My Blog Will Be Updated More - SAG Award Nominations

It's award season - and that means my blog becomes active again! I swear I will be publishing more posts over the course of 2014, with actual content. But in the meantime, here we go into award season, and that means it'll all culminate with my liveblog of the Academy Awards in February.

Here we go with the Screen Actors Guild Awards nominations! The 20th Annual SAG Awards will be airing January 18. I'm hoping to try to watch them and do a live blog like I do for the Academy Awards, but that will depend on me finding the channel they're on! Check out www.sagawards.org for full information.

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY A CAST IN A MOTION PICTURE
12 Years a Slave 
American Hustle
August: Osage County
Dallas Buyers Club
Lee Daniels' The Butler

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY A MALE ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
Chiwetel Ejiofor, as Solomon Northup - 12 Years a Slave
Tom Hanks, as Capt. Richard Phillips - Captain Phillips
Matthew McConaughey, as Ron Woodrof - Dallas Buyers Club
Forest Whitaker, as Cecil Gaines - Lee Daniels' The Butler
Bruce Dern, as Woody Grant - Nebraska

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANE BY A FEMALE ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
Meryl Streep, as Violet Weston - August: Osage County
Cate Blanchett, as Jasmine - Blue Jasmine
Sandra Bullock, as Ryan Stone - Gravity
Judi Dench, as Philomena Lee - Philomena
Emma Thompson, as P.L. Travers - Saving Mr. Banks

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY A MALE ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Michael Fassbender, as Edwin Epps - 12 Years a Slave
Barkhad Abdi, as Muse - Captain Phillips
Jared Leto, as Rayon - Dallas Buyers Club
James Gandolfini, as Albert - Enough Said
Daniel Bruhl, as Niki Lauda - Rush

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY A FEMALE ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Lupita Nyong'o, as Patsey - 12 Years a Slave
Jennifer Lawrence, as Rosalyn Rosenfeld - American Hustle
Julia Roberts, as Barbara Weston - August: Osage County
June Squibb, as Kate Grant - Nebraska
Oprah Winfrey, as Gloria Gaines - Lee Daniels' The Butler

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY AN ENSEMBLE IN A DRAMA SERIES
Boardwalk Empire
Breaking Bad
Downton Abbey
Game of Thrones
Homeland

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY AN ENSEMBLE IN A COMEDY SERIES
30 Rock
Arrested Development
Modern Family
The Big Bang Theory
Veep

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY A MALE ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES
Steve Buscemi, as Enoch 'Nucky' Thompson - Boardwalk Empire
Bryan Cranston, as Walter White - Breaking Bad
Peter Dinklage, as Tyrion Lannister - Game of Thrones
Kevin Spacey, as Francis Underwood - House of Cards
Jeff Daniels, as Will McAvoy - The Newsroom

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY A FEMALE ACTOR IN A DRAMA SERIES
Jessica Lange, as Fiona Goode - American Horror Story: Coven
Anna Gunn, as Skyler White - Breaking Bad
Maggie Smith, as Violet, Dowager Countess of Grantham - Downton Abbey
Claire Danes, as Carrie Mathison - Homeland
Kerry Washington, as Olivia Pope - Scandal

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY A MALE ACTOR IN A COMEDY SERIES
Alec Baldwin, as Jack Donaghy - 30 Rock
Jason Bateman, as Michael Bluth - Arrested Development
Don Cheadle, as Martin 'Marty' Kaan - House of Lies
Ty Burrell, as Phil Dunphy - Modern Family
Jim Parsons, as Sheldon Cooper - The Big Bang Theory

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY A FEMALE ACTOR IN A COMEDY SERIES
Tina Fey, as Liz Lemon - 30 Rock
Julie Bowen, as Claire Dunphy - Modern Family
Edie Falco, as Jackie Peyton - Nurse Jackie
Mayim Bialik, as Amy Farrah Fowler - The Big Bang Theory
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, as Vice President Selina Meyer - Veep

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY A MALE ACTOR IN A TELEVISION MOVIE OR MINISERIES
Matt Damon, as Scott Thorson - Behind the Candelabra
Michael Douglas, as Liberace - Behind the Candelabra
Rob Lowe, as John F. Kennedy - Killing Kennedy
Al Pacino, as Phil Spector - Phil Spector
Jeremy Irons, as King Henry IV - The Hollow Crown

OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE BY A FEMALE ACTOR IN A TELEVISION MOVIE OR MINISERIES
Angela Bassett, as Coretta Scott King - Betty & Coretta
Helena Bonham Carter, as Elizabeth Taylor - Burton and Taylor
Elisabeth Moss, as Robin Griffin - Top of the Lake
Holly Hunter, as G.J. - Top of the Lake
Helen Mirren, as Linda Kenney Baden - Phil Spector

OUTSTANDING ACTION PERFORMANCE BY A STUNT ENSEMBLE IN A MOTION PICTURE
All Is Lost
Fast & Furious 6
Lone Survivor
Rush
The Wolverine

OUTSTANDING ACTION PERFORMANCE BY A STUNT ENSEMBLE IN A TELEVISION SERIES
Boardwalk Empire
Breaking Bad
Game of Thrones
Homeland
The Walking Dead

This should be fascinating. I am surprised, yet pleasantly so, by James Gandolfini's posthumous nomination. Not sure if that will be a deciding factor, but it's nice to see one of his last pieces being so well received. And as always, I love the inclusion of the stunt performances. Usually there are writing awards, but I haven't seen any mention of those nominations as of yet. I'll update this blog post if I get more information!

Review: Women Who Kill: Profiles of Female Serial Killers

Women Who Kill: Profiles of Female Serial Killers by Carol Anne Davis

My rating: 1 of 5 stars



This book was full of glaring errors, grammatical, spelling-related, and factual. (The factual can be forgiven, almost, due to being written thirteen years ago, though I do believe some of the information about some of the killers and their partners was probably available, but there are many interpretations since no one in the public can know exactly what happened.) However, I seriously could not get past the extremely poor editing. (If there WAS an editor, they need to be sacked immediately.) The spelling was terrible - and speaking of the spelling - if you're writing a true crime book, and talking about ANY killer, who people know well, you might want to spell their name right. (Bernardo, not Barnardo. Yes, I'm Canadian, but spell your subjects' names right, come on.) There was no excuse for the spelling. And there was no excuse for the grammar, and the lack of proper punctuation drove me up the wall. It makes for a very distracting read.

I also felt that I wasn't really getting any information or insights. It felt like a Wikipedia account of these women, and if I want that, I'll go to Wikipedia. (Though I never want that, as I abhor Wikipedia.) It had no insights into their psyches. You could tell she tried, but it was the same recycled theories, and a lot of it was very generalized, and a lot of it was obviously her own bias intruding, and she was judging the women without analysing them. Her discussion of feminism, and women being considered to be gentle and nurturing, would have been more interesting if she had actually discussed that and hadn't just repeated the same information about the women over and over.

All in all, I was very disappointed, and also very glad I didn't pay to read this. Poorly edited books will always get scathing reviews for me, and she lost credibility the first time she spelled someone's name wrong. (As she often mixed up victims' names and spellings of those names, as well as perpetrators' names.) It was a good idea, but the long chapters were on the most famous cases, and I would have liked to have seen more information on the lesser known people, but I don't believe enough real research was done to enable that.



View all my reviews

My Blind Spot

This was originally intended to be a private post for my partner, on the blog I share only with him, since we have had this discussion multiple times. But then I decided - why do I have a blog if I don't write about personal decisions and matters?

This post is not meant to incite anything. I do not judge anyone else for their beliefs; this is just where the series of events in my life has led me, and I just wanted to put it down somewhere.

This is going to deal with a rather sensitive subject - that of religion. Which is why I had that disclaimer.

I wasn't really raised with anything resembling a religion. My parents went to church, but only occasionally. We usually went on Christmas. (In fact, the last time I remember going to a church for a real service was on Christmas when I was somewhere around six. I just remember my grandpa singing "The shepherds wash their smelly socks" during the songs. Oh, let's not talk about that; gotta wait for A Walk to Remember to have a good cry!) I went with a good friend to a few services at her Kingdom Hall, and those experiences gave me the pleasant result of not hating Jehovah's Witnesses on sight, and I do not insult or mock them. I have NEVER encountered a pushy person in that faith - the entire congregation was very welcoming and a happy bunch, and I was allowed to go even though I was not remotely thinking of converting to that, since I was quite young. So I really just don't get that whole hate for them; it really is all about the people you meet.

Anyway.

