According to Wikipedia, kids who grow up to have Antisocial Personality Disorder often exhibit a longer than usual bedwetting period in childhood.
I don't know if this is true or if it's Wiki vandalism ("longer than usual" is not defined), but I thought it was funny. I'm considered starting a debate on one of those obnoxious parenting communities: "If your kid still wets the bed beyond age 8/12/16/whatever constitutes a 'longer than usual bedwetting period', would you be concerned that he'll grow up to be a serial killer??" LOL.
Grass too green! Sky too blue! Birds too chirpy! Air too still! Booooooo!
Now that I've handed in all my school shit and have nothing left to do but sit back and wait for the consequences results, I really really want to go to the park and draw a scene that captures the dreariness of the Canadian spring, but how can I do that as summer creeps nearer and nearer and everything is getting so lush and healthy, dammitt!!!!!
It was a few days ago when I was walking by a field and the sky was all gray and dreary and the grass is all brown and gray and there was wind and I thought that it was so beautiful but I couldn't draw it until I finished my school shit. Just for the record, I don't revel in appreciation of the bleak and barren all the time and I'd love to draw the landscape in full bloom too, but that's not what I'm in the MOOD for right now!!!!!!!
There's still enough dead grass to make a go of it and the seem nowhere near ready to explode with leaves so IF ONLY some dark clouds would roll in I could make a go at it!!! Of course I could always just draw the scene out right away but I really need to actually see the colors if I want hope of replicating them.
I'd read about segregated proms in Georgia before and brought it up in conversation but it always sounded so ridiculous that I was doubting myself and wondered if I had actually read what I thought I'd read. I guess I did.
This can't actually be what's on American high school diploma exams, is it??? Please say this is just a feel-good ego-boosting test!! That was way too easy--I learned about photosynthesis in junior high!!! I'm wondering about the Immaculate Conception question, what public high schools teach that, I learned it at church!!!
I'm supposed to be working on another Canadian Theatre project, and I only meant to check out LJ's, and then I saw someone who made avatars of all his characters and I was like OMG AWESOMENESS so I just had to do it too. Lesson learned: my characters don't look good chibified. But this was one of the funnest things ever.
No joy. Bill Amend has stopped doing daily Foxtrot strips, just Sunday strips now. I am sad. On the plus side, I'll now have a limited number of treasuries to collect. But I'll miss the strip. Strips that have come out in recent years have been mostly lame, horrendously drawn, or obvious imitations of past greats like The Far Side. Pearls Before Swine is not very funny. It's mostly jokes that amatuers could have come up with.
I have realized tonight that being a woman sucks. This entry will explain why.
If a woman is pregnant and not ready ready to raise the kid and she gets an abortion, the pro-lifers tell her she's a murderer, her baby suffered horribly and would have been better off if she had given it up for adoption and she's a selfish bitch.
If said woman gives the baby up for adoption, the anti-adoptionists tell her the child is going to end up screwed for life because it's abandoned by it's natural mother and living a lie would have been better off aborted and she's a selfish bitch. (Personally, I think anti-adoptionists are way, way worse than pro-lifers.)
If said woman does not abort and does not give the baby up and instead decides to keep it despite not feeling ready because abortion is bad and adoption is bad, then according to virtually everyone living on welfare makes her a lazy moo and finishing school means her baby is neglected and she won't make enough money to take good care of it, raising the kid single means the kid will be screwed up from not having a father, leaving the kid in daycare or with a caregiver so she can earn money to keep the kid fed will screw up the kid because the bond is broken, and marrying the father and staying at home makes her a lazy golddigger, marrying the father and working means she doesn't have time to bond, and even if this baby was concieved in wedlock both those last options still apply, and the bottom line is she's a selfish bitch.
If said woman is religious and the baby was conceived out of wedlock, she's a selfish and hellbound bitch even if she marries the father right away. Stuff about working/staying home still applies if the baby is conceived in wedlock.
If said woman is not religious, she's a selfish and hellbound bitch anyway, because the morality of other people trumps her own.
If a woman is avoiding unwanted pregancies by using birth control, fundies tell her she's playing God and is a selfish bitch. If the birth control fails, she deserves it.
If said woman is not married, she's also a promiscious slut and selfish bitch.
If a woman has one kid, she's a selfish bitch for not providing the lonely kid with a sibling.
