"Person of Interest" Cura Te Ipsum (TV Episode ) - IMDb
Carter finally comes face-to-face with Reese, and now that she knows what Reese and Finch do, she has to decide once and for all which side she's on. Michael Emerson in Person of Interest () Linda Cardellini in Person of Interest () Michael Emerson in And Reese discovers that Benton has the date rape drug on his person. The phrase "Curs Te Ipsum" is Latin for "Heal thyself". Chispa isn't just a dating app for Latino singles — it's the dating app for Latino singles. Chispa a new, FREE Latin swipe app focused on creating a community.
Other noteworthy group differences for all family households are the slightly larger household size and the greater prevalence of extended families 12 among Hispanics, relative to non-Hispanic whites. With respect to the latter, about 6 to 10 percent of family households in each Hispanic subgroup are extended, compared with 3 percent of non-Hispanic white family households.
The figure for non-Hispanic blacks 7 percent is comparable to those presented for the Hispanic groups. One explanation points to differences in the structural positions of the groups, especially the disadvantaged socioeconomic status of some Hispanic subgroups and non-Hispanic blacks relative to non-Hispanic whites. Evaluation of these perspectives is complex and beyond the scope of the present study; however, to provide some information on the role of structural characteristics, we standardized the educational distributions of the groups being compared.
Specifically, using direct standardization, we calculated what the family characteristics of each group would be if the educational distribution of its householders was the same as that of non-Hispanic white householders. For example, the percentage of family households with a female householder was 15 percent for Cubans, 17 percent for Mexicans, and 29 percent for Puerto Ricans in the standardized analysis, compared with 11 percent for non-Hispanic whites.
In the unstandardized analysis, it was 16 percent for Cubans, 18 percent for Mexicans, and 34 percent for Puerto Ricans. Table also shows differences in family household characteristics by the generational status of the householder.
Although there are some inconsistencies across national-origin groups, the pattern for several Hispanic subgroups suggests declining familism across generations. For example, among Mexicans, foreign-born householders are more likely to be married and less likely to cohabit or to be female family heads than their native-born counterparts.
Among the foreign-born, 72 percent are married, 5 percent are cohabiting, and 15 percent are single female householders; the comparable figures for the native-born of native parentage are 65 percent married, 7 percent cohabiting, and 22 percent single female householders. In addition, the mean household size and the percentage of extended family households are higher among foreign-born Mexicans than native-born Mexicans. For example, among the foreign-born, 10 percent of households are extended, compared with 7 percent among the native-born of native parentage.
However, there are irregular or opposite patterns for Cubans and other Hispanics. When the educational distribution of household heads is standardized each generation of each Hispanic subgroup given the educational distribution of the total non-Hispanic white populationthe generational patterns remain unchanged results not shown.
Living Arrangements The structure and composition of households are experienced by individuals in different ways as they move through the life course. Some of the largest differences in living arrangements by race and ethnicity are found for children. Again, the figures for Hispanics fall between the extremes represented by the experience of non-Hispanic whites 77 percent and non-Hispanic blacks 37 percentalthough Hispanics are generally closer to whites.
10 reasons why you should date (or even fall in love with) a German
As one would expect, Puerto Rican 46 percent and non-Hispanic black children 49 percent are the most likely to live in a mother-only family. There is less racial and ethnic variation in living arrangements in early adulthood 18 to 24 and the middle adult years 25 to However, several group differences are noteworthy.
In early adulthood, Cubans stand out for their comparatively low rates of household headship and high propensity to remain in the parental home.
Fully 62 percent of Cubans ages 18 to 24 live in their parent's household, compared with less than 50 percent for all other Hispanic groups. This living arrangement may facilitate the relatively high levels of education attained by Cubans in young adulthood. This pattern carries over to middle adulthood ages 25 to 64and in fact is one of the major ways in which living arrangements vary by race and ethnicity during the middle adult years. Doubling up with relatives may be an economic strategy that is employed under conditions of economic disadvantage.
In particular, Hispanics are considerably more likely to live with other relatives and less likely to live alone than are non-Hispanic whites. These differences undoubtedly reflect both differences in economic resources and cultural preferences regarding the care of the elderly. However, in Table we provide data for Mexican Americans on generational differences in living arrangements among children and the elderly.
The top panel shows a striking difference between children with foreign-born parents first- and second-generation children and children with native-born parents. Children in the former groups are much more likely to live with both parents 72—73 percent than children in the latter group 56 percent. About 17 percent of first-generation children live with only one parent 14 percent with mother and 3 percent with fathercompared with 24 percent of second-generation children and 37 percent of native-born children with native-born parents.