My grandmother on my dad's side still goes to church more regularly than anything else and we always used to say grace at Thanksgiving and Easter and such. (Now we mostly just sing Johnny Appleseed. Well, everyone else sings it; I don't, for reasons this post as a whole will make clear.) So it's not like I never had the chance, or my parents were violent atheists, or anything. I had great parents who didn't force us to do anything. (Except soccer; even if they say I wanted to play, I maintain I was forced. I really didn't like playing soccer.)

But my feelings on religion and spirituality for myself are very clear to me. Scratch that; they've only become very clear to me over the last few years. I do not like the idea of organised religion, even with my family belonging to the United Church. (Which is a very laidback group, when compared to other groups.) I just really...dislike it, and I am not a fan. I just cannot believe in the concept of having to follow this set of rules that some unseen, unknowable being set down. I don't like having to go somewhere to hear those rules. I like the idea of church as a community, but as a rule for me, organised religion is not something I like. (And this is coming from someone who has never once had a bad experience with any kind of organised religion; I've only met nice people! Unless you count the Westboro Baptist Church, but believe me, they are not what I base this on. I have felt this way since before I knew who they were.) And that turned out to be a lot harder to explain than I thought it would. I just don't like the idea.

I've considered so many religions. I have researched MANY. My family's, Jehovah's Witness, even Scientology! (Yes, seriously.) I have attended other people's meetings and churches. In short, I have tried to gather as much information as I could about these kinds of things. And what did I end up with? None of them made sense for me. And I TRIED to make them make sense; I felt lost for a really long time, felt that I had to belong to some religion. But I just didn't get it.

I guess you could say it's my blind spot. Maybe because I tried so hard to find a religion that worked for me, I'm beyond done, and I never want to try to find another one. It's not that I'm not open to it for others; practise whatever you want, that is so important, to have freedom to believe what you want. Of course! But for me, religion is my blind spot. I don't want it. Am I afraid of being taken over, of having to give up too much? Of not keeping any of me? (This is an idea I read today in Elizabeth Hay's Late Nights on Air.) Maybe. I don't really know. All I do know is that it's important to me not to engage in any kind of belief system; after all, I don't want to be a hypocrite.

Now, this will sound lame, but when I watched DONNIE DARKO, that changed. I have the director's cut (meaning it is significantly longer, and has deleted scenes included) and when I watched it, there is a discussion between Donnie and his therapist about whether he is an agnostic or an atheist.

"Donnie. An atheist is someone who denies altogether the existence of God. You're
an agnostic. An agnostic is someone who believes that there can be no proof of the
existence of God, but does not deny a possibility that God exists."

I used to take this as an example of what I was, without doubt. I was agnostic. But in the past couple of years, as I've moved away from the idea of one God, that doesn't seem as true. However, it is still true at its core; I believe there is something, some kind of something (yeah, really specific, but this is what not being sure does to me) "up there" or out there. However, I do not believe there can ever be proof, and I cannot do blind faith. I can't just believe; I'm not a scientist, but I need some kind of proof before I can leave my life in something else's hands. (I just can't believe that there's this one "supreme being" who kills whenever it wants. Death does fine as its own force without bringing someone's "plan" into it, to me.) So if that fits the agnostic definition, then that works for me. However, I've recently come to think, "Hey. I don't need a label." And I don't. I don't go for any kind of organised religion, and I believe there could be a separate power working out there, but there is no proof, and because I just can't blindly believe in any kind of supreme being, then I'm just my own person. I don't know what happens, if there's an afterlife, if it's a reincarnation, if it's anything, I'll find out when I get there.

There are some things that have resulted from this. Now, I get uncomfortable when there's any mention of God or Lord or anything like that. (If someone says God bless you, I stammer and just kind of walk away. I can't even say bless you when people sneeze.) There certainly won't be any mention of God or any other type of religious figure or figures at my wedding or in my vows. (Not even as a joke or reference to literature.) I've already decided that if I have kids (I want kids, but you never know if your body will cooperate until you try, and I certainly haven't tried yet) they won't be christened. Is any of this bad? I don't know; I never talk about religion unless I am very close to the person. But this is a core part of me; THIS is my core belief, rather than a belief in some kind of figure I don't truly understand. And this is about me and my comfort. I'm more comfortable not believing in the tenets of a religion. I'm more comfortable this way, and if I learned anything in my last two years of university, it was that me being comfortable in my own skin made my life infinitely better than trying to please or obey other people.

So there you go, Greg.

