‎Peter Elphege‎ to Pillow Talk°||Adult Chat Lounge||° 15 hrs · “Country Moonlit” I walked into the honkytonk, the country music was great. Hoping you would still be in there, that I wasn’t too late. Then my eyes caught you’re beauty, looking sexy right there….

I walked into the honkytonk, the country music was great.
Hoping you would still be in there, that I wasn’t too late.
Then my eyes caught you’re beauty, looking sexy right there.
From your black cowgirl boots, up to your silky golden hair.
Mmmm, your button down shirt tied, rum & coke in a glass.
Looking awesome in shorts, tan legs, the curve of your ass.
We exchanged smiles after that first head nod and glance.
I introduced myself politely, then a two step we did dance.
At the end of the night, our mixed sexual chemistry in luck.
Out in the parking lot, kissing passionately, late, in my truck.
Next we drove to the beach, both our hearts, racing, skipping.
Such an awesome moonlit night, let’s undress, go skinny dipping.
With sexual heat, undressing each other, kissing face to face.
I unbuttoned your shirt revealing a sexy red bra with soft lace.
Now that we’re naked in the middle of this warm summer night.
I am mesmerized by your soft curves in the shimmering moonlight.
We frolic in the waves until we fall on the beach and kiss.
I’ll remember this night forever, that ended in lovers bliss!

Poet Petere

WOLF HOLLOW by Lauren Wolk Age Range: 9 – 13 BUY NOW FROM AMAZON BARNES & NOBLE LOCAL BOOKSELLER GET WEEKLY BOOK RECOMMENDATIONS: Email Address Enter email Subscribe Email this review KIRKUS REVIEW Evil comes to rural Pennsylvania in an unlikely guise in this novel of the American homefront during World War II. Twelve-year-old Annabelle’s coming-of-age begins when newcomer Betty Glengarry, newly arrived from the city to stay with her grandparents “because she was incorrigible,” shakes her down for spare change in Wolf Hollow on the way to school. Betty’s crimes quickly escalate into shocking violence, but the adults won’t believe the sweet-looking blonde girl could be responsible and settle their suspicions on Toby, an unkempt World War I veteran who stalks the hills carrying not one, but three guns. Annabelle’s strategies for managing a situation she can’t fully understand are thoroughly, believably childlike, as is her single-minded faith in Betty’s guilt and Toby’s innocence. But her childlike faith implicates her in a dark and dangerous mystery that propels her into the adult world of moral gray spaces. Wolk builds her story deliberately through Annabelle’s past-tense narration in language that makes no compromises but is yet perfectly simple: “Back then, I didn’t know a word to describe Betty properly or what to call the thing that set her apart from the other children in that school.” She realizes her setting with gorgeous immediacy, introducing the culture of this all-white world of hollows, hills, and neighbors with confidence and cleareyed affection. Trusting its readers implicitly with its moral complexity, Wolk’s novel stuns. (Historical fiction. 9-13)

16 Gallery: The Rev. Abram Joseph Ryan, ‘Poet-Priest of the South’ March 20, 2013MOBILE, Alabama – At Catholic Cemetery on Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue, his gravesite is easy to spot. It is marked by a stark white marble cross and slab lying underneath a flying Christian flag. But it was another flag – the flag of the Confederacy – that helped make a name for Father Abram Joseph Ryan, the “poet-priest of the South” who considered Mobile home enough to want to be buried here. In a Tennessee rectory just after the South surrendered, the Catholic priest wrote an epitaph for a fallen nation called “The Conquered Banner.” At one point in time, it was required reading for schoolchildren. In part, it says: “Furl that Banner, for ‘tis weary; Round its staff ‘tis drooping dreary; Furl it, fold it, it is best: For there’s not a man to wave it, And there’s not a sword to save it, And there’s not one left to lave it In the blood which heroes gave it; And its foes now scorn and brave it; Furl it, hide it – let it rest.” In his day, Ryan was nationally known for his sermons, lectures and writings, but in the 1870s, he was based in Mobile, first as assistant at the Cathedral Basilica of the Immaculate Conception and then as pastor at St. Mary’s church. Today, Ryan isn’t well known in Mobile, so you won’t hear his name unless you bump into a historian or visit the local archives. Yet there’s an upstairs study at the Portier House on Cathedral Square that houses his portrait and bust. There’s also a 6-foot-tall statue of the priest at Springhill and N. Bayou, near Broad Street, in the middle of a park bearing his name. Who knew? “How many people in Mobile would be able to identify who that statue is?” said the Rev. Msgr. G. Warren Wall, current pastor at St. Mary’s. “Nine out of 10 people probably would not get that right.” Perhaps this can be traced to modern sensibilities or a lack of understanding of local history – or both. “He’s mostly recognized as a figure of the Confederacy,” said Wall. “Most people feel like they’ve moved on from that.” Wall pointed out, though, that other local figures, such as writer Augusta Jane Evans Wilson – and until recently, baseball great Hank Aaron – have not been given a lot of recognition here. “We’ve not really promoted much of our local history,” he said. (Click on the above image to see more photos, or click here to view them on your mobile device.) God and the Confederacy Born Matthew Abraham Ryan to Irish immigrants, probably in Maryland in 1838, Ryan was a religious youngster who chose to study for the priesthood in St. Louis, Mo., with the Vincentian Fathers. He finished his studies at the Barrens near St. Louis and at Niagara University in New York. However, he parted ways with the Vincentian Fathers and became a simple priest. Ryan’s younger brother, David, also studied for the priesthood but instead joined the Confederate army and died in Kentucky. This loss helped to shape Ryan, who observers said had two loves: God and the Confederacy. His refusal to use the name Abraham was credited to Lincoln’s election. David O’Connell, now retired from Georgia State University, wrote a book in 2006 about Ryan entitled “Furl That Banner.” In his book, he points out that Ryan was among many rank-and file Irish Catholics who were supporters of the Confederate cause. Michael Kreyling, professor of English at Vanderbilt University, said that some Southern religious men of the day were behind the pulpit trying to reconcile Christian teachings and slavery. Ryan, he said, was not exactly that, but more of a “cheerleading kind of poet.” Still, “he’s part of that sort of fellowship of preachers,” said Kreyling, who team-taught a class on the Civil War from a literature standpoint. Restless and suffering A wanderer, Ryan left his footprints in various places in the 1860s, including as a priest in Illinois and Tennessee, where he was also an unofficial chaplain to Confederate soldiers. It was in Knoxville that he penned his most famous poem “in a little over an hour” and “out of a broken heart,” he said later. A plaque commemorates the spot, and a Catholic school in Nashville bears his name. Some tales have Ryan going missing at times, or at least spanning a wider geographical area, including New Orleans, where he was said to have smarted off to a general who had accused him of refusing to bury a Union soldier. Ryan supposedly said: “Why, I was never asked to bury him, and never refused. The fact is, General, I would like very well to bury the whole lot of you.” It is also said that the poet-priest was well known enough to have received a passing reference by name in Margaret Mitchell classic novel “Gone With the Wind.” Before coming to Mobile, Ryan was a priest at St. Patrick’s church in Augusta, Ga., where he edited the Catholic newspaper Banner of the South and took on Reconstruction policies. Eventually, Ryan was dismissed by the bishop because of differences, and the paper folded. At home in Mobile Archbishop Emeritus Oscar Lipscomb of the Archdiocese of Mobile wrote a paper about Ryan in July 1972. Lipscomb, a historian, described Ryan as “truly a legend in his own time: who stood a good chance of ‘becoming somewhat of a myth to subsequent generations.’” Lipscomb, 81 and retired, wasn’t available for an interview, but his article pronounces Mobile as “the Alabama city that (Ryan) always considered home.” You can imagine Father Ryan – blue eyes flashing and long hair brushed back in brown curls – coming to Mobile in the summer of 1870 during the height of yellow fever season. He is said to have worked tirelessly with the sick, often at the side of Rabbi Abraham Laser, according to writings by Laser’s daughter. He took a job as an assistant at the cathedral. According to O’Connell’s book, when Ryan delivered the St. Patrick’s Day sermon in 1871, it was packed. He edited The Morning Star, a Catholic publication in New Orleans, from his office at the cathedral. He managed the organization “Children of Mary” and helped to raise money for orphans, putting together literary publications for their benefit. “It was also during the Mobile years that Ryan’s fame as a preacher and speaker made his name a household word throughout the South, and in much of the North, as well,” wrote Lipscomb. Eventually, his health suffered, and he had to travel to Europe to recuperate. When he returned, he had a new job, which assured less friction between him and the bishop. In the suburbs According to Lipscomb’s paper, some of Ryan’s happiest days were spent as pastor of St. Mary’s church in the late 1870s, where he assumed a slower pace in the “suburbs” of Mobile. He could write more, sometimes under a pen name, and assume pastoral duties. At about this time, a friend engineered the publishing of the priest’s poems with the help of the publisher at the Mobile Register. A first edition can still be found today, as well as a large portrait, at the History Museum of Mobile, along with a Bible he gave to Admiral Raphael Semmes in 1876. Ryan eventually retired to Biloxi, where he fostered a friendship with Jefferson