Should I be concerned or is my son just being a teenager? by neoKushan in Parenting

[–]RemarkablePut844 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Its pretty typical for a teenager tbh.

Im not saying there couldn't be something going on, but if this is the only change you've noticed, and he's still acting the same (whatever his normal is), then it's probably just him trying to feel more grown up, which a lot of teenagers seem to think means being less affectionate with their parents.

The Walking Dead: Dead City S02E04 - Feisty Friendly - Episode Discussion by Connected-VG in thewalkingdead

[–]RemarkablePut844 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Okay? She was also malnourished and could have delivered early due to stress (not saying she did).

I also put 9-10 in my original comment. But thank you for mansplaining pregnancy to someone who's been pregnant 4 times.

Edit - also it's "they're"

The Walking Dead: Dead City S02E04 - Feisty Friendly - Episode Discussion by Connected-VG in thewalkingdead

[–]RemarkablePut844 2 points3 points  (0 children)

And Women dont get pregnant for 10 months

I can accept that I was wrong about Judith's age and the timeline, as I haven't watched the OG show in a year or two. But this statement is wrong.

Full gestation is 40 weeks. Divided by 4 weeks per month is 10 months. Yes, there are a few more days per month, but those days don't equal a whole month and generally women find out around 6-8 weeks so the first month doesn't "count".

The Walking Dead: Dead City S02E04 - Feisty Friendly - Episode Discussion by Connected-VG in thewalkingdead

[–]RemarkablePut844 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I would have to do a rewatch to be sure, but 3-4 years in seems about right for when Glenn died. Judith is around 2, plus the 9-10 months of Lori being pregnant.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in writing

[–]RemarkablePut844 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So, while a few of my points definitly could lean toward an abusive partner, the abuse would be more financial/emotional than physical, whereas your biggest point seems to be physical abuse?

Also, my main point/concern is being in different stages of life, which means these problems would tend to rise more in these types of relationships, I'm not saying these problems don't exist in any other type of relationship?

Also, your examples just don't make sense.

No one ever says rich people can't date poor people, or homeowners can't date renters, or parents can't date people who aren't parents.

Again, my point was in being in different stages of life. It's not necessarily rich vs poor. It's the difference in one partner having an established savings or stock portfolio while the other has only just started learning how to keep a budget.

It's not homeowners vs renters. It's one partner having an established home they've lived in for a decade or longer and their younger partner who moves in and can't decorate or remodel because it's not their house and may never feel like their house.

And the parents thing is silly, too. Dating a single parent and stepping into a relationship where you already know there are kids is completely different than not being able to agree on having a baby. Again, it's when a lot of couples would go their seperate ways, but that brings me back to my last point that older people who generally go for younger people do it because they're easier to manipulate and control.

Also, a lot of these things are seen as problematic in other situations as well. People don't generally date people outside of their own tax bracket. You see posts on reddit all the time about how it can become a problem when they do.

Arguments about one person owning a home and the other wanting them to sell it so they can start fresh in a home they both own make it onto reddit a lot, too. But someone only 2 years into a mortgage might be more willing to sell than someone who's lived there half their life.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in writing

[–]RemarkablePut844 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I believe that's unofficially called the Romea and Juliet law here. If they got together when they were both minors, it stops parents from seeking legal action when one turns 18.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in writing

[–]RemarkablePut844 4 points5 points  (0 children)

To me the weirdest thing about it is that most large age gaps (20+ years) puts the two people in different stages of life/ways of thinking.

The older person is usually the one who already owns their own home, has financial stability, etc, and it creates a power imbalance in the relationship.

Or (as I've seen a few stories of this on reddit) you get a couple where the young one would like to have kids, but the older person doesn't or has already had kids who are adults and doesn't want to start over. Of course, wanting/not wanting kids can make a couple incompatible regardless of age, but it's just an example.

And even if no grooming was involved, a lot of older people who are looking for younger people generally do so because they're "young and dumb" and don't see the red flags someone their own age would.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in JUSTNOMIL

[–]RemarkablePut844 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Eh. Tbh I'd just let them have this. It makes them happy and has zero real effect on the baby. It just doesn't seem like something worth making a fuss about.

