Japanese who marry in the United States married someone from a different racial background. Asians and Hispanics tend to marry different races more than African Americans. As of 1998, there was more than 1 million Hispanic-non-Hispanic marriages in the U.S. (Crohn, 1998).

In 1988, approximately 218,00 Black-White couples had married each other (Davidson, 1992). In 1990, Japanese-Americans intermarried at 40.6% and Native Americans at 53.7% (Foeman & Nance, 1999). Winn and Priest (1993) stated that the statistics from the 1990 Census suggested that at least 900,000 interracial married couples existed in the U.S.

Couples of different faiths are also getting married in exceeding proportions. In 1995, approximately thirty-three million Americans lived in an interfaith household (Crohn, 1995). For various religious groups, these proportions are different. Crohn (1995) reported that before 1960, Jews intermarried at a rate less than 10%. As of 1995, Jews intermarried at a rate of over 52%.

This push for multiculturalism in couple relationships is occurring with people at various age ranges. Many younger individuals, especially adolescents, are beginning to engage in cross-cultural relationships. There is an increased prevalence of teenagers in America interracially dating (Peterson, 2000). In this USA Today survey, 57% of teenagers had dated someone outside their race, 30% had indicated that they would consider dating outside of their race, 43% of teens had not dated interracially, and 13% said they never would. This was quite a rise from a previous Gallup poll in 1980 where only 17% of teens said they had dated interracially (although Hispanics were not included in this original survey).

In a study done by Joyner and reported by Wilensky (2002), nearly 1/5 of all the adolescents surveyed had been in an interracial romantic relationship. With immigration and rising birth rates for minorities, many adolescents who would not get the opportunity to interact with people from other races and ethnicities are coming into contact with them at school, work, and other locations.

Relationship Formation

Young adulthood is a time where individuals try to find out who they are, what they want to do in life, and begin to find a partner to do these things with. One of the first developmental theorists, Erik Erikson, discussed this period as intimacy versus isolation (Burger, 2000). During this timeframe, beginning just as the teen years are ending, the development of intimate relationships is key. One of the tasks of young adults is to seek out and find someone who they can feel close to and learn how to be intimate and emotional in an adult-to-adult relationship. By being intimate, both individuals are allowed to grow, emotionally and psychologically. As Burger (2000) states, “Although the development of intimacy within these special relationships typically results in marriage or a romantic commitment to one person, this need not always be the case” (p. 120). If a young adult does not find relationships in which to be intimate with someone else, they will then potentially develop feelings of isolation. The isolated person is characterized by having many superficial relationships and may avoid emotional commitment.

There are many theories of why individuals choose a partner. These theories allow us to understand the process of mate selection and view it in a maturational perspective. One such theory is the filter theory. In this process, mates are cognitively put through a series of steps (filters) which at any time can stop the process. Murstein (1986) suggested that perhaps the first filter is the amount of match on external characteristics (i.e., appearance, manners). If the person was not filtered out, the next step is to check on how closely the two people’s beliefs and attitudes are (i.e., religion, sex). The last filter suggested is that of role fit; how much does the other person fit with your needs. Filter theories have some substantiation, yet, it is thought that all the filters occur simultaneously, instead of in steps. These filters are also socially created as to how much fit or match people have to us. With the increased globalization through travel, media, and the internet, people are coming into contact with a wider array of cultures, races, and faiths.

A second theory of why and how people form intimate relationships is that of exchange theory. In this process each person brings unique attributes to the relationship. We then try to find someone where we have the best exchange of assets. It is thought that, in general, women exchange attractiveness for perceived stability in men. Gaines, Rios, Granrose, and Bledsoe (1999) found that in interracial relationships, the individuals in these relationships exchanged affections and respect at significant levels. Pope (1986) discussed the exchange theory in interracial relationships and concluded that the exchange hypothesis that Black men exchange their higher economic or professional status to White women for their higher caste status was unsubstantiated. This idea that Blacks marry Whites for status, hypergamy, has also been refuted by Foeman and Nance (1999) who stated that, “These factors indicate that other variables are more important than simple social-economic exchange, and that greater equity rather than disparity increases the likelihood of interracial coupling” (p. 543).