Davis, president of the failed Confederacy. At that time, Ryan took to lecturing again in hopes of helping to pay off the mortgage for the Camelite nuns of New Orleans. While lecturing, he fell ill and died on April 22, 1886, at St. Boniface Church in Louisville, Ky. He left an unfinished book, “Life of Christ,” behind. But he wanted his body returned to Mobile. Requiem mass Ryan’s funeral was held at the cathedral on Tuesday, April 27, 1886, a rainy day with temperatures in the 60s. His body was transported to Catholic Cemetery by carriages and a wagon. “Offerings of flowers were numerous,” said one report. “One beautiful design coming from the ex-Confederates of Louisville.” Today, the life-size statue of Ryan downtown depicts him with head bowed and arms outstretched, prayer book in one hand. The bronze sculpture was paid for by “dimes given by Southern children.” About 1,000 people attended its unveiling in 1913. Today, you won’t find Ryan’s name in the Encyclopedia of Alabama, a new online initiative, or in the fourth-grade state history textbook, “Alabama: The History, Geography, Economics and Civics of an American State,” by Leah Rawls Atkins and Harvey H. Jackson III. Neither can he be found in the Pulitzer-nominated book co-authored by Atkins, “Alabama: History of a Deep South State.” However, an entry on the poet-priest can be found online in This Goodly Land: Alabama’s Literary Landscape. So, how should he be viewed today? “’The Conquered Banner’ is a beautiful poem, one whose sentiment has largely gone out of the culture,” said John Sledge, architectural historian with the Mobile Historical Commission. “When you wave it in public, you’re going to get lots of reactions. It’s complicated,” said Sledge. “What’s significant is that his poem moved a lot of people.” One of Ryan’s poems, published in the Weekly Register in 1879, is entitled: “What Ails the World?” “What ails the world?” he sings and sighs No answer cometh to his cry – He asks the earth and asks the sky – The echoes of his song pass by Unanswered – and the Poet dies.”

Sexual Economics Theory Definition Sexual economics theory is an idea about how men and women think, feel, respond, and behave in a sexual context. More specifically, this theory says that men’s and women’s sexual thoughts, feelings, preferences, and behavior follow fundamental economic principles. The basic premise is that sex is something that women have and men want. Sex is therefore a female resource that is precious, and hence, women hold on to it until they are given enough incentive to give it up. Men’s role is to offer resources that will entice women into sex. The resources that men give women include commitment, affection, attention, time, respect, and money. Note that in this theory, the term sex is used rather broadly, to refer to not only intercourse but also touching, kissing, fondling, talking about sex, and other aspects of sexual behavior. Sex as a Female Resource Sexual Economics TheorySexual economics theory uses as a starting point social exchange theory, which is an idea about how each person in a dyad gives up something that he or she holds to get something of greater benefit in return. For instance, if a person owns a puppy and a family wants to buy it, then the family has to want the puppy more than the money it will give to the person and the person has to want the money more than the puppy he or she will give up. If both parties want what the other has more than what they themselves hold, then the exchange takes place. Sometimes one party wants the exchange to take place more than does the other. This situation gives rise to an imbalance in power: The party who wants the exchange less has more control over the relationship because he or she can hold out until a highly tantalizing offer is made. In the context of sexual exchange, men are eager to get sex whereas women are less interested. Women have more power when men want sex, and therefore women should be able to get something valuable in return for giving up sex. Do men really want sex more than women? The answer is a definite yes. When researchers have reviewed all the findings on men’s and women’s sexual responses, they have observed a strong and consistent difference, with men (as a group) uniformly liking and wanting sex more than women do. This gap means that men have a stronger motivation to obtain sex than do women, and therefore, they must attempt to persuade potential sexual partners. According to sexual economics theory, men give women resources so that women will allow sex to take place. This trade of resources in the context of sex has happened consistently enough through eras and cultures that societies recognize that female sexuality has value, whereas male sexuality has no value. Ample evidence supports the idea that female sexuality is perceived as having value. For instance, men’s and women’s feelings about their own virginity are vastly different, and in line with sexual economic theory. Far more women than men think of their virginity as a precious gift to be given only at the most ideal