There is a study that had concluded delaying sex for at least a month makes a relationship stronger in the long run.

As some of the commenters mentioned, the study was conducted by researchers from Brigham Young University, the Church of Latter-Day Saints–affiliated college that goes so far as to have an honor code forbidding premarital sex.

Yeah, we also found that a bit suspicious. (And don't think we're just picking on the Mormons; if the folks at Arizona State had come out with a study concluding that drinking until you puke is good for the digestive system, we'd be skeptical of that, too.)

Of course the correct answer is probably "it depends on the relationship,"  Read on for the pros and cons of each period of frustrating abstinence.

 

First Date
Pro: It's 2011 -- not giving in to desire is for suckers
Con: (Obviously) drunken sex with a relative stranger has a spotty history of being of high-quality

Third Date
Pro: It's pretty much the industry standard, so there must be something to it.
Con: Following such a convention sets you up for a lifetime of boring, by-the-book sex

One Month
Pro: That time period allows better assessment of the full range of a woman's emotions. That way you'll have a better idea as to whether a sexual relationship gone bad could possibly lead to some sort of unfortunate rabbit-boiling.
Con: That's beginning to be a lot of time (and expense) spent building up to something that nature created you to do.

Longer Than a Month
Pro: One month and beyond is when the BYU study suggests an eventual marriage will start becoming stronger. And if you are able to hold out this long, you probably should be thinking about marriage.
Con: If she hasn't had sex with you into the second month of your relationship, it could be she just doesn't have sex, or is having sex with somebody else.

Wait Until Marriage
Pro: You will make happy the God of just about any religion.
Con: If the sex doesn't turn out to be any good, you really are screwed.

Mother's Day in the United States was first proclaimed in 1870 in Boston by Julia Ward Howe, and Howe called for it to be observed each year nationally in 1872. As originally envisioned, Howe's "Mother's Day" was a call for Pacifism and disarmament by women. Early "Mother's Day" was mostly marked by woman's peace groups. A common early activity was the meeting of groups of mothers whose sons had fought or died on opposite sides of the American Civil War.

In 1907 Mother's Day was first celebrated in a small private way by Anna Jarvis in Grafton, West Virginia, to commemorate the anniversary of her mother's death two years earlier on May 9, 1905. Jarvis's mother, also named Anna Jarvis, had been active in Mother's Day campaigns for peace and worker's safety and health. The younger Jarvis launched a quest to get wider recognition of Mother's Day. The celebration organized by Jarvis on May 10, 1908 involved 407 children with their mothers at the Andrew's Methodist Church in Grafton. The following campaign to recognize Mother's Day was financed by clothing merchant John Wanamaker. As the custom of Mother's Day spread, the emphasis shifted from the pacificism and reform movements to a general appreciation of mothers.

The first official recognition of the holiday was by West Virginia in 1910.

A proclamation designating the second Sunday in May as Mother's Day was signed by U.S. president Woodrow Wilson on May 14, 1914.

A tradition calls for the wearing of carnations on Mother's Day—a red one if one's mother is alive, and white if she has died.

If soap operas and the media are to be believed, then everyone is getting their leg over everywhere.. all the time. In fact, do you know where your partner is right now? Here are 10 facts about cheating, you may not have known.

1.) Cheating is not as common as you might think. 1 in 5 men have strayed at least once during their married lives, and that figure drops to half in women.

2.) Men are better at spotting cheating spouses with 50% finding out, whereas only 30% of women can identify a rat.

3.) Are you sure you want to confess? Affairs are the biggest cause for divorce.

4.) Those who divorce rarely marry the person they are having the affair with. For example, Dr. Jan Halper’s study of successful men (executives, entrepreneurs, professionals) found that only 3 percent of the 4,100 successful men surveyed eventually married their lovers.

5.) Frank Pittman says there are four types of infidelity: accidental infidelity, the romantic affair, the marital arrangement, and the philanderer.