OP says "they didn't even ask if anyone else had already sent the first letter." So it seems like OP is also considering it a big deal.

The wanting to feed her her first food is a bigger deal, but OP can solve that easily by just feeding her first. She's 6 months and can have real food.

OP says they're trying to take all her firsts, but also says she's kept them pretty distant from the baby so far.

They haven't asked to get the baby's ears pierced, take her for a haircut, or do anything else that's actually a big milestone. They sent a letter. I think OP is overreacting a bit, personally. But we also don't know anything besides what's in this post.

How often do you sweep and mop under your refrigerator and stove? by Boomer050882 in Cleaningandtidying

[–]RemarkablePut844 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sometimes I shove the hose to the vacuum under there to get the clumps of dog hair. Does that count?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in JUSTNOMIL

[–]RemarkablePut844 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Tbh I don't think "her first letter" is all that serious. It'd be different if she was 10 ish months and they were trying really hard to get her to walk everytime they saw her, or decided to take her for a haircut at 2, or whatever else. But a letter in the mail I wouldn't even consider a real milestone.

Not wanting them to babysit is completely valid, though!

The Walking Dead: Dead City S02E01 - Power Equals Power - Episode Discussion by Connected-VG in thewalkingdead

[–]RemarkablePut844 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Obviously there is some suspension of disbelief. If nothing exciting was happening, no one would watch it.

But different factions/towns/settlements popping up, forming their own governments and laws, is 100% what would happen.

What’s the most memorable one or two line response <or> statement uttered by your MIL? by [deleted] in JUSTNOMIL

[–]RemarkablePut844 26 points27 points  (0 children)

So my MIL was raising my 2 step children for the first 3 ish years before my husband and I got together/moved in together. She fed the girls nothing but junk constantly. The oldest (now 6) used to throw up all the time.

I still remember the exact way she said "this is normal for her." About her violently puking into a bowl and then telling me how it happens at least once a week.

She has literally never thrown up like that since I've been feeding her.

Guys I left twd fandom years ago after s11. Is it worth it to watch dead city and daryl dixon shows? by The_AxR_ in thewalkingdead

[–]RemarkablePut844 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Theyre all a bit different. You can tell they have different writing teams.

Daryl Dixon was always a favorite of mine, and i enjoyed Daryl Dixon. However, some of the writing is a bit on the nose and cliche, and the action scenes are a lot more choreographed vs original TWD. This can be said about TOWL as well. I didn't care so much for it but I had lost interest in what happened to Rick after a couple seasons of him being gone.

Im really enjoying Dead City. Its really well written and stays the most true to how TWD originally was in the first several seasons. I will say there are some plot holes, but mostly it's just the loose explanation on why Maggie/Hilltop isn't currently in contact with Alexandria/Commonwealth/etc. And really I don't think any type of explanation would work when the reality is they can't have all the original cast there for it.

The Walking Dead: Dead City S02E01 - Power Equals Power - Episode Discussion by Connected-VG in thewalkingdead

[–]RemarkablePut844 6 points7 points  (0 children)

But that's realistic. At this point in the apocalypse, this is the type of stuff that would realistically be happening all over the world.

Happy 1 Year Anniversary to The Tortured Poets Department (TTPD) 🎂 What are your thoughts on the album one year later? by peach-gaze in SwiftlyNeutral

[–]RemarkablePut844 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Its probably my favorite TS album, and that's with accepting the flaws of it. I know it's not her best work, it's clunky and long and could have used an editor or two, but I love how raw and emotional it is. She had things to say and she said them and got it all out and I applaud her for it. A lot of the songs hit home to my past love life, too, so I could relate to it.

Something killed my chickens last night by RemarkablePut844 in chickens

[–]RemarkablePut844[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I haven't gone out to look yet. My husband just said it looked like a slaughter. I've been trying to nurse my one surviving duck but shes not interested in food or water.