The issue of couples from different backgrounds coming together is gaining newfound popularity in the literature. The current study is an attempt to attain the prevalence of InterCouple relationships on an urban college campus. Various aspects of these relationships are explored and some general conclusions are made.

Method
A questionnaire was developed to assess the frequency, types, satisfaction, and other various components of dating, particularly InterCouple dating. This 24-item questionnaire involved several different types of questions including demographics, Likert-type items; and preference questions. The questionnaire was given to 486 undergraduate students at Nova Southeastern University. This University is located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida and is a very multicultural university. It is also quite untraditional, as it has day students (traditional college students) and career students (older adults).

Participant Demographics

Out of the 486 students who filled out the questionnaire, 118 were males (24%) and 368 were females (76%). The mean age was 22.33 with a standard deviation of 7.36. The range was 17-62 while the mode was 19. Their year in school was 150 freshmen (31%), 125 sophomores (26%), 124 juniors (26%), and 87 seniors (18%).

45.9% of the participants were Caucasian, 20% were Hispanic; 18.1% were African-American, while the other 14% were of various ethnic backgrounds (predominantly Asian and Indian). In terms of religion, 31.9% of the participants were Catholic, 22% Christian, 8% Jewish, and a variety of other religions filled out the remaining 38%.

Results
171 of the participants (35.2%) were not currently in a relationship; 32.3% were in an intracouple relationship; 19.8% in an intercultural relationship; 12.1% in an interfaith relationship and 12.1% in an interracial relationship. There was some overlap of people being in more than one type of relationship. The mean length of months in a relationship was 24.9. For those students 25 and under, their mean length of relationship was 20.3. The number of past and current romantic relationships per person was an average of 3.1. The participants averaged 1.32 InterCouple relationships per person.

As to which types of InterCouple relationships they engaged in, the breakdown was as follows: 41 interracial; 68 interfaith;88 intercultural; 12 interracial /interfaith; 80 interracial/interfaith/intercultural; 32 interracial/intercultural; and 54 interfaith/intercultural. Of the sample, 191 individuals (39.3) reported that their parents had or are in an InterCouple relationship. There was a mean of 2.06 of their friends who were in InterCouple relationships.

The participants were also asked how they though their parents would feel if they were involved in an InterCouple relationship. They were given a 5-choice scale including Very upset, somewhat upset, neutral, somewhat happy, and very happy. Their scores averaged between somewhat upset and neutral. They were also asked the likelihood that they would marry into any of these three types of relationships. They averaged between somewhat likely and don’t know. This shows a move toward individuality that overall they think their family would be somewhat upset yet still believe that they would be somewhat likely to marry into a different culture, race, or faith.

Discussion
Over half of the sample reported that they are in or had been in some form of an InterCouple relationship. This seems to be the trend for many of today’s institutes of higher learning. Nova Southeastern University is a very diverse campus. Other universities are moving to multiculturalism and are finding that students on their campus are engaging in cross-cultural relationships.

Many universities have student centers which help aid the life of students on the campus. These centers can utilize this information to help develop workshops and trainings for faculty, staff, and students. The more that individuals are educated about this growing type of couple, the more prepared all will be in dealing with some of the unique issues that these couples deal with.

Different universities will have different percentages of their students engaging in InterCouple relationships, depending on location, religiosity, and other factors. However, these results seem to fit the trend toward more diverse and unique relationships occurring in the college-aged student.

The Joy of No Sex By: Wasley, Paula, Chronicle of Higher Education

Justin F. Murray and Sarah M. Kinsella can barely keep their hands off each other. On a recent sunny afternoon, the two newly minted Harvard University graduates greet with a lingering embrace. They share a lemonade. She nuzzles his arm, rubs his back, and boasts about his dance moves. He massages her shoulders and coos, “Look how cute she is!”

One thing these lovebirds won’t do, however, is go to bed until they’re wed. Last year the pair founded a Harvard student group called True Love Revolution, which promotes sexual abstinence. While other abstinence advocates have used the threat of fire and brimstone to discourage co-educational hanky-panky, these “true love” revolutionaries cast chastity in secular terms, as a practical choice with physical and emotional rewards.