6.) 31% of people have had an online conversation that has led to real-time sex.

7.) 2 out of 3 women and 3 out of 4 men admit they think about makin’ bacon with co-workers.

8.) Although flirting doesn’t necessarily lead to horizontal hula, 86% of men and 81% of women admit they routinely flirt with the opposite sex.

9.) 2 to 3% of all children are the product of an affair. And most of these children are unknowingly raised by men who are not their biological fathers. Remember, no love without the glove…

10.) 75% of the cases of sudden death during sexual activity involved … extra-marital sexual intercourse.

Infinity Maxim: There are an unlimited number of security vulnerabilities for a given security device, system, or program, most of which will never be discovered (by the good guys or bad guys).

Arrogance Maxim: The ease of defeating a security device or system is proportional to how confident/arrogant the designer, manufacturer, or user is about it, and to how often they use words like “impossible” or “tamper-proof”.

Ignorance is Bliss Maxim: The confidence that people have in security is inversely proportional to how much they know about it.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid Maxim: If you’re not running scared, you have bad security or a bad security product.

High-Tech Maxim: The amount of careful thinking that has gone into a given security device, system, or program is inversely proportional to the amount of high-technology it uses.

Schneier’s Maxim #1: The more excited people are about a given security technology, the less they understand (1) that technology and (2) their own security problems.

Schneier’s Maxim #2: Control will usually get confused with Security.

Low-Tech Maxim: Low-tech attacks work (even against high-tech devices and systems).

Father Knows Best Maxim: The amount that (non-security) senior managers in any organization know about security is inversely proportional to (1) how easy they think security is, and (2) how much they will micro-manage security and invent arbitrary rules.

Huh Maxim: When a (non-security) senior manager, bureaucrat, or government official talks publicly about security, he or she will usually say something stupid, unrealistic, inaccurate, and/or naïve.

Voltaire’s Maxim: The problem with common sense is that it is not all that common.

Yipee Maxim: There are effective, simple, & low-cost counter- measures (at least partial countermeasures) to most vulnerabilities.

Arg Maxim: But users, manufacturers, managers, & bureaucrats will be reluctant to implement them for reasons of inertia, pride, bureaucracy, fear, wishful thinking, and/or cognitive dissonance.

Show Me Maxim: No serious security vulnerability, including blatantly obvious ones, will be dealt with until there is overwhelming evidence and widespread recognition that adversaries have already catastrophically exploited it. In other words, “significant psychological (or literal) damage is required before any significant security changes will be made”.

I Just Work Here Maxim: No salesperson, engineer, or executive of a company that sells security products or services is prepared to answer a significant question about vulnerabilities, and few potential customers will ever ask them one.

Bob Knows a Guy Maxim: Most security products and services will be chosen by the end-user based on purchase price plus hype, rumor, innuendo, hearsay, and gossip.

Familiarity Maxim: Any security technology becomes more vulnerable to attacks when it becomes more widely used, and when it has been used for a longer period of time.

Antique Maxim: A security device, system, or program is most vulnerable near the end of its life.

Payoff Maxim: The more money that can be made from defeating a technology, the more attacks, attackers, and hackers will appear.

I Hate You Maxim 1: The more a given technology is despised or distrusted, the more attacks, attackers, and hackers will appear.

I Hate You Maxim 2: The more a given technology causes hassles or annoys security personnel, the less effective it will be.

Shannon’s (Kerckhoffs’) Maxim: The adversaries know and understand the security hardware and strategies being employed.

Corollary to Shannon’s Maxim: Thus, “Security by Obscurity”, i.e., security based on keeping long-term secrets, is not a good idea.

Gossip Maxim: People and organizations can’t keep secrets.

Plug into the Formula Maxim: Engineers don’t understand security. They think nature is the adversary, not people. They tend to work in solution space, not problem space. They think systems fail stochastically, not through intelligent malicious intent.

Rohrbach’s Maxim: No security device, system, or program will ever be used properly (the way it was designed) all the time.

