clarkscottroger | the Wakefield Doctrine

RePrint Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

December 19, 2022 By clarkscottroger

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

Well, seeing how we’re in the midst of…(ok, we did one of more than eight pages) updating the static content of this here blog here*.

Being heavily into the Six Sentence Story and coming across and early one, what say we post that as a reprint so we can get back to the updating work. Really want to get as much done as possible before the up-coming ‘New’ year.

Six Sentence Story -the Wakefield Doctrine- (what the?!)

May 18, 2017 Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

Six Sentence Story

Bloghop. Simple theme: story writing. Requirements equally simple: six sentences in length. exactly six. (as opposed to 7 or 8) zoe provides a prompt word that must be involved with your story. Notice I did not say ‘used in’, ‘a part of’, or ‘central to’? All that’s needed is an involvement, (that is apparent to the reader, of course.) or not… all depends. lol

‘CUE’

” I must not, I cannot!” shrugging off the Harris tweed coat, Vlad Scripturam, let it fall to floor, leather elbow patches creating suede block quotes, “We’re mere narrative elements in a writing exercise.”

“So you say,” with the wanton disregard of the other-worldly beauty of her flawless skin, Elise managed to arch a perfect eyebrow at the edge of her furrowed brow, “but only one of us, if my understanding of rhetoric is correct, is the protagonist. I will take care of us, mein liebchen.”

“But, mon cherie, no less an authority than the Chicago Manual of Style would beg to differ, citing both ‘Romeo and Juliet’ and ‘Lethal Weapon’,” Vlad stepped back from the chaise lounge, looming tall and erect over the woman’s confidently relaxed posture.

“You are concerning yourself far too much with mere details, relax and allow me to cue the love scene,” Elise’s smile, comprised of a thousand invisible fishhooks, tore at Vlad’s flesh, radiating pleasure throughout his body; who among us, having never been a fish can say that the sea creature, feeling itself drawn upwards, out of its natural element, towards no less a probative heaven than that which fills the myths of mankind, is not in a state of bliss.

Vlad (‘the Rhetorician’) Scripturam allowed himself to be drawn closer.

* have updated and revamped the ‘About’ page. Working on the middle-center column of the ‘landing page’: ‘What is the Wakefield Doctrine’
Full Disclosure: thought we could find, in a previously-written post, a more updated definition of the Doctrine, suitable for new Readers… but no luck. Guess we’ll need to write a ‘new’ one. Actually, there have been developments, both stylistic (use of the editorial ‘we’) and accurate to our understanding of this best of all personality theories, such as ‘the Everything Rule’. So, write we will.

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, psychology of personality, the Wakefield Doctrine

RePrint Monday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

December 5, 2022 By clarkscottroger

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks scotts and rogers)

Let’s get right to the reprint, shall we?

“…where the sun is silent” (l sol race) the Wakefield Doctrine (yeah, Dante in the morning….what’s not to like?)

November 3, 2013

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

(A Monday Post in 2 Parts)

Part 1

Struggling with the book. Getting tangled up in the effort to present simple factual information without (it) strangling on footnotes, ibids and op.cits. Everything seems to come across fairly straight-forwardly in a blog Post, but when I try to write ‘the Chapter: rogers’, I stare at the screen for hours! I suspect that I’m over-thinking it (yeah, I know… no way I’d do that!).
Anyway, I got up early this morning and, at some point, the though came to me, ‘hey! weren’t there 2 new Readers who recently left Comments? They seemed to like the idea of the Doctrine but (also) seemed to not quite get what we do here… why dontcha explain the Wakefield Doctrine to them in a single Post!‘

Michelle ( Rubber Shoes in Hell ) wrote: ‘This is fascinating…‘ (and) Kathy ( SMARTLiving365.com ) wrote: ‘ you should be awarded the Noble Prize, a Guggenheim Fellowship and the 2014 VMA for this blog* …I’m still just tying to figure out what in the heck you mean by “the doctrine.”

so… new Readers? try this:

The Wakefield Doctrine is a way of (re) framing the question we so often finding ourselves asking, ‘now why on earth would they go and say a thing like that? I really thought I knew them better!‘

The Wakefield Doctrine is, at it’s heart, a question, not an answer. The question that the Wakefield Doctrine would have us ask is: ‘how is that person relating themselves to the world around them?’ Note the wording of our question. We do not ask ‘how is that person relating to the world‘, we are focused on how they relate themselves to the world. This is, in part, because the Wakefield Doctrine maintains that there are three ways to relate oneself to the world, as the Outsider(clarks), the Predator(scotts) or as the Herd Member(rogers). Actually, the Wakefield Doctrine goes way beyond this simple three perspectives approach. The Doctrine is predicated on the idea that that we experience life on a personal level, what we refer to as worldviews and it is the worldview that we grow up and develop in that accounts for our ‘personality type’. For the Wakefield Doctrine, a person does not get born with (or be given by parents, family and caregivers) a personality type. Rather we say, ‘we are all born with the capability to deal with any of the three worldviews and at a very early age we settle into one of them. What others may call a ‘personality type’, we recognize as the coping skills, social strategies and style of interacting with others, that is appropriate to the reality we are living in… we become a clark or scott or roger.’ By the way, while we never lose the capacity of ‘the other two worldviews’, our reality is always just one of the three (predominant worldviews).

The rest (of the Wakefield Doctrine) is just plain fun. Learning the characteristics of the three worldviews helps us correctly infer ‘how the person is relating themselves to the world around them’.

(Clearly this ‘lets explain the Doctrine in half a Post’ is not gonna work… but, it’s helpful to me to try and organize the information necessary to (the) understanding of our little personality theory. … yeah! bullet points! who the hell doesn’t love bullet points? (bullet points motto: ‘because we don’t have grammar, we seem so much more understandable!’):

the reason we learn the characteristics of the 3 worldviews is to help us recognize a person’s worldview… we do not, I repeat, do not assign categories, types or any other designation that implies ‘you are now this personality type’, on the basis of observed behavior… (quick tip: observe the person, eliminate the dominant worldview that there’s no frickin way they could be a (clark or scott or roger)…continue to observe …make the call

you can’t get it wrong and you can’t break it…. a person relates themselves to the world around them (in a certain characteristic way), you are not deciding anything other than which (of the three worldviews) appears to be most consistent with their behavior

the Wakefield Doctrine is for you, not them

‘everyone does everything, at one time or another’

the goal of the Wakefield Doctrine is to help us to see the world as the other person is experiencing it

Part 2

‘rogers are mean, scotts are cruel and clarks are heartless’

This is a perfect illustration of the ‘everyone does everything at one time or another Rule’
We start with the premise: one chooses to be unkind to another, how does this manifest in the three worldviews? (I could simply say, ‘why are clarks heartless and scotts cruel and rogers mean, rather than say, clarks are cruel and rogers are heartless?)

‘rogers are mean’ because when they want to negatively affect someone, they do it within the context of the Herd. They will gossip and talk among each other about the target (of this negativity). They will never go up to the target (person) and say ‘you are such a slut’. Instead, they will say to each other, ’isn’t she such a slut’? It will be the group opinion that will constitute the negative effect. In other words, if an outsider comes on the scene and needs information regarding this person, the herd will make a point of offering an opinion.
(Now class, why is that so rogerian?)
(God, I so love to lecture)

The answer is, of course, because the effort to affect a non-herd member is always manifested among and within the Herd. No single member (of the Herd) could, or would approach the ’target person’ directly and certainlywould not say anything to their face. (Much more likely would be the situation where one (of the rogers) would get the person in private and explain that, being their friend, they wanted to let them know that ‘everyone thinks you’re a slut’, (with the implication that, perhaps they did not agree with everyone).

All right, then how about scotts? Why cruel instead of heartless or mean?
Because it is the nature of predators, to act alone. Granted scotts will gather in packs when the occasion rises, but for the most part, they act/hunt alone. And when a scott is being ‘negative’ it is expressed in a manner that can only be called cruelty. Part of this is the result of the fact that scotts will act directly, but impersonally. They enjoy the efforts of the prey to resist, (hey that squirming and trying to get away is totally a part of the whole hunting experience. But! its nothing personal, the scott is hungry and the prey is food. So in the case of scotts, while this may appear to be cruelty, it’s simply the ‘way of nature’.

Clarks? Heartless? No! Say it ain’t so!! If any Reader needs it explained, then you need to read the content in these Pages a bit more.

* the first half of the quote is a re-enactment, dramatization and slight paraphrasing of what a Kathy-like blogger may have been feeling as she began to type her Comment, everything after ‘VMA for this blog’ is what Kathy of SMARTLiving actually wrote in her Comment.

*

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, the Wakefield Doctrine

RePrint Monday RePrint -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 28, 2022 By clarkscottroger

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

Mark your calendars! Only twenty-five days ’til Summer!

On with the reprint!

(In case we can’t find anything RePrint-worthy, on this weekend’s Guys² & G¹ Livestream we did discuss… )

We interrupt this genuinely sincere attempt to bring the most wonderful of perspectives on the world around us, (and the people who make it up), with the following ‘first-time-with-your-parents-car-driving-with-your-high-school-friends-at-night feeling kinda post.

Full Disclosure: we haven’t bothered to read it in it’s entirety. But, seeing how we hit Publish once already, back when this blog was new(ish), we’ll take a leap of faith and post it without reading.

Hey! Alert Reader Dinise (owner and proprietorini of the fabulous Six Sentence Story blog hop just signaled of a major misspelling. All set. (If you’re one of them what pulled up the post before we corrected, hold onto the Post!! It’ll be worth something, someday.

(BONUS Post-ette included today!!) the Wakefield Doctrine “1st Annual Black Friday Video Chat…Tonight! at 7*”

November 28, 2013

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and roger)

Hey! ~~Tomorrow~~ Friday Tonight as in later in the same day as you are reading this here correction in….from (unless, of course, you forget and don’t read this Post until tomorrow, the forget about it) ….November 29th ( 29-Nov-13 to our International Friends) at 7:00 pm* First Annual Black Friday Video and X-rated Movie Festival!!BONUS new material!***

Speaking of contributions from Downsprings, had an interesting and challenging discussion with Phyllis the other morning regarding rogers. For some distantly related reason Phyllis said that ‘rogers are mean’. Out of the context in which this sentence was made, this statement, ‘rogersare mean’ demanded consideration. For if a statement is true about one form, what does it tell us about the other two forms? So from that Phyllis’ single statement we jumped to the following:

rogers are mean, scotts are cruel and clarks are heartless

So, lets consider these statements.
We start with the premise, i.e. when one (of us) chooses to be unkind to another, what is the characteristic of the behavior relative to our type. (Or may I could just say, why are clarks heartless and scotts cruel and rogersmean, instead of say, clarks are cruel and rogers are heartless etc) ( Update: The current preferred way of expressing this: how do each of the three ‘manifest’ the state of ‘to negatively affect another’ This is a result of the understanding that ‘everyone does everything at one time or another’. )

‘Rogers are mean’ because when they want to negatively affect someone, they do it within the context of the herd. They will gossip and talk among each other about the target (of this negativity). They will never go up to the target(person) and say ‘you are a slut’. Instead they will say to each other, ’isn’t she such a slut’? It will be the group opinion that will constitute the negative effect. In other words, if an outsider comes on the scene and and needs information reagrding this person, the herd will make a point of offering an opinion. ( as in: “hey, clark! because I’m your friend and no one will say this, I think I owe it to tell you that everyone thinks you’re a slut. Not that I agree with them, but I am your friend” ) Updated 11.29.13
(Now class, why is that so rogerian?)
(God, I so love to lecture)

The answer is, of course, because the effort to affect a non-herd member is always done among and within the herd. No single member (of the herd) could or would approach the ’target person’ directly and certainly would not say anything to their face.

All right, then how about scotts? Why cruel instead of heartless or mean?
Because it is the nature of predators, to act alone. Granted scotts will gather in packs when the occasion rises, but for the most part they hunt alone. And when a scott is being ‘negative’ it is expressed in a manner that can only be called cruelty. Part of this is the result of the fact that scotts will act directly but impersonally. They enjoy the efforts of the prey to resist, hey that squirming and trying to get away is the damn relish. But its nothing personal, the scott is hungry and the prey is food. So in the case of scotts, this cruelty is the ‘way of nature’ cruelty.

Clarks? Heartless? No! Say it ain’t so!! If any Reader needs it explained, then you need to read the content in these Pages a bit more.

So leave a Comment let everyone know if you are intending to join us tomorrow… you may regret your rash decision, but hey, that’s what the Wakefield Doctrine blog is for!!

(I’ll be back in the course of the day today, will have more details and and insights and outrageous assertions as, I trust you have all come to expect from everyone’s new favorite Doctrine, the Wakefield Doctrine continues it’s coverage of this first of ‘the Big Three Holidays)

(back) So what do you have to look forward to from the Wakefield Doctrine this Joyous Winter Season? more scott and more roger! you do recall that the Doctrine holds that we all have (the potential) inherent in all three worldviews, don’t you? and you remember what we said about using the Wakefield Doctrine as a tool for self-development, right? (i.e. ‘simple as can be, harder than anything you have ever tried to do’…that) Well that’s what we are going to be spending your valuable blog-reading time over the next 6 weeks or so. Plan accordingly.

(back) I know that I write every year about parades… (rogerian essential) but my god!! where the hell is Child Protection services? those poor children… 3 hours walking the streets of New York City , in 30 degree windy temperature all for 5 seconds ‘in frame’ in front of Macy’s so the folks back in Indiana can say ‘look!! it’s Tracy!!! what the hell’s the matter with her face?’
On a personal note: the over-hormoned 23 year old inside of me died a little late this morning as I sat in stunned disbelief as Joan Jett stood, singing, on a frickin float…. not a cigarette or ‘record machine’ in sight…waving at the crowds with a blank look on her still very attractive face…

(

back) (…again!) that ‘cover photo? the one with the Delegates from Slovenia? that goes back to the early days of this blog. we had a thing about Slovenians!! (a good thing, nothing bad…just a fun kinda affectation.) will tell you more in a little bit

* For the time-zone impaired:

Jak!! yo!!! that means 6:00 pm Twin City time

Stephanie? I believe you will have to stay up kind of late… this being like 2:00 am (!) in your time…. well, there’s always the Sunday Video Brunch (which is 3:30 pm local i.e. your local )

Molly? yeah… I know we’ll need to co-odrdinate on the google circle thing, but these Video chats are kinda fun… for you it would be 5:00 pm stop in while fixing dinner…if your phone can handle google hangouts

Michelle? wakey wakey!! 8:00 yo

Lizzi? it’s a Friday night! you get to stay up late ( sorry if we appear to be assuming that you would have nothing more…. exotic…exciting? better to do on a Friday night! 12 Midnight!

Melanie a late night rendavouz with what I trust is the oddest group of people you know

Christine… you know that we totally would love to have you join us…but it will be either 6 or 7 pm your time, so I suspect that you’ll be in the middle of dishes and homework and such… but if you do get a chance…on your phone come hangout with us!

Kristi oh Kristi! come out and plaaay

Richard oh Richard…. lol you know it would be fun

** ‘cept for Zoe… she has a very rare, ‘Join in late Card’ a privilege enjoyed by few, so step carefully when you join the brunch! lol

*** well, ‘new’ in the sense that if you were born anytime after, say… I don’t know 2011?? then this is totally new and original!! hey, it’s a great insight from a DownSpring so ya better appreciate it …you know how hard it is to get a roger to say anything that amounts to more than ‘I told you so…’??! I didn’t think so…. so read and comment, already.

Hey! there’s a post-worthy phrase! (a) ‘Leap of Faith’… remind us to make that the topic of tomorrow’s post

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, personality types, self-development, the Wakefield Doctrine

TToT -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 27, 2022 By clarkscottroger

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

This is the Wakefield Doctrine’s contribution to the Ten Things of Thankful (TToT) bloghop.

oh…em…jee!

New Readers and participants? The SOP for construction (creating? compiling?!) a TT0T post is to write a list of the people, places and things that have elicited and, otherwise, have been at the root of an episode, however transient that involved the emotion of gratitude. This has been the practice adhered to since the founding of the bloghop on the final week of the penultimate month of the year (Gregorian not Julian) by our founderess in the Anno Domino* 1989.

But that’s not important right now!** What is, is that, here in Oceania, we had one of the Big Three holidays: Thanksgiving. ayiiee… that creates either a state of infinite regression¹, gratitationally-speaking or, just provides some easy introductory material.

1) Una

2) Phyllis

3) the Wakefield Doctrine

4) the cottage project is complete²

5) the Six Sentence Story a place to send quick, little stories

6) * the availability of single songs that elbow their way (tunefully, of course) into our stream of consciousness and turn a TToT that is primarily photos and random thought into a well-thought-out…. err (Domino music vid below)

7) an afternoon’s conversation with two interesting people and your’s truly best place, we hear is to go over to the youtube and wait or, if you prefer, at the FB

8) something, something?

9) One of the cool things about the realization of P’s cottage (at the top of the Post) is that it draws much from a WIP/work of fiction, Almira; specifically, its modeled after the feeling/tone…no! wait! this is a once-a-week writing occasion, lets go for the fun…. what Phyllis is going for, both in the interior and the exterior is the design aesthetic of the library in the Gulch family home on the East Side of Providence.

10) Secret Rule 1.3

** Airplane!

lol (Homer Simpson voice) ‘Philosophy… mmmm’
for the year. next spring will be the patio ^{see Grat# 9 above}

Music vids

Filed Under: Featured, Psychology, the Wakefield Doctrine Tagged With: clarkscottroger, personality types, the Wakefield Doctrine

Too-too Tuesday -the Wakefield Doctrine-

November 22, 2022 By clarkscottroger

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers)

Hey! Before it fades, we witnessed a new rogerian Expression!* A character on a show (forget the show, remember the character) facing a situation that is challenging on all levels, says, “Well, that’s a tall pill to swallow.”

(something, something… didn’t want to step on the only, vaguely original thought in this post. Given the holiday, here in Oceania, later in this week, thought it best.)

* what are rogerian Expressions?!? sorry, didn’t see your ‘New Reader Leave Me Alone, please’ badge.

Welll… have a seat. Can we get you a coffee and something to nosh on? ok, we see you have the three name tags recommended for first time visitors to the Doctrine. Never a bad idea to leave your options open until it’s too late. Here’s the link to the original reference, just in case. If you’re in a hurry, scroll down to near the bottom of the Page in rogers,

Don’t go anywhere, gots to find a reprint and finish up the post.

lol!! damn! Sorry, I just encountered one of those, probably-only-because-it’s-the-blogosphere moments. We all have those times when we don’t recognize our own writing. Most often very old posts. The normal reaction tends to be, “Hmm, kinda basic, but clearly that was us writing… keep practicing!” but sometimes, like today’s reprint, there’s a line that makes one laugh and think, “Alright! Weird as you thought you might be, but still…kinda funny,”

of egos and empathy the Wakefield Doctrine (yes, I know! it’s already half past Monday! )

April 15, 2013

Welcome to the Wakefield Doctrine (the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers) Sorry for leaving an undeniably out of date Post up there, after all, it frickin says ‘Saturday’ in the damn Title. So while we rack my damn brain for some fresh Content, here is a reprint Post, which is actually surprisingly germane to where our thinking is on the Doctrine. Don’t want to get into it too much but we will say this: a) the Wakefield Doctrine stands to become a very cool tool for self-development (for those so inclined) and 2) those rogers have been relaxing long enough in the wings…time to get this show on.

But for now, please enjoy:

Welcome*

…we know now, ( if you read yesterday’s Post, you know now ), the relationship between rogers and scotts is a very… intimate pairing. While easy to mistake the roger’s as ‘victim’ to the scott’s predation, we know that this is totally not the case. ( New Readers! Go and listen to DownSpring Phyllis in Episode 13 of Video Friday), rather it is obvious that there is very much a symbiotic relationship binding¹ your rogers and scotts. The Wakefield Doctrine is gender neutral, however it is often where gender is the central feature, that we can see the relationship between these two personality types in highest contrast. We all know a couple** where the guy is a roger and the girl is a scott. He is always pretty and she is always sexy. He is socially adept and she is socially aggressive. It is when these two are observed tant qu’ensemble, do we see the interplay of each personality type. With a roger/scott couple, it is the scott who is quick with the jokes about (the roger), ” oh yeah, you should have seen roger on our honeymoon! he was so nervous” (this kind of comment actually serves two purposes: a) make fun of the roger for the amusement of the surrounding group and b) (serve) as bait to entice any rogers listening to the story). The roger, in this situation, laughs comfortably and watches the reaction of the female members of their ‘audience’. Think: Bill and Hillary Clinton or (for you older Readers), Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton …hell, lets throw in Bobby Brown and Whitney Houston! In any event, you will find ‘this couple’ in most social gatherings where attendance of ‘couples’ is appropriate. It needs to be said that this type of relationship (roger/scott) is by no means exclusive to ‘couples’ in the romantic sense; anywhere there are people interacting, you will find the dynamic described here. And, as Phyllis points out in her Video interview, the roger is not truly the passive partner. (From the rogerian perspective), the seemingly passive one is ‘leading from behind’ and reining in the scott, particularly in the public/social situations that we are using to illustrate the two personality types.

While the roger-scott relationship is relatively easy ( if not kind of…racy… dynamic… “ewww, I can’t believe she said that“…) to understand, what of the roger-clark relationship?

Before we continue with our discussion, a quick note! You know how we have been accused of… making up words, (neologisms, to get rogerian on it) for our own enjoyment? ( No? well we do!) Real made-up words, not rogerian expressions, in any case, with Molly’s help we went and sent in a word to the Urban Dictionary just last evening. While not up to the sublime, subtly-nuanced standards found with most of the entries there, we are beginning to spread more and more into the ‘real world’. Thanks Molly!

The roger-clark relationship is much more stable, less wildly dynamic than is the roger-scott relationship. As the ‘active’ partner in a roger-scott relationship is usually the scott, the roger plays the more active role in the roger-clark couple. This is attributable more to the patience of the clark than (to) the aggressiveness of the roger. Lets just say that in the ‘natural’ relationship between rogers and clarks…

rogers are to clarks as:

a diploma is to an education

(the) record to the needle

the ocean to the tide

Thanksgiving is to Christmas

(As with yesterday’s Post, here is where we will relate an anecdote to serve as an illustration of some part of this Post. So I was talking to the Progenitor roger just the other day, the conversation was great fun, ranging an incredible variety of topics. This is as much evidence of the rogerian skill at story-telling, as it is proof of a clarks ability to adapt to nearly any situation. In any event, roger and I were talking and the topic came around to either: a)dinner, b)body weight or c) both a & b, at which point, roger made the statement, ” of course, you would be eating tuna casserole…” Now this statement should not mean anything to you, (the Reader), however, what makes it so atypical of rogers is that at one time in the past (say …20 years ago) I was on a tuna casserole diet. Great meal, tuna…noodles…good hot or cold…perfect food! Being a clark, I could, (and did), eat tuna casserole for every meal. The point of this story is that roger mentioned this…menu choice, as if it were (still) true. What is remarkable about the sentence that he made was not that it was no longer true, rather that he made the statement with such certainty and conviction that, for a second, I could almost smell tuna casserole. rogers do that, they maintain a (certain) worldview that they have decided is accurate, the passage of time, (in this case, 20 years), has zero effect on how true the roger will hold their statement to be… This capability is at heart of the rogerian need to: preserve, to maintain tradition, to support their view of the world as lasting and consistent. This is perhaps the reason that rogers are such effective story-tellers…they maybe be relating a tale, one that they totally make up, but when they tell it, it is ‘true’. The listener feels this (rogerian) conviction that the story is true, it must be simply because (the roger) remembers it so…)

musical technique is to creativity

machine operator is to a Teacher

Well that wraps up Chapter II. Be sure to stay for the Video ( isn’t George just so….dreamy??! )

1) lol…ask a scott

* the theory of clarks, scotts and rogers

** we mean it about gender neutral…the term ‘couple’ is not limited to simple heterosexual pairs… can include any relationship, sexual and/or friendship-based