Review: How to Make Love Like a Porn Star: A Cautionary Tale

How to Make Love Like a Porn Star: A Cautionary Tale by Jenna Jameson

My rating: 4 of 5 stars



I wonder how many people judged me for reading this. There's a very stereotyped view of "porn stars." And Jenna Jameson is, at least to me right now, the most famous (maybe infamous?) porn star. But she is also one of the most successful, and hey, she has her own COMPANY. She's not just a girl on camera anymore.

I really loved this book. I found the hardcover for about $8, and after reading, I probably would have paid full price. (Or at least more than $8.) I know that Jenna wrote it with someone (Neil Strauss, who I have sort of heard of before), so I don't know how much of the writing was actually her own. But it was WONDERFULLY written; it was so incredibly engaging, as evidenced by the fact that I read this quite long book in a day. (I was sick in bed but still, a day.) Engaging, and addicting, and set out so clearly. There were a lot of things happening, as her life was quite full (of both good and bad events), in different years, but I was able to follow the timeline with little trouble. (And this is way more important than you would think; I hate when I have to go back every few pages to figure out which year we're in.)

Jenna Jameson's life was really hard (and she addresses the fact that people always ask her if it was, because they literally can't rationalize another reason that she would pick the career she did if she wasn't abused as a child, for some reason) but the book is funny and straightforward. She embraces her life, and her mistakes, and as a result, herself. It's an empowering book, as she empowered herself for most of her career; she got what she wanted, and I think it's an important book to read. It doesn't matter that she's in porn; I might be biased, because to me, there is nothing wrong with her choice of career (people have this horrible conception of it that I do not share; it is safe and that's most important), but even if you feel uncomfortable about it, this is not a story about someone who has sex for a living; this is a story about a woman who fought her way to the top of the industry of her choice, by herself (for the most part, but also with the support of female friends), and she left the jerks behind. I was inspired and simply enjoyed this book.

And for all of you nervous about it, there is not THAT much mention of sex in the book. Obviously, there's a fair amount, but it's tastefully written and again, straightforward, which is the best way to handle it. There are also lots of pictures, but again, I see nothing wrong with them. In the end, this is a great book, about a strong woman, and I really liked it.



View all my reviews

Review: Georgiana: Duchess of Devonshire

Georgiana: Duchess of Devonshire by Amanda Foreman

My rating: 2 of 5 stars



This book was probably the hardest history book I have had to get through - not including some Canadian history textbooks - and I'm still unsure as to the absolutely exact reason why. I think it may have been the writing style; at the same time as it was very, VERY dry and very textbook (and you know something's dry when they're talking about sexual scandal in what feels like a monotone voice), there were also many, many typos and run-on sentences that really bothered me. I just felt there were better ways to construct sentences, and I don't know if it was meant to be a stylistic choice - as the writing at the time, such as the writing that Georgiana composed herself, wasn't in keeping with modern grammar rules - or if there were just a lot of unfinished thoughts. Foreman also seemed, to me, to be a contradictory writer. She seemed to go from judging Georgiana very harshly to lifting her up onto a pedestal. The end of the book had this happen very intensely, when Foreman talked about how we cannot apply modern heterosexual or homosexual ideas to these eighteenth century relationships - yet the main focus of your book WAS applying those ideas to those relationships. (At least that's what seemed to be happening for the majority of the book for me; that and talking about how women shouldn't have gone near politics, yet applauding Georgiana for standing out, and then judging her again for retreating after she was shamed for it repeatedly.) There seemed to be a lot of flipping back and forth, and Foreman didn't seem to make a real decision on how she viewed Georgiana.

There was one lucid observation that was interesting to me: "The propensity of women's historians to ignore high politics, and of political historians to ignore women, has resulted in a profound misunderstanding of one of the most sexually integrated periods of British history." I really loved this, because it is really true. I haven't delved as deeply into women's history as I would like - in university history courses, you tend to focus on more well known accounts, and I never did get to take a really good gender in history course - but I feel, from what I've read, that this is true. Despite women in politics being a real thing - just because they didn't sit in the House did not mean they weren't present and working harder than the men in Parliament - it's rarely discussed, and I thought that was a great point to include. I do just wish she had been as decisive about the rest of her views on the rest of Georgiana's relationships. I think there's more to Georgiana's life than I learned here - since the majority focused on her life as it related to men and really painted her as completely idiotic with money and then occasionally painted her as a heroine in politics, which was very confusing - and though I didn't entirely enjoy this, I think I'll be seeking more information elsewhere.



View all my reviews

Just Go to Bed

Why do I find it so hard to go to bed sometimes? I'm tired, I'd love to sleep, yet I keep refreshing Twitter, hoping to see a reason to procrastinate. Even if I'm thwarted, I make my usual round of my usual sites, hoping for something. Why is that?

Maybe I think if I don't go to sleep, the new day doesn't have to come. But there's nothing really unpleasant in the new day, at least not tomorrow. I mean, I do have to work a long shift tomorrow, but that's not terrible. I'm not trying to avoid it, at least not actively. Why do I want to put off the day?

Maybe I don't want to start another day of not having the things in my life that I want. (Being in a long distance relationship, and having severe marriage and baby fever will do that to a person.) I'm tired of days passing without my life settling down, without settling in for the long haul.

Is that why I can't sleep? You'd think it would be the opposite; that I would want to sleep, make the days come faster and pass faster, so that the days when I finally get to settle into a steady life happen faster. Yet when it comes down to it, it seems that I put off sleeping as long as possible. I sometimes don't want the new day to come, with its reminders that my life is okay, and though I'm happy, I'm not in the place I want to be, with the person I want to be with.

It's a weird conundrum, and it certainly doesn't happen all the time. You can tell it's happening right now, because I'm writing this blog post and not going to bed. It's been one of those days, and I think I'm afraid it'll be another one of those days tomorrow.

Bloglovin'?

<a href="http://www.bloglovin.com/blog/8928417/?claim=udzsru65thp">Follow my blog with Bloglovin</a>


I am really, really, terribly bad at keeping up with blogs that I actually like reading! I had shied away from an RSS feed because I really didn't know what it did, and I have little to no patience for figuring out what it did. I still am not entirely sure, although I plan on getting a thorough tutorial at some point soon. (Because I should really figure all that out!)

But then, Kayley Hyde (@kayleyhyde) mentioned Bloglovin' on Twitter. I decided to check it out, and I actually LIKE IT! I can keep track of blogs, and though I'm still getting used to it and sifting it out, I do like that they're just all there in a row so I can read them (or not read them, as the case may be) and actually see updates.

Mostly just using this because I want to see what claiming your blog does, but still, it's exciting to discover new things, and after the Twitter chat I participated in tonight (check out @socapott, or the hashtag, #socapott, to see what was discussed, it was super fun!), I feel more technologically advanced. (Even though I am really, really, REALLY not.) So yup. Liking Bloglovin' so far, though; clean layout, simple, which is all I need!

I promise (mostly myself, because I have no idea what kind of audience this has) that I will do a REAL blog post soon.

Relationship Prison?

I recently read an article from Thought Catalog entitled "Why Being Single Is Completely Awesome." I thought, going in, that it would maybe be an affirmation of why you don't need another person to complete you. Maybe it'd help some people feel better - and that's damn true - you don't need someone else to live your life, and you definitely shouldn't always be on the path of looking for another relationship. You can either let it happen or just take some time for yourself.

It certainly seemed to start out like that. I really liked this sentence: "Being single doesn't necessarily disregard the importance of companionship and love." That's great, because being single doesn't mean you're an unwanted, bitter spinster (also mentioned in the opening of the piece). It doesn't mean that finding love is no longer important; to me, being single just means that you're in your own place for the moment, and being in love might even be something you're not looking for right now. And that is fine, and even good; being single SHOULD be completely awesome! Again, I liked this: "...but they also know that being in a relationship is not the end-all-be-all of your awesomeness." That's a great message, because sometimes, that's how relationships are treated, that you can only be happy, only be your best person, in a relationship. That's not true at all, and it's great to get the opposite message to that out there.

So why am I writing about this? And why is this titled Relationship Prison? Because the author's five kind of justifications or reasons really, really bothered me. It made bad, abusive relationships to be the norm; that was the message that jumped out at me while reading.

I have been in a relationship for almost three years, but I was also single for a long time before this relationship, and these descriptions of relationships were never what I thought of when thinking of being in a relationship. And now that I'm in a committed relationship, it is definitely not what I think of my relationship being; because I'm happy.

The first reason - well, that made some sense. You can be enamoured of people, and go on dates, and maybe find that next great love, and you're single so you're not  blocked from going on those dates and finding those other people. Sure. There's that. (At least it's not advocating cheating.)