On a campus they describe as saturated with casual sex, Justin and Sarah have helped put abstinence on the map. As they prepare to take their commitment to chastity - and each other - off campus, they leave behind a handful of devotees of a countercultural movement that says abstinence is sexy.

True Love Revolution, or TLR, is hardly the only group pushing self-restraint among young adults. Religious organizations on college campuses have long advised students to harness their hormones. At Princeton University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, students have founded chapters of the secular Anscombe Society (named for Elizabeth Anscombe, a British Catholic philosopher) to advance moral and ethical reasons for keeping one’s clothes on. And there are high-school-focused groups, including the religiously affiliated Silver Ring Thing, a social club whose members wear silver rings to signify their pledge of chastity.

TLR’s approach is more practical. The group’s founders say abstinence is not only a foolproof means of avoiding sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies, but also the ticket to a better romantic life.

Both Sarah and Justin say that abstinence has strengthened their own bond, helping them savor the intimacies of kissing, holding hands, and long late-night talks. Their relationship has impressed some of their fellow students. “They say, ‘There might actually be something to this because you guys seem really happy and you’re not even having sex,’” says Ms. Kinsella.

‘Everything I Am’
The two arrived at abstinence by different paths. Ms. Kinsella, a practicing Catholic, came to Harvard knowing she wanted to save sex for marriage. Her conviction grew after more than one suitor broke up with her because she wouldn’t sleep with him. “I felt like I had been objectified,” she says, “that this guy is not interested in me for everything I am.”

Mr. Murray, who is also Catholic, was once “vaguely committed” to abstinence. During his freshman year, he observed his classmates’ relationships. “I saw a lot of people looking for sex on a Friday night as a stress relief from a difficult week,” he says. “I started asking, Is that really what sex is all about?”

Although Mr. Murray says he had sex in previous relationships, he had recommitted himself to chastity by the time he and Ms. Kinsella began dating, a year and a half ago. The two agreed that they would not even sleep in the same room with each other, a relationship rule they have broken only a few times, such as when they shared a hotel room during a ski trip to New Hampshire, to save money.

Last summer, as they strolled along the Charles River, they decided to start a club that might attract other students like them. They obtained university sponsorship and established True Love Revolution in November.

True Love Revolution now has more than 150 members, according to its Facebook page, and an equal following of men and women. Ms. Kinsella and Mr. Murray spend several hours a week answering e-mail messages from the curious, including students from other college campuses.

True Love Revolution has become part activist group, part support network. It challenges a campus culture that, its founders say, promotes sex through university-sponsored how-to seminars on female orgasm. The group has advertised the benefits of abstinence through flyers and ice-cream socials. In April they held an open dinner discussion called “Living in a Hookup Culture,” which attracted supporters and critics alike. The founders hope their successors will bring speakers to the campus, and perhaps approach the university’s health center about incorporating information on abstinence into its sex-education programs.

When she and Mr. Murray founded the group, says Ms. Kinsella, their friends called them brave. Still, she was not prepared for the strong reactions TLR has generated. “People take this more personally than just a discussion of ideas,” she says.

True Love Revolution has attracted members of various religions, as well as agnostic students. The group has avoided taking stances on same-sex unions or abortion. Many of its members are virgins; some who are not have recommitted to abstinence. The group even has couples who have managed to “turn things around” midrelationship, says Ms. Kinsella.

“The reason to save sex for marriage is not because sex is bad, but because it’s so great that you want to share it with someone who means something extremely special,” says Mr. Murray. “Part of the fun is the anticipation of how important it’s going to be.”

Stirring Controversy
The organization caused some controversy at Harvard. On Valentine’s Day, for instance, the group mailed chocolate hearts to all freshman women, along with cards that said, “Why Wait? Because You’re Worth It.” That raised the ire of some campus feminists who said the organization was promoting a patriarchal view of female sexuality. The Harvard Crimson published a few editorials mocking the group. And Mr. Murray has friends who enjoy taunting him with explicit details of their sex lives.

But most of their fellow students have been understanding, the couple says. “I have friends who say, I like the idea but I could never do that,” says Ms. Kinsella.

Plenty of college students are abstaining from sex. A 2006 survey by the American College Health Association found that 29 percent of college students reported not having had sex in the past school year. The same study showed that students often overestimate the extent of their peers’ sexual activities.

“People tend to perceive that other people are more sexually active and wilder than they themselves are,” says Kathleen A. Bogle, an assistant professor of sociology and criminal justice at La Salle University and author of a forthcoming book, Hooking Up: Sex, Dating, and Relationships on Campus (New York University Press, 2008). “When you interview people who are virgins, they think they are the only ones. But it’s not anywhere as rare as they think it is.”

Abstinence groups like True Love Revolution, she says, are a reaction to a campus hookup culture.

Leo J. Keliher, a freshman at Harvard, credits True Love Revolution with keeping him on the straight and narrow during the tempting first weeks of his freshman year, when opportunities to hook up were all around him. He says the group appealed to him because in high school he experienced some unsatisfying romantic relationships that had more to do with physical attraction than mutual respect.

During freshman orientation, he passed out the group’s list of “Top 10 Reasons to Wait.” “It helped put out a public image right away that this is what I want to be known for,” he says.

Next fall Mr. Keliher and Janie M. Fredell, a sophomore, will take over as co-presidents of the organization. Ms. Fredell is from Colorado Springs, where she says many teenagers proudly identified themselves as virgins. At Harvard, she says, abstinence carries the stigma of prudery. She and Mr. Keliher hope to give abstinence an image makeover by organizing dances and other social events for the chaste.

Katharina Cieplak-von Baldegg, a recent Harvard graduate and co-founder of the university’s much-hyped sex magazine, H Bomb, first encountered True Love Revolution when she was handed a hot-pink flyer that said “Sex. Why Wait?” Reading further, she was surprised to see a list of reasons why she should.

“I thought it was kind of funny that someone would take so much time out of their day to try to stop other people from having sex,” she says. But she has been impressed by what she describes as the group’s open-mindedness. “They just want to have a group and a place where people can feel that they’re not alone in their opinions,” she says, “like any other student group.”

She finds it strange that True Love Revolution is often viewed in opposition to H Bomb, since both, she says, formed to start conversations about sexuality. “The two groups might be reflected in each other more than you would expect,” she says.

Now that they have left Harvard behind, Mr. Murray and Ms. Kinsella say taking abstinence into the real world will be a cinch.

The couple plans to move to Washington soon. He will attend Georgetown University’s law school; she will enroll at Georgetown’s medical school. They say they will continue to set aside at least one evening a week for a proper date. In a few years, they hope to marry.

For now, though, they will live in separate apartments.

Matchmaker, Matchmaker, Find Me a Roommate

Blind dates can go awry, but a roommate mismatch can spoil a semester. Nasty habits. Bitter grudges. Epic stand-offs over square inches.

Luckily, most pairings don’t get that ugly, whether campuses make them randomly or by running survey responses through a computer. These days many students even control their own fates: More and more colleges let them post profiles, online-dating style, and pick one another.

Yet a handful of institutions insist on hand-matching freshmen, one by one. The goal is for roommates, even if they don’t become best friends forever, to at least get along, says Carolyn S. Bigler, assistant director of housing at the University of Richmond and a hand-matcher. She hopes that students come away from their first anxious chat thinking, “Well, maybe this is going to be OK.”

Tiffannie Williams did. The freshman from Florida hit it off last month with the roommate Richmond had chosen for her: Faith Lewandowski, a Long Islander. Both like to swim and mock their mothers’ devotion to Amway. After moving in, they went to Wal-Mart to stock up on snacks, each picking out Fruit Gushers and white cheddar Cheez-Its.

“Everything is kind of compatible,” says Ms. Lewandowski.

Richmond used to rely on Scantron forms to match roommates. In 2002, Ms. Bigler added an extra page — an open-ended question that asked, basically, What are you looking for? — to the housing application. Soon after, she eliminated the fill-in bubbles, asking each freshman to write out the whole form and mail it in. Students get more invested in the process, she says, when they know a human is behind it.

Housing officers on hand-matching campuses toil for weeks, steeped in human drama: passions, pet peeves, allergies. There’s no substitute, they say, for personal attention. Campus tour guides parrot that point, selling all but a satisfaction guarantee. And parents pay particular attention, lest their kid wind up with a wacko.