time. Men, in contrast, far more than women see their virginity as a shameful condition from which they want to escape. Society places positive value on female virginity but not on male virginity. Another piece of evidence comes from violent relationships. A woman with a violent partner apparently would offer sex to distract or soothe her partner if he seemed to be heading for abuse. In this way, women traded sex with their partners to lower their risk for being beaten. Men with violent partners cannot usually escape victimization by offering sex. In one international study of the reasons why marriages are allowed to dissolve, wives’ adultery was punished far more severely than was husbands’ adultery. In fact, in many places wives’ adultery was a viable reason for husbands to be granted a divorce, whereas husbands’ adultery did not justify divorce. These findings fit the idea that sex is a female resource that, in this case, is traded in exchange for being married. When a woman has sex outside her marriage, she is in effect giving away something that the husband considers his. In one graphic illustration, women prisoners in Australia who had to endure public floggings could have the amount of punishment cut in half if they agreed to be whipped naked to please the male onlookers. Male prisoners were not given any sex-related options as trade for a reduced punishment. Last, and more germane to the current analysis, recent research reveals that being around sexual cues prompts men to give up monetary resources. When men saw photos of scantily clad women (versus landscape scenes) or they felt bras (versus T-shirts), they were willing to part with monetary resources. Hence, psychological experiments and historical records show that men trade resources to convince women to be sexual. These patterns spring from men’s stronger motivation to obtain sex than women’s, which leads men to offer women resources in the hope that they will respond favorably and offer sex. At What Price? Women, in general, want to obtain many, high-quality resources in exchange for providing sex. Men, on the other hand, want to get sex without having to give up much. So, in other language, women want to set a high price, but men only want to pay a low price. The actual price, the going rate, is influenced by what others in a given community are doing. For instance, if women in a given community wait until they receive an engagement ring before they have any sexual interactions with their partners, then a specific woman has a good chance of getting her partner to give her a ring before she agrees to sex. However, if the women in the area collectively give sex away cheaply, then any one woman who wants to receive a marriage proposal and ring before having sex will likely be unable to ask such a high price. Seen this way, women are sellers, and according to basic economic principles, sellers compete with each other. The more competition among women, the lower the prices for the men. However, to curb this downward trend in prices, women exert pressure on each other to keep the price of sex high. Women do this mainly through social punishment (via rumors, interpersonal exclusion, etc.) of women who offer cheap sex. Men want the opposite of what women want: They want low-cost sex. Men would prefer to get sex without giving up money, commitment, affection, or time—or at least, to give up these resources when they want to, not only when they want sex. Just like bidders in an online auction, men as buyers at times compete with other men to get sex from a specific woman. In an opposite fashion to what happens with female competition, male competition results in the woman being able to command a higher price. How do people know what others in the local market are doing and for what price? Often, they do not know, although gossip about the sex acts of one’s neighbors and friends are key determinants of what people think is going on. Because people often do not have direct knowledge of the going rate for sex in their community, perceptions of norms become important. Men attempt to convince women that sex occurs quite frequently and at a low price, and women claim that sex happens much less frequently and only after appropriate resources have been exchanged. This amounts to each partner portraying sexual norms in line with a price level they prefer. In sum, sexual economics theory is a way of explaining heterosexual sexual interactions. Women sell sex (so to speak) and men buy sex, and in doing so they are exchanging valuable resources. Women give sexual access to men after men have given them money, commitment, affection, respect, or time. It seems crude to think about sexual relations in this way, but sexual economics theory demonstrates that basic economic tenets can explain men’s and women’s negotiations about whether to have sex. Reference: Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Sexual economics: Sex as female resource for social exchange in heterosexual interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 339-363. 0Share 0Share Tweet 0Pin 44Share 0Share