Rohrbach Was An Optimist Maxim: Few security devices, systems, or programs will ever be used properly.

Insider Risk Maxim: Most organizations will ignored or seriously underestimate the threat from insiders.

We Have Met the Enemy and He is Us Maxim: The insider threat from careless or complacent employees & contractors exceeds the threat from malicious insiders (though the latter is not negligible.)

Troublemaker Maxim: The probability that a security professional has been marginalized by his or her organization is proportional to his/her skill, creativity, knowledge, competence, and eagerness to provide effective security.

Feynman’s Maxim: An organization will fear and despise loyal vulnerability assessors and others who point out vulnerabilities or suggest security changes more than malicious adversaries.

Irresponsibility Maxim: It’ll often be considered “irresponsible” to point out security vulnerabilities (including the theoretical possibility that they might exist), but you’ll rarely be called irresponsible for ignoring or covering them up.

Backwards Maxim: Most people will assume everything is secure until provided strong evidence to the contrary--exactly backwards from a reasonable approach.

You Could’ve Knocked Me Over with a Feather Maxim 1: Security managers, manufacturers, vendors, and end users will always be amazed at how easily their security products or programs can be defeated.

You Could’ve Knocked Me Over with a Feather Maxim 2: Having been amazed once, security managers, manufacturers, vendors, and end users will be equally amazed the next time around.

That’s Why They Pay Us the Big Bucks Maxim: Security is nigh near impossible. It’s extremely difficult to stop a determined adversary. Often the best you can do is discourage him, and maybe minimize the consequences when he does attack.

Throw the Bums Out Maxim: An organization that fires high- level security managers when there is a major security incident, or severely disciplines or fires low-level security personnel when there is a minor incident, will never have good security.

Better to be Lucky than Good Maxim: Most of the time when security appears to be working, it’s because no adversary is currently prepared to attack.

A Priest, a Minister, and a Rabbi Maxim: People lacking imagination, skepticism, and a sense of humor should not work in the security field.

Mr. Spock Maxim: The effectiveness of a security device, system, or program is inversely proportional to how angry or upset people get about the idea that there might be vulnerabilities.

Double Edge Sword Maxim: Within a few months of its availability, new technology helps the bad guys at least as much as it helps the good guys.

Mission Creep Maxim: Any given device, system, or program that is designed for inventory will very quickly come to be viewed--quite incorrectly--as a security device, system, or program.

We’ll Worry About it Later Maxim: Effective security is difficult enough when you design it in from first principles. It almost never works to retrofit it in, or to slap security on at the last minute, especially onto inventory technology.

Somebody Must’ve Thought It Through Maxim: The more important the security application, the less careful and critical thought has gone into it.

That’s Entertainment Maxim: Ceremonial Security (a.k.a. “Security Theater”) will usually be confused with Real Security; even when it is not, it will be favored over Real Security.

Ass Sets Maxim: Most security programs focus on protecting the wrong assets.

Vulnerabilities Trump Threats Maxim: If you know the vulnerabilities (weaknesses), you’ve got a shot at understanding the threats (the probability that the weaknesses will be exploited and by whom). Plus you might even be ok if you get the threats all wrong. But if you focus only on the threats, you’re probably in trouble.

Mermaid Maxim: The most common excuse for not fixing security vulnerabilities is that they simply can't exist.

Onion Maxim: The second most common excuse for not fixing security vulnerabilities is that "we have many layers of security", i.e., we rely on "Security in Depth".

Hopeless Maxim: The third most common excuse for not fixing security vulnerabilities is that "all security devices, systems, and programs can be defeated". (This is typically expressed by the same person who initially invoked the Mermaid Maxim.)

Takes One to Know One: The fourth most common excuse for not fixing security vulnerabilities is that "our adversaries are too stupid and/or unresourceful to figure that out."

Depth, What Depth? Maxim: For any given security program, the amount of critical, skeptical, and intelligence thinking that has been undertaken is inversely proportional to how strongly the strategy of "Security in Depth" (layered security) is embraced.

This is so true!!

He has a point......AMEN

Michael Richards Court Speech Makes one stop and think after reading this :
Michael Richards is better known as Kramer from tv's Seinfeld series.
This was his defense speech in court after making racial comments in his comedy act.
He makes some very interesting points.

He said :

I'm proud To Be White Someone finally said it.
How many are actually paying attention to this ?
There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc.
And then there are just Americans.
You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction.
You Call me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,' 'Honkey,' 'Whitey,' 'Caveman' ... and that's OK.
But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger, Camel Jockey, Beaner , Gook, or Chink ... You call me a racist.
You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you, so why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live ?
You have the United Negro College Fund.
You have Martin Luther King Day.
You have Black History Month.
You have Cesar Chavez Day.
You have Yom Hashoah.
You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.
You have the NAACP.
You have BET.
If we had WET (White Entertainment Television) we'd be racists.
If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.
If we had White History Month , we'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives we'd be racists.
We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.
Wonder who pays for that ?
A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant.
If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships you know we'd be racists.
There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US .
Yet if there were 'White colleges' THAT would be a racist college.
In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights.
If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.
You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it.
But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.
You rob us, carjack us, and shoot at us.
But , when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug-dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.
I am proud.
But you call me a racist.
Why is it that only whites can be racists ?

There is nothing improper about this.
Let's see which of you are proud enough to send it on

For a balanced view on this, please click here

#5. The Lost Roanoke Colony


The Roanoke Colony was either the first permanent settlement in America, or an elaborate practical joke.
Walter Raleigh sent the colonists there and then left them without supplies for three years, perhaps just to see what would happen.What he probably didn't expect was for the colony to just vanish. When new settlers finally arrived, none of the original colony remained at the settlement (except for the old skeleton of one guy) and the mysterious word "Croatan" was carved into a tree, right under, "Metallica Rules".


So, was it a UFO abduction? Perhaps the colonists were held in some kind of suspended animation and are still being anally probed to this very day.



The Obvious Answer:

That second group of settlers didn't really get the chance to investigate what happened to the original bunch, because a few years later an even bigger mysterious phenomena occurred: Blue-eyed, pale-complexioned Indians began showing up on nearby Croatan Island.So what to make of these mysterious children, who looked like they might have been the descendents of white/Indian mixed race parents? On CROATAN island?It's almost as if, we don't know, a certain group of settlers realized their colony sucked, and went and found some natives nearby who seemed to know how to live off the land. And that they then left their shitty colony forever to go live happily ever after on Croatan Island, and to have impressive amounts of sex with the natives."Hey, like the nearby island. Whatever, I'm sure that's just a coincidence."

read more | digg story

What is Dudeism? While Dudeism in its official form has been organized as a religion only recently, it has existed down through the ages in one form or another. Probably the earliest form of Dudeism was the original form of Chinese Taoism, before it went all weird with magic tricks and body fluids. The originator of Taoism, Lao Tzu, basically said "smoke 'em if you got 'em" and "mellow out, man" although he said this in ancient Chinese so something may have been lost in the translation.

Down through the ages, this "rebel shrug" has fortified many successful creeds - Buddhism, Christianity, Sufism, John Lennonism and Fo'-Shizzle-my-Nizzlism. The idea is this: Life is short and complicated and nobody knows what to do about it. So don't do anything about it. Just take it easy, man. Stop worrying so much whether you'll make it into the finals. Kick back with some friends and some oat soda and whether you roll strikes or gutters, do your best to be true to yourself and others - that is to say, abide.

Incidentally, the term "dude" is commonly agreed to refer to both genders. Most linguists contend that "Dudette" is not in keeping with the parlance of our times.

Join Dudeism

Chuck Noris Facts

This is THE best Chuck Norris Site eva - All hail the Chuck! We spent hours laughing our asses off at this last night lol