Richmond’s ever-evolving form now asks 15 questions about habits and preferences, like daily naps and reality TV. Its last page, still the open-ended question, tries to loosen up the admissions-weary: “This is not an essay! Be casual.” Some students draw pictures.

Ms. Bigler splits applicants by attitudes toward alcohol and overnight guests. Opposite answers to those questions are deal breakers, she says. From there she divides the stacks into smaller and smaller piles, perusing their back pages.

This year, among 750 freshmen, one woman described her passion for Japanese anime comics, says Michael J. Gaynor, a junior who helped with the process. The reference rang a bell, and he riffled through the piles — anime, anime — to find the other fan. At another point, he says, “I had a stack of about 10 people who put, ‘Has to like Obama.’”

The puzzle pieces change throughout the summer. Students withdraw, enroll from the wait list, and elect living-and-learning programs. But Richmond keeps trying to pair — not push — them together.

“We really want the room to be a place that students are comfortable to go back to,” says Ms. Bigler. “Then the other things that they’re faced with in coming to college they’re able to handle much better.”

Several small campuses boast a similar brand of social engineering. Davidson College bases its matches on personality tests and admissions files, considering nuances like the extent of a family’s travel abroad. Housing staffers at Wisconsin Lutheran College consult with admissions officers. At D’Youville College they involve upperclassmen who have led freshmen through an early orientation.

The personal touch still rules even at one much bigger place: Ohio State University. Each year Toni L. Greenslade-Smith, director of housing assignments there, spreads 7,000 roommate forms across the floor and sorts them by hand. Among students’ many other characteristics, she says, “we also look at whether they snore.”

Different colleges’ forms feature multiple-choice questions, fill-in-the-blanks, and 10-point, self-rated scales of modesty and humor. Housing officers regularly fine-tune their questionnaires, often with students’ input, but worry that asking too much will heighten expectations of a perfect match.

In the end, pairing happens by hunch and whim. Once or twice Ms. Bigler has matched two roommates whose forms seemed to have been filled out by their parents. “When you’ve read enough,” she says, “you know.” This year Mr. Gaynor weighed not only what students wrote, but also how. “I found the scribblers would work well together most of the time,” he says.

Staff members at Houghton College, a small, Christian institution, studied three years’ worth of forms and outcomes, concluding that shared taste in music best predicted success for women. For men, it was “spiritual sensitivity.” Also: “People who listed themselves as artistic had roommate problems no matter where we put them,” says Dennis J. Stack, housing director at Houghton.

Everyone’s heard horror stories: the roommate who sliced off the top of her finger and saved it in a drawer, the young woman who chewed tobacco and kept several spittoons around the room.

Catastrophe is clear; gauging success is trickier. Some colleges track room transfers — Richmond’s rate hovers around 1 percent — but figures don’t always account for dropouts, circumstantial splits, and roommates who coexist in steely silence.

Staying power, though — that’s something. By tradition, Richmond’s women’s college serves a steak dinner to roommates who live together till they graduate. Last year 50 women joined in Newlywed Game activities at the wine-and-sundress affair.

Among them were Christa Queen-Sutherland and Katie Donovan, who shared a room except during Ms. Donovan’s semester in Argentina. They both recall a smooth transition to college and a happy four years.

They also remember filling out their housing forms, hoping to be neat and pretending (for their parents) that they didn’t drink. “We both,” says Ms. Queen-Sutherland, “kind of tweaked our applications from the total truth.”

Alternative Dating Websites

The term alternative dating sites has gotten lots of press lately as more and more dating web sites have begun to narrow their focus to find a particular niche in the online dating marketplace. But what makes a site an alternative dating service as opposed to simply one that is specific to a particular ethnic group or sexual orientation? I consider a site an alternative dating site if the group it is appealing to is obviously more narrowly focused than just a particular sexual inclination or a standard type of interests that are considered fairly common.

Free alternative dating sites are relatively common because they are so focused – they need to gain a substantial foothold with a relatively small cross-section of the population, so they can’t really afford to charge a lot. Instead, they either make their income off advertising or they are simply offered as a public service of sorts to a specific group.

In addition to the obvious BDSM and alternative lifestyle personals, there are four different sites I’ve found that I consider alternative dating services because of their very specialized focus that also provide good, reliable service to its members. Each of these alternative dating sites will appeal strongly to certain types of people – you’ll love them if they target your own interests.