If a woman has three kids, she's made fun of her supposedly busy sex life and is a selfish bitch for contributing to overpopulation.
If a woman has two kids but they're both boys, people will tell her her life is empty without a little girl and will pester her to try for one. I haven't heard "selfish bitch" associated with this one but I'm sure some militant feminists would have a few words.
If a woman has two kids but they're both girls, people will pester her to try for a boy and she's a selfish bitch for not providing her husband with a son to carry on his name.
If a woman has multiples, she is made fun of and everyone assumes her life is hell. If she attempts to carry more than 4, she is a selfish bitch for putting them at risk and not aborting a few to increase the chances of some of them surviving. If she DOES abort a few, or all, she's a selfish bitch for not giving them a chance to live.
If a woman is infertile and adopts, anti-adopters will say she's stealing a child that is not rightfully hers and the kid will be messed up and she will never be his real mother and she's a selfish bitch. She also gets berated by people who think that you can never experience a true bond without giving birth.
If a woman is infertile and takes fertility treatments, she's a selfish bitch for contributing to the overpopulation problem instead of adopting kids who need homes.
If a woman is infertile and does nothing, she is berated because life is supposedly better with children and she's a selfish bitch because it's a woman's duty to raise babies.
If a woman chooses to not have children she's even more of a selfish bitch because not having children is immoral.
If said woman avoids pregnancy with sterilization or birth control, she is a promiscious god-playing slut.
If a woman has unprotected sex and is lucky enough not to get pregnant she's still a moron and a promiscious slut.
If a woman abstains from sex entirely in order to avoid babies, she's lectured for missing out on something life-enhancing and is a selfish bitch for not pleasing her SO.
If said woman isn't even in a relationship, there's something wrong with her otherwise she would have a boyfriend.
If a woman is married but has to abstain because she already has one boy and one girl and birth control/abortion/adoption are TEH EBIL then she's still a selfish bitch for not performing her wifely duties.
Rhythm method and pulling still make the woman a selfish bitch because it's playing God.
If a woman is a lesbian, everything she does makes her a selfish bitch.
No, I am not overreacting, I have read/heard every possible reproductive decision a woman can possibly make criticised by some group or other, and every single one of these groups is VERY LOUD. If you thought in this day and age women's places in society do not depend on what we think of childbearing, think again.
Not only is there no one in the US with my entire name, but neither my first or last name individually appears. Which leads me to believe their database is incomplete because there are 15 households in Canada with my last name, so why wouldn't there be any in the US???
If men are, as many so claim, biologically wired to need to look at many different women, why are the same men who claim this so turned on by identical twins, triplets, etc.??? And why do all porn stars look exactly alike???
Serioulsy, what the FUCK??? "You have a lot to lose"--you lose the blinders and you see what JERKS your best friend and your girlfriend are??? Before becoming a quadraplegic, you lived in the blissfully ignorant state believing that your best friend and girlfriend were real friends.
What the fuck IS this??? I would stick by Taylor if he became a quadraplegic (probably not if he was the one driving drunk, but that's abour morality, not disability). Christopher Reed's wife stuck by him. I would stick by Taylor and any of my friends no matter what disability they became afflicted with. I would stay with Taylor so long as he's able to love me back, i.e. I wouldn't be able to stay with him if he had a brain injury so severe that he couldn't recognize or communicate with anyone and there was no hope of recovery, but Jesus Christ, if a quadraplegic can feel pain at seeing their best friend and girlfriend be JERKS then how are they not capable of having real relationships and real friends???
What sort of horrible message do they hope to send?? That you should avoid this kind of injury because no one will love you anymore??? Because people will treat you like crap?? Why is that the problem of the people with disabilities?? Physical injuries like quadraplegia don't affect the mind!! Brooke Ellison is doing more with her life than most able-bodied people; why is MADD trying to promote the stigma against the disabled????
Stigma against drunk drivers, that's a different story. But the message this video is sending is that people don't want to be loyal to people with disabilities. Who wants friends like that???? My body is fully functional, and I don't want friends like that!!!
So you know how I hate the direction of For Better or For Worse so much?? Well, I've been watching the 7th season of Frasier on DVD and a very similar situation played out with Niles and Daphne. Niles eloped with "teh ebil" Mel even though he loves Daphne, while Daphne was getting ready marry Donny, even though she had feelings for Niles, and after a series of absurd events Niles told her, 12 hours before her wedding, that he would leave Mel if Daphne loved him, and it ends with Daphne running from her wedding to drive off with Niles in his father's Winnibego.
So why is it that the Frasier thing is so hilarious and the characters are sympathetic and viewers DO want to see Niles and Daphne together and their actions don't seem all that reprehensible, while the thing in FBOFW is in such bad taste????
Is it because Frasier is a sitcom so you expect that most absurd, exagerrated, worst-case situations will play out, while FBOFW is more based in realism and ordinary readers can identify with the situations??
Is it because any viewer would know as soon as any Frasier episode starts that the characters are totally clueless about how to manage their love lives, while the strong marriage between Elly and John is central to FBOFW??
Is it because the events that played out in Frasier are basically all Frasier's fault, while in FBOFW there's no question that Anthony and Liz are responsible for their actions??
Is it because Daphne's twue wuv Niles is the attractive one while her Mr. Wrong Donny is the ugly one (he's not a bad person really, just unattractive and kind of low-brow), while the reverse is true for Liz?? Or is it just because Niles, with all his failings, at least didn't whine to Daphne "I HAVE NO HOOOOOOOME!!!!"
This is what my English degree did to me. But seriously, I'm a director and a cartoonist, I think it's really important to understand why a situation will work when it's done in a certain way and doesn't work another way.
OK, I seriously don't want to read For Better or For Worse anymore. I'm considering writing a letter to Lynn Johnston to let her know that, as a loyal reader who faithfully collects all her strip collctions, I HATE HATE HATE HATE the direction that the strip is going!!!!
The PROBLEM is, it's incredibly hard to explain why I think Elizabeth should NOT leave her worthwhile teaching job at a native reserve and should NOT break up with her attractive and admirable boyfriend Constable Paul Wright and should NOT move back home to her Mommy and Daddy and should NOT jump into the arms of her highschool sweetheart Anthony aka Granthony aka Ned Flanthony without sounding like a career-obsessed, anti-family, child-hating, anti-marriage, God-hating, premarital sex-pushing, status-seeking snobby bitter militant feminist bitch who thinks women should stay perpetually single or at the absolute worst have lesbian fivesomes only.
Out of the fans (or ex-fans) who comment on the strip, many of them women, I can count the ones who support Liz/Anthony on one hand. The PROBLEM is, even though these women are ONE HUNDRED PER CENT RIGHT, the tone of this discussions is often such that you can TOTALLY picture Lynn Johnston, who is old and out of touch, wagging her finger and telling them they need to find a twue wuv and not judge by appearences have a better relationship with their parents and not focus so much on career and money and matirialsim.
Well, OK, I'm going to do my best to explain why I think Liz moving back home and choosing Anthony over Paul is a shitty idea.
First of all, her older brother Mike married the girl he had a crush on in elementary school and it was very cute twist of fate and a romantic story. Strips in recent years have foreshadowed him buying his parents' house when they're ready to sell it and raise his family in the house he grew up in. So marrying your first love and moving back to your hometown has basically ALREADY BEEN DONE. Why does Liz have to do the exact same thing???
Loving your family and having a wonderful relationship with them doesn't mean you must live in the same town and see them every day. Liz is living in Northern Ontario. Her parents live in Southern Ontario. So not only is Liz not in another country, she's not even in another province!!! She could visit her family frequently; I don't understand why she needs to leave her northern adventure and move back home. Elly and John both moved away from their parents after university and led very fulfilling lives.
Now the Anthony thing...first some background for those of you that haven't been following the strip: Anthony married Therese while wishing that Liz had never gotten away from him and they had a child even though Therese didn't want to raise a baby but instead wanted to focus on her career. Therese was very jealous of Liz and didn't want Anthony near her. Anthony couldn't bear the thought of not being able to stay in contact with Liz but ELIZABETH (yes, Liz, NOT Anthony) said that they had to consider Anthony's wife's feelings. After Liz was almost raped by a co-worker, Anthony spilled out all his marital problems--Therese spends more time at the office than with him and the baby, HE HAS NO HOOOOOOME!!! Then he begs Liz to wait for him--wait for him to get a divorce from Therese. Now Therese has left Anthony for another man and left him the baby.
Got all that? The reason arguing against that makes a woman look anti-marriage, anti-family, anti-children, anti-love and human feelings and emotions is because of the disagreement with Anthony's choice to get married and have children and a house and a white picket fence right after university and the disagreement with the portrayal of Therese as evil because she wanted a career instead of children.
Well, here's my take. I am not anti-marriage or anti-children, I'm very pro-marriage. And that is why I find this whole situation to be in horrible taste. When you get married, you take an oath. You PROMISE to the person you marry that they are your one and only and you are fully committed to them. Anthony's behaviour towards Liz during his engagement and marriage clearly reflected that he did not mean a word of his vows to Therese, but that he had another woman in mind the whole time. While still married, he begs Liz to wait for him. No no no no no, that is not the behaviour of a man who takes his vows with the gravity that they should be taken. I have told winterpegger that is we ever break up, he forfeits the chance to get back together the moment he marries someone else. Therese was defintely not a likeable character, but she was jealous of Liz even before she and Anthony got married, so Anthony should have broken off the engagement. You don't just discard your marriage when things get rough. If there are red flags like major jealousy, the marriage should not happen. I wouldn't marry a man like Anthony, and I don't know any self-respecting woman who would. This is NOT a militant anti-men feminist idea. It's not about wanting a man to grovel at your feet, it's about a minimal amount of RESPECT. The least ANYONE can ask in a relationship is to be treated with respect, and Anthony doesn't do that with Liz or Therese.
People will defend Anthony saying he was young and didn't know what he was doing, which brings me to my next point. I have tried really hard, but I can't think of a single reason why anyone should rush into marriage/children/white picket fence immediately after university. It's when a woman is after 35 that pregnancy becomes riskier, but that's more than a decade after university. So what's wrong with a woman (or a man, for that matter) focusing on her career for several years after university??? Waiting a few years for marriage and kids doesn't mean it will never happen, and it doesn't mean the woman is a cold-hearted bitch either.
So does this post appear irritable and devoid of family values? Or does it sound like something a crazy old lady who would gasp in horror at knowing that a 20 year old woman is single would agree with? If it's crazy old lady-friendly, I'm writing to Lynn Johnston!!
Wow. Like, wow..."The Room" is a fantastic essay but the whole situation is one of the worst things I've ever heard. Not that it's worse than innocent people or animals being tortured, but it's definitely the sort of thing that's going to keep me awake at night as I scour the cosmos for the meaning of life while receving absolutely no sign. If we rate bad things on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the torture of innocent people or animals and 1 being the cutting of a little finger, I'd say this is about a 7.8. Talk about shameful.
So advice columns are a guilty pleasure of mine, right? I've been reading some of John Gray's, although I really don't enjoy his column even as a guilty pleasure because he's the quintessential stereotype-driven easy-answer guru. He wrote Men are From Mars Women are From Venus. Flip through that next time you're in the self-help section (yes, I flip through those books just for giggles) and you'll see what I mean. Anyway, here is a question and answer from the column that should have made me giggle if only I could wrap my head around it:
Dear John: I have been dating Seth for two months. We are both in our 40s, and he is currently separated from his second wife, a marriage that lasted over a decade. I am divorced from my first husband -- we were married for almost two decades. Recently, Seth and I were discussing the reasons for our failed marriages, and we found out we have completely opposite views of "love" and being "in love." I said I still love my husband, will always "love" him, but was never "in love" with him. In my mind, falling "in love" comes first. And if you aren't "in love" with someone, it can never develop into being "in love." On the other hand, Seth feels that "loving" someone comes first and, as the relationship develops, you grow to become "in love" with your partner. As for us, Seth told me he loved me within a month of the day we met. I did not respond. I know I'm not "in love" with him according to my definition. Who is correct? Or can you give us a well-defined answer to the difference between "love" and "in love." -- Semantics in Seattle
Dear Semantics: There are, in fact, many kinds of love, because love is complicated and affects many layers of emotions. As we grow to know, trust and commit to each other, our love ebbs and flows. That is why you can love someone without being "in love" with them, or you can move out of being in love, but still love him or her.
Neither of you is wrong in how you interpret the meaning of love. In this case, it's not how he says it, but what he is saying that counts, and he is telling you that he realizes he is committed to you. Love, by any definition, is a sweet thing. My advice: Don't mince words. If you feel this way, too, then acknowledge and appreciate his commitment with your own.
???? I have no idea what "Semantics in Seattle" is saying, do you?? I think John's answer isn't bad, but I'm not sure...it's hard to say when the question is so out there.