Thus, children of the foreign-born experience greater parental union stability than children of the native-born. The situation of Mexican American elderly persons also varies by generation. First, foreign-born elderly persons are less likely to be the householder or the spouse or partner of the householder 54 percent than the native-born of foreign parentage 69 percent or the native-born of native parentage 63 percent. They are also less likely to live alone 15 percent, compared with about 20—21 percent for the native-born groups.
Instead, the foreign-born are considerably more likely to live with other relatives 30 percentsuch as their children, than the native-born of foreign percentage 9 percent and native parentage 14 percent.
Overall, Hispanics exhibit higher levels of familism than non-Hispanics on most of the structural indicators examined. A notable exception is female family headship, which is considerably more prevalent in all Hispanic subgroups than among non-Hispanic whites. At the same time, there is considerable diversity in the family characteristics of Hispanics by both national origin and generation. Although the findings are not entirely consistent across Hispanic groups, within-group generational differences generally suggest declining familism across generations.
This is especially the case for Mexican Americans, a group that exhibits lower levels of family-oriented behavior on every indicator among the native-born compared with the foreign-born.
However, the social construction of race and ethnicity—and the complexities involved in racial and ethnic identities—are increasingly emphasized by contemporary social scientists. The dominant view is that racial and ethnic categories reflect shared social meanings, rather than biological differences between groups, and that social interpretations of the categories are tied to long-standing power differentials Waters, In addition, the fluidity of racial and ethnic identities across situations, over time, and across generations is stressed.
The prevalence of intermarriage is strongly influenced by two factors: Some studies of intermarriage have taken as their primary question the extent to which social boundaries exist between groups i. In this chapter, our aim is descriptive and thus does not require controlling for demographic factors. Our goal is to describe patterns of ethnic mixing in marriage, cohabitation, and parenthood. One important mechanism through which this potentially occurs is fertility. For instance, offspring with one Hispanic parent and one non-Hispanic white parent are likely to identify more weakly with a specific Hispanic subgroup or with the pan-ethnic Hispanic or Latino labels than offspring with two Hispanic parents, especially coethnic parents Duncan and Trejo, ; Hirschman, In Tablewe present summary information on ethnic endogamy 16 versus exogamy in marriages and cohabiting unions.
For marriages, there are differences in levels of ethnic endogamy across Hispanic groups, with Mexican Americans exhibiting a higher level of endogamy than all other groups. Among married Mexican women, 84 percent have a Mexican husband; the corresponding figures are 74 percent for Cubans, 65 percent for Central Americans and South Americans, 62 percent for Puerto Ricans, and 55 percent for other Hispanics.
The higher level of in-group marriage among Mexican Americans is undoubtedly influenced by the size of the U.
Mexican population, which allows for relatively high levels of contact with other Mexican Americans. The generational pattern with respect to ethnic endogamy in marriage is very similar across Hispanic groups. In each Hispanic subgroup, there is a marked decline in ethnic endogamy from the first generation to the second.
Among Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, a decline is also evident between the second generation and the native-born with native parents; however, among Central Americans and South Americans and other Hispanics, roughly comparable percentages of second- and third or higher -generation women are married to partners with similar national origins.
The other side of endogamy is exogamy, and the data for each Hispanic subgroup indicate that married Hispanic women who do not have a co-ethnic husband are relatively likely to be married to a non-Hispanic white. Exogamous marriages represent 16 percent — 84 of all marriages among Mexican American women; in such marriages, 78 percent The generational pattern with respect to marriages between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites is also important.
In each Hispanic subgroup, the percentage of women with a non-Hispanic white husband rises dramatically across generations.
- Cura Te Ipsum
- Why Do Gay Men Make Dating So Hard For Themselves?
- Top Latino Online Dating Sites
The second most common type of exogamous marriage involves Hispanic spouses from dissimilar national origins. Marriages with Hispanic but not coethnic husbands constitute 15 percent 2.
Table also presents information on cohabiting unions. With few exceptions, the overall level of ethnic endogamy is lower for cohabiting unions than for formal marriages. Among Mexican Americans, for example, 74 percent of all cohabiting unions are endogamous, compared with 84 percent of marriages.
In particular, exogamous cohabiting unions are generally less likely to involve a non-Hispanic white partner and more likely to involve a Hispanic partner or a black partner than are exogamous marriages.
The figures for black partners are especially striking. Among Mexican American women, for example, about 4 percent.
Online dating service
Similarly, among Puerto Ricans, 11 percent 4. Due to sample size limitations, the full array of generational differences in endogamy in cohabiting unions can be presented only for Mexican Americans. Among Mexican Americans, the generational pattern of endogamy is similar to, albeit stronger than, that observed for marriages—declining percentages in endogamous unions across generations.
In addition, exogamous unions involving Mexican American women and non-Hispanic white partners become more common in each successive generation. This is also the case for unions with non-Hispanic black partners, but the overall percentage of unions with non-Hispanic blacks is small.