Military Date

This site is all about men and women in the military or, in some cases, people who want to meet someone who is in the military. It takes a special type of person to maintain a relationship with military personnel – there are frequent relocations, high stress levels and it’s a unique sub-culture of the American way of life. The website Militarydate.com recognized the need to help military singles find partners and friends who understand their lifestyle and the response has been tremendous.
Military Date is a very affordably priced alternative dating site. You can post your profile and pictures and browse member profiles for free. If you want to contact other members you will need to join. You can search by region of the world (where someone is stationed), branch of the military, and a long list of interests. Many members stay with the service long after they’ve met their special someone because it is a close-knit community of service men and women.

Antopia

Men and women with HIV, Herpes or other sexually transmitted diseases often have a hard time dating. Either they can’t find the right time to reveal their STD to a potential partner, or the person they tell finds it difficult to handle. Other individuals with STD’s have simply decided they don’t want to take the chance of passing it on to someone else. As an alternative, dating websites like the Antopia Herpes Network provide a safe, secure place where infected individuals can meet others who are also infected. Not only does this prevent the spread of STD’s, it ensures understanding and compassion because your partner has been through the same experience.

This herpes dating site is exceptional because it offers so much; with 57,000+ members in the United States it’s a great place to socialize without feeling ostracized. Most members have Herpes, although some also have STD’s such as HPV. You can exchange emails, chat and post your profile and photo for free. The chat is for paying members, except for Wednesdays and Saturdays, when it is free for everyone, which I think is a great way to let you try it out until you are comfortable actually joining.

This site also has great health information and links to medical reports and helpful services for those who carry the Herpes virus. The whole tone of the site is one of helpfulness and support – members who have been online for a while often offer support and advice on dating through the message boards. The site also posts information on “H Events,” which are socializing opportunities in various cities for people with STD’s. I found this site one of the friendliest and most sincere I’ve visited. If you have an STD, this alternative dating site can change your whole outlook on dating and relating.

Date My Pet
Changing gears completely, I heartily recommend Date My Pet, an alternative dating site that caters to the millions of true animal lovers who are currently single. You’ve heard the phrase, “Love me, love my pet?” This site is the epitome of the old saying – members are pet lovers who wouldn’t consider dating anyone who didn’t share their passion for man’s best friends. Post your profile and picture, then add a few photos of your pet or pets and begin using the matching service – for yourself or your pet! That’s right; you can match your pet up with potential play buddies.

Profile questions revolve around the animals in your life as well as your own interests. Questions include: “My pet would describe me as…” and “My pet is seeking…” as well as information about what type of person you are looking for. It sounded a bit odd to me at first, but I have to tell you I had a blast looking at the pet photos and reading the stories other members had written about their dogs, cats, reptiles and other pets. I felt at home here because I love my own pets the same way – and think mine are adorable, too.

If you’re looking for events where you can meet other animal lovers, you can find those at Datemypet.com as well. Try “Drool in the Pool” in NYC or Chicago’s “PAWS Run for Their Lives” fundraiser.

Millionaire Match

The name says it all – find the millionaire you always knew was out there just waiting for you by joining Millionaire Match. You can join even if you aren’t a millionaire, but most members really do have an astounding net worth or yearly income. This alternative dating site serves two purposes – if you already have money, this is a great place to meet people who understand how hard you work and the hectic pace you live, or if you want to meet someone who is well-off, you can email those you are interested.

Surprisingly, having lots of money seems to make it more difficult for lots of members to find a partner, so they’ve turned to Millionaire Match to find a truly compatible “special someone.” The membership stays exclusive by not allowing any browsing or contact at all unless you become a paying member. It also breaks profiles into two categories – those who make at least $150,000 per year, and those who don’t. Once you join, the profiles and the personality questionnaire are impressive and give you lots of information to get you started.

BBW - 15 big beautiful plus-size models

Source: http://www.asylum.co.uk/2008/10/31/bbw-15-big-beautiful-plus-size-models/

When you think of a model, you probably picture a twiggy, alien-like creature who subsists mainly on a diet of nicotine and diet cola. But we appreciate the female form in its many different shapes and sizes, from trim to voluptuous. So we decided to lavish some attention on the unsung sister to the runway waif, the plus-size model.

The full-figured females in the gallery below aren’t all as famous as the Kate Mosses of the world, but they do have one thing in common: They get our blood pumping with their dangerous curves.

15. Barbara Brickner is one of the biggest names in plus-size modeling, with a 10+ year career that’s as healthy as her physique.

14. Ireland’s Charlotte Coyle models for goth-y plus-size mainstay Torrid, and hosted a U.K. reality show in 2006 called Fat Beauty Contest.

13. Brazilian Fluvia Lucerda shows that her country has the stronghold on hot models of all sizes.

12. Johanna Dray of France busted into notoriously thin high fashion by appearing in John Galliano’s “Everybody is Beautiful” show and subsequent French Vogue editorial.

11. Up-and-comer Justine Legault hails from Canada, where they apparently loll about the bedroom without any clothing.

10. You only need one name when you’re as stunning as Canadian model Liis.

9. Once anorexic, Crystal Renn scored layouts in Vogue’s U.S., Italian, French and German editions after going plus-size. The smoking Renn has even been on “Oprah,” where she discussed body issues.

8. Natalie Laughlin was the first plus-size model to be on a billboard in Times Square — she consequently earned four more.

7. Christina Schmidt played a plus-size model on “Degrassi: The Next Generation.” Fans liked her so much she was signed by Wilhelmina.

6. 21-year-old Whitney Thompson.

5. Kate Dillon began her career as a size six, but rose to fame as a plus-size model who frequently appears in her underwear.

4. Celebuspawn Mia Tyler started modeling at the age of 17, before stooping to reality fare on “Celebrity Fit Club.”

3. Sophie Dahl, the granddaughter of chldren’s book author Roald Dahl has since slimmed down, but she was discovered as a model at her most voluptuous, including a 38DD bra size.

2. When she wasn’t being a total nutjob, Anna Nicole Smith managed to look beautiful at any size, just like her inspiration, Marilyn Monroe.

1. Another “Top Model” contestant, plus-size Tocarra Jones has followed up her reality stint with a series of lad mag photo spreads so titillating they earned her the number one spot.

Dating tips from a 9-year-old

You may have already heard about mini-Cassanova Alec Greven,. He’s a nine-year-old boy whose dating primer “How to Talk to Girls” has evolved from a $3 pamphlet to a book being published by Harper Collins. 

We admit, we were sceptical at first — what could some kid possibly teach veterans like us about romancing the ladies? 

But we have to admit, his advice is pretty solid. Check out a sampling of Alex’s best tips from a recent New York Post article, and think about the fact that his practical advice would all totally work. 

1. “Comb your hair and don’t wear sweats (jogging bottoms).”
2. “Control your hyperness (cut down on sugar if you need to).”
3. “The best choice for most boys is a regular girl. Remember, some pretty girls are coldhearted when it comes to boys. Don’t let them get to you.”
4. “Make sure you have good friends who don’t try to take the girl you like.”
5. “Go easy on the compliments to avoid looking desperate.”
6. “Class clowns never make a good love story with a girl, if you catch my drift.”

Date ABC

Flirt makes fun and feels well for ego, but not every man is Prince Charming. What thus everything belongs to it to the date, our date ABC summarises.

The experience points: One must kiss many frogs to find the right thing. This can give pleasure, indeed, should be prepared frau in the matter of dates for everything.

Just with Blind dates one or other toad can be also present sometimes. We want charm, compliments and a little imagination. If in spite of nervousness - it simply belongs to it - at the first meeting the mood is right and the spark leaps over, even vices can be grown fond and it maybe comes to the parting kiss - or also more. But we say ourselves “The next one, please” and kiss just one more frog.

• A like Amateur kiss
• B as Blind date
• C like charm
• D like date
• E like eroticism
• Following how flirtation
• G like feelings
• H like handbag
• I like Indeskretion
• J like Jung’s well
• K like compliment
• L like vice
• M like men
• N like nervousness
• O like outfit
• P like imagination
• Q like torture
• R like Running dinner
• See how sex
• T like meeting place
• AND how impatience
• V like seduction
• W like wine
• Z like time

Next Page »