But the next ones? I could find nothing good. This sentence: "You don't have to check in with someone if you want to travel or spend an exorbitant amount of money..." That's not okay. Addressing the first part: if you have any relationships, friendships, family ties, etc, you're going to have to check in with SOMEONE if you're going to travel. And there shouldn't be a rule in your relationship that the two of you must ALWAYS travel together. That doesn't make any sense. It makes it sound like you're kept under lock and key, having to check with your partner if it's okay for you to do something, and that's a bad relationship. The second part, about the money - if the money you're spending is coming out of your personal bank account, where you earn the money you receive, it shouldn't be up to your partner to say you can't spend money. That's a bad relationship. As long as the money isn't coming out of a joint account for the two of you, and as long as you pay your share of the bills (mortgage, rent, Internet bill, whatever), it should always be your decision to spend too much money on something. This sounds like a very controlling relationship, not to be able to do those things. I can see where their intent with this was, but in the end, all the things mentioned here, including not being able to see your family on holidays (it's called split time between families - my parents did it and still do it with our separate sides of the family!), just sound like a bad relationship that you don't want to be in.

The next part was depressing to me; that the person you're with could always wake up and leave you, and when you're single, you don't have to worry about that. It's a little sad, and if you're single, no, you don't have to worry about that. But it could happen with friends, too. And if you're sincerely worried, every day, that your partner is going to wake up and leave, that's not good. You're not in a good place if you're sincerely worried about that, every day. What REALLY bothered me about this, however, was the way they made it sound. "There will always be struggles, and you have to realise that being completely invested in another person without anything or anybody else in your life is dangerous because that person could leave you one day - and what would you be left with?" You're in a bad relationship if that is how your relationship works! If you have no other friends, and you don't go out unless you're together, and if you'd have nothing, a la Bella Swan in NEW MOON, if the person left? That's a bad relationship! (No one on Earth can pretend that Bella and Edward were not in a co-dependent, abusive relationship. Not the best thing to aspire to, and saying you'd be left with nothing if the other left - that's what TWILIGHT was ABOUT.)

The next reason given bothered me, because you can be independent in a relationship. You don't have to be married/in a relationship to be happy, to function, to be independent, go to school, work for yourself, whatever. That didn't make sense to me; it seemed to be saying if you're in a relationship, you must rely on someone else to help make every single decision; and if you're single, you can do what you want. If you're in a relationship, you should always have the option to do what you want; you should, of course, communicate your decisions and ideas to your partner, but you shouldn't be hobbled just because you're in a relationship and can no longer make any decisions. That's a bad relationship.

The last reason perhaps bothered me the most. "You can do what you want on the weekends." Again, I'm sorry, why can't you do what you want on the weekends anyway? Yes, in a relationship, you  may have some commitments, family and otherwise; but even if you're single, you're going to have those commitments sometimes. Being in a relationship does NOT mean you can't watch Netflix by yourself, or that you can't hang out with your best friend all the time. It mentioned that you don't have to shave; again, it's a bad relationship if you can't choose to do something. If I didn't feel like shaving my legs, my partner would not force me to do it because he preferred it. I can see what they MEAN; I don't like a big, bushy beard because it scratches my face when we kiss, but if he wanted to keep it, I wouldn't say, "We're in a relationship, you have to listen to me, I won't let you do that." You're adults in this relationship, presumably; continue to make your own decisions! And if you are referring to your partner as the "old ball-and-chain" - you are in a bad relationship.

You shouldn't feel like that about someone you profess to love! If you want to refer to them like that, and you feel like you're being controlled, and they don't let you do what you want or make your own decisions, you should get out. Your relationship should not be a prison. (Which is EXACTLY what ball-and-chain refers to. Imprisonment.) I know that is all easier said than done, but I mainly didn't think it was fair of this piece to make it sound like if you get in a relationship, that's how it's going to be, when happy, stable relationships do not have either partner treated in ANY of these ways. If it's so, you MAY be in a bad relationship. I also know people who spend their time together, and they're fine, but they can go off by themselves if they want to, as well.

I just felt this article did not depict relationships fairly, accurately, and seemed to be promoting singledom by disparaging relationships. Maybe I took it too seriously. But this is my blog, my opinion, and it really bothered me. So I decided to write about it. I may not be Laci Green, qualified to discuss relationships so deeply, but I do have common sense and what I consider to be a good heart, so I think that can qualify me.

The Thought Catalog article

As an addition, check out Laci's newest Sex+, about relationships!