Interethnic unions are of interest in their own right, but their consequences for ethnic boundaries are greatest when they produce children. We have seen that mixed unions among Hispanic women most commonly involve a non-Hispanic white partner.
Because such unions both signal and facilitate assimilation into mainstream white society, their offspring are likely to identify less strongly with their Hispanic national origins than children with two coethnic parents.
Although numerous factors affect the size and composition of Hispanic groups e. In Tablewe expand our analysis by examining interethnic mating among parents of children born inusing data from the Detail Natality File. As was the case in the previous table on union patterns, we organize the data by the mother's ethnicity and generation.
However, due to the limited information collected on the birth certificate, we are able to distinguish only between foreign-born mothers and native-born mothers. For mothers in each Hispanic subgroup, the percentages of births in which the father is coethnic, from a different Hispanic group, non-Hispanic white, and non-Hispanic black are shown.
These percentages are based on cases in which the father's race and ethnicity are known; however, since missing information on fathers is problematic in birth certificate data, we also show the percentage of cases in each group with missing information on the father's ethnicity.
Focusing first on all births, there are substantial differences in intermating patterns by Hispanic ethnicity and generation. As was the case in our analysis of marital and cohabiting unions, the level of ethnic endogamy is higher among Mexican Americans than for other Hispanic groups.
Moreover, for all groups except Mexican Americans, coethnicity of parents is considerably lower than coethnicity of married or cohabiting partners. For example, among Puerto Ricans, 62 percent of married partners and 58 percent of cohabiting partners have similar Hispanic origins; however, only 52 percent of births can be attributed to coethnic parents.
The most striking pattern shown in the table, however, is that for generation: The percentages of children born to coethnic parents for foreign-born and native-born mothers, respectively, are 93 and 74 for Mexicans, 61 and 47 for Puerto Ricans, 70 and 38 for Cubans, 68 and 34 for Central American and South American mothers, and 68 and 46 for other Hispanic mothers.
Exogamous unions producing children are highly likely to be with Hispanic fathers from other national-origin groups or with non-Hispanic white fathers, with one exception. Mexican-origin women are considerably more likely to bear a child with a non-Hispanic white partner than with a non-Mexican Hispanic partner.
When births are broken down by the marital status of the mother, several important differences in ethnic mixing are evident. First, considerably fewer births to unmarried Hispanic mothers involve partnerships with non-Hispanic white males than is the case for births to married Hispanic mothers.
Second, births outside marriage are more likely to involve a non-Hispanic black father than births within marriage. For example, about 8 percent of infants of unmarried Puerto Rican mothers had non-Hispanic white fathers, compared with 24 percent of infants of married Puerto Rican mothers. Children born to unmarried Puerto Rican women were much more likely to have a black father 15 percent than children born to married Puerto Rican women 8 percent.
You meet a seemingly great guy either organically at a bar or online. You exchange numbers and begin texting. The conversation is effortless — you share similar tastes and make each other laugh.
He walks to you respective subway stop — you kiss and make plans to see each other again. You chat a bit via text for the next few days, but a second date never happens.
If you are a single gay man who lives in a large city such as New York City — you have had this happen to you before. Work can be stressful, keeping up with friends can be a task and taking a few moments to relax can be fleeting. So why is it that gay men make dating so much harder than it needs to be? Gay men are — for the most part — a great group of people.
Of course we have a few bad apples every group does but we are talented, hard-working people who share a sense of community and have banned together in times of strife and prejudice. Why then are we so terrible to each other when it comes to finding a mate? Time and time again I hear horror stories of bad first dates, ghosting and people telling flat out lies to first daters. I have had many, many, many first dates in the past year and a half but very few second dates.
Here are some of the reasons I have received for not being asked on a second date: I think we are looking for different things. I or you have a lot of baggage. We must have misunderstood each other. It happens to me all the time. No response to a sent text message ghosted. I think we are looking for different things: This is a personal favorite of mine. For the past year or dating, I have made the conscious effort to NOT state what it is I am looking for upon meeting someone in person or online.
"Person of Interest" Legacy (TV Episode ) - IMDb
I am very happy to remain single. I have a wonderful career, great friends and an amazing family that keep me pretty busy.
Should an awesome guy enter the equation — great. But a partner is neither going to define who I am or make or break my future. If someone reaches out to speak to me, I ask them what they are looking for because I am amenable. I am happy to have fun, meet new friends or go on dates in the hopes that it turns into a relationship.
If not, then why go on a date in the first place? There are an endless amounts of ways for gay men to get their dick sucked in large metropolitan areas: This seems a pretty fair assessment to me. You may end up being pleasantly surprised by what you find. This excuse for not meeting again is the oldest and lamest of them all. We are all busy at work, and honestly, I would expect nothing less from the person I am dating.
I love a man with drive. Again, I am calling bullshit on this excuse. We all have jobs and lives: