Answer:
"Paraphilia"
Explanation:
According to my research on social studies made about sexual preferences of people, it can be said that the term being described is called "Paraphilia". This is in other words it is the act of being sexually aroused by un-regular objects, situations, fantasies, behaviors, or individuals that is not the normal or culturally/socially accepted.
I hope this answered your question. If you have any more questions feel free to ask away at Brainly.
Answer:
Within-Subjects Experiments
Explanation:
Within-Subjects Designs: this is a form of experimental design in which the participants involved is exposed or subjected to all the conditions.
However, in this case, Alberto, is using Within-Subject Designs (simultaneous) by exposing all the participants to answer arithmetic problems while listening to metal, and then country, and finally classical music simultenously.
The multiple conditions here are: arithmetic problems to solve, listening to different types of music in a sequence that mixed the different types.
Answer:
The correct answer to your question is C. Hystrionic.
Lydia has Hystrionic Personality Disorder (HPD)
Explanation:
Hystrionic is described as ''exaggerated dramatic behavior designed to attract attention.'' ,which is definitely what Lydia is doing.
Hope I helped! :P Brainly always welcome:)
If the political cartoon is against child labor then it should be cartoon characters telling why it is bad, if for then telling the benefits and counter claiming the reasons why not. ?
Answer:
In Schenck v. United States, the Supreme Court <u><em>ruled that bans on dangerous speech were constitutional.</em></u>
Explanation:
In the 1919 Supreme Court case of Schenck v. the United States, the court deemed the actions of Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer as unconstitutional. It deemed them criminals for trying to obstruct the government's drafting of men for war and that it is an act against the security of the nation.
This case revolves around the claim that the obstruction of Schenck and Baer's free speech was unconstitutional and they have the right to express their opinions. But the court insisted that since the leaflets they distributed were against national security, the First Amendment doesn't apply to them.
Thus, the correct answer is the second option.
