Please, don't be mortified! :grouphug: As "flaws" go, I consider that to be a pretty minor one, if it even IS one! It's great that you want to change for the sake of your husband and kids, but goodness it's not like you're hurting them or anything! I think you've already received some great advice, and I have nothing to add to that. I just wanted to say, don't beat yourself up.

Ouch, yeah, I would definitely encourage you to take it slow and easy! Doing it as walk/walk-faster instead of walk/run is probably a good idea. It's so much better to do that than to get hurt and not be able to do anything. My husband has had problems with shin pain from time to time. I will ask him if he has any advice for you.

We have UHC too, and it's awful, though I suspect it's actually pretty typical. For the first two years that we had them, every single time we submitted a claim we received threatening letters from them saying that if it was a fraudulent claim we would be prosecuted. Every single time that we went to the doctor, we received a threat from them! They also claim, on our plan, to pay 80% of our medical bills after we've met our deductible, but of course that isn't the way it works at all. They pay 80% of what they feel we "should" have been charged, not what we were actually charged, plus of course they will find any excuse possible to not pay. For example, once the lab at my doctor's office was very busy, so they sent the bloodwork to another location within the same provider's network. The same company, just a different location a few miles away. So UHC wouldn't cover it. Jerks. I'm sorry, OP. But the good news is, if your doctor has any experience with UHC at all, she probably knows to just ignore them. :D

Okay, good. :) It's probably good to challenge me and put me on the spot every once in awhile. :) I guess I've just not been part of a Christian church that ever promoted the idea that marriage was "not the ideal". I'm Orthodox so wouldn't be able to help you out on the Protestant perspective. But I can say that in the Orthodox Church, the view that I have heard expressed again and again is that both (celibacy and marriage) are equally valued and respected. I'm not sure there is one ideal that's right for everyone, it's more of a belief that some people are called to monasticism, and that's the ideal for them, while others are called to marriage, and that's their ideal. I've even heard people point out that if we were all monastics, then there would be no one left having babies and making more monastics! It was said light-heartedly and with humor, of course, but it is true that the church would have died out a long time ago if celibacy were the only option. Yeah, I share your concern. I wasn't raised Orthodox, but Jehovah's Witness, and I remember being told that my virginity was the most precious gift that I could give my husband. I was just a young teen at the time, and I didn't think through all of the implications of this statement, but it absolutely revolted me. Just on an emotional, "gut" level, I was repulsed by it. It did not have the intended effect, but rather it made me feel that I didn't want to marry a JW man if he thought that was the most precious and important thing about me. Now, as an Orthodox Christian, while obviously we do make much of the fact that Christ's mother was a virgin, I simply don't hear people talking about purity and virginity in that kind of context. I hear the phrase "marriage as a path to holiness" a lot. And there definitely is an awareness of the importance of chastity - but this is different because it's about the state of the heart not the state of the body, and it is lifelong and something you strive for before you're married, and while you're married, and after you're married (if you get divorced or outlive your spouse.) Well, I'm tired earlier than usual because I didn't sleep well last night, and I'm not sure if I've managed anything approaching a coherent sentence, much less paragraph. :) But I'll check in again tomorrow. Good night!

Really? I thought mine was the only one! Seriously, he is not the same size that he was in 1982, he cannot wear them anymore! But he keeps them anyway because they don't have holes in them. How is THAT the only criterion for deciding when to get rid of old clothes???? You'd think he'd grown up in the Great Depression or something! :lol:

I thought it was a very fun thought-experiment! I am very much defined by my family, and I'm okay with that, and in fact I love it! But that doesn't mean that I don't wonder from time to time, what if . . . What if I'd had a career instead of a family? What if I could live where I wanted to rather than where my husband's job keeps us? What if I had more control over my own living space? What if I were free this weekend to do whatever I wanted to do? I don't obsess about these questions, and this does NOT mean that I'm unhappy with my life, but they are fun to ponder from time to time. I'm such a daydreamer though. Always have my head in the clouds. Maybe more practical and level-headed people just don't think this way?

Ah, I see. :) I'm not a very neat person by nature, but I am married to a man who never gets rid of anything, and who doesn't believe in "wasting" money on things like new furniture or home decor. So that's why I dream of a minimalist, impeccably decorated apartment - because I live in a house full of stuff with mismatched hand-me-down furniture, and with a man who still owns the clothes that he bought in 1982.

I've been heading out the door by 7am, and it's been around 70 degrees at that time. But that's only because we've had an exceptionally nice spring and mild summer so far this year. When it gets hotter I'll probably have to bump it up to 6:30. :(

Maybe I miscommunicated before, or maybe I'm misunderstanding you now, but believe me in no way did I intend to belittle celibacy as a path to holiness. I have a tremendous and heartfelt respect for those who choose that level of asceticism. But marriage is also a legitimate calling, and a path to holiness. Paul was certainly . . . exuberant in his promotion of celibacy. But he says very clearly in that passage that sex within a marriage is not sin. Purity culture puts such a heavy and unhealthy emphasis on virginity and on abstaining from even fleeting sexual thoughts ("lust"), etc. that, as has been mentioned in other threads on this topic, people who have been raised in this culture can have a very hard time switching from that mindset to a healthy happy sex life within a marriage. Sexual shame within the context of marriage is not a Christian ideal, as the Christian view is that God created the institution or marriage, and blessed it.

I've always thought that if I lived alone, my home would be neater, because it wouldn't be filled up with other people's crap. :lol:

I suspect that if you have the wealth to live there, NYC is probably one of the most fun places in the world to live. We lived upstate for a couple of years and I'm basing that impression only on the few visits that we made during that time. The problem is that all of the desirable places to live have such high costs of living. What is up with that, anyway? :lol:

That's nice - both the fact that you've been able to live both lives, and that idea of living on the edge of a large city. I grew up in a semi-rural area just outside of a town of 20,000 people. I have less than zero desire to go back to that. I've never lived in a big city, only visited. So maybe it's just that the grass is always greener, but I really want to live in a city - a REAL city. The one I live in right now is half a million people, and it's interesting for about three days. I've been here 16 years. My husband grew up in Pittsburgh and doesn't particularly want to live in a big city again. He'd be happiest in a small town in Colorado.

Good points. I know this is uncommon, but I do know a couple whose sex life was brought to a screeching halt because of the development of a rare medical condition. The test drive did nothing to prepare them for that eventuality. Also, one problem with the test drive is that it's usually performed during the "lust stage" of the relationship: early on, when you're crazy, giddy, head over heels in love. That's actually not a very good indication at all of what your sex life is going to be like for the next 30 years! On the other hand, maybe I'm wrong about that. That's the way it went for me. I fell in love first, then had sex, and then got married. I guess what is more common now is sex first, love later, marriage last? Quite a contrast to the days when it was marriage first, then sex, then love last if ever. ETA: And I am in no way trying to say that the way that I did it was the "right" way. I was not a Christian at the time. I wonder how my life and my marriage might have been different if I had held to the Christian ideal of waiting until marriage. But I will never know, of course. It is what it is.

I just wanted to say how strongly I agree with this, and that I too am very sorry.

Yes, this is a very good reason to not equate the two. Another reason is that if the definition of purity is physical virginity, then that means that marriage is impure. And I cannot accept that. I find that to be a pretty unChristian idea, actually. If there is to be a healthy definition of purity, I think it has to be more about a state of mind than a state of body.

I was going to say that it's really interesting to find out who are the city girls and who are the country gals, but then you just had to go and confuse things. :D I can relate to this! We have lived here for 16 years now, and I think that's about 11 years too long. I'm sick of it!

I got an unpleasant surprise last week trying on clothes in a dressing room with mirrors positioned to give you a full view of your backside. shudder

Just for fun, and not worrying about funding? I'd live in London! A small apartment in central London would be my wildest dream come true. I wouldn't own a car, wouldn't want one, because I would walk and use the tube to get around. I'd go to plays, performances, museums, and of course pubs, constantly. I would work as a medical lab tech -- not the typical dream job, I realize. But it would suit me well. I have a background in biology and a desire to help the sick, BUT I'm a super shy introvert who doesn't want a job interacting with people, and who wants something low-stress enough to leave it all behind at the end of the day. (And yes, I realize that it's not the kind of job that would pay for an apartment in central London, but this is just a fantasy!) I'd have one small, perfectly trained, non-shedding dog. :) I would decorate my apartment in a very minimalist fashion, modern but still comfortable. I would be really active in my parish. I have thought about this, even before the question was asked. :D ETA: I forgot to mention that I would also take full advantage of the beautiful parks in London! I would go there to run, to watch birds, to soak up the sunshine on sunny days, etc. London has gorgeous parks!

Your entire post was very good, very insightful. But this part especially struck me. I had never thought about it in these terms before, but I find this very interesting. Good food for thought. I had a friend and roommate in college who was from a culture where arranged marriages were the norm. At first the notion was shocking, even revolting, to me. But she really opened my eyes and made me think, for the first time in my life, about the ways in which my culture had shaped my expectations regarding what marriage should be, and that there were other approaches that were just as healthy, just as positive, just as fulfilling (possibly more so?) though profoundly different. I wonder how long this expectation of friendship has been a big part of marriages in our culture. I hadn't really thought about it before, but now that I am thinking about it, I think this was much less of a factor in my grandparents' marriages than it is in my own. I'm also thinking about all the times I've seen someone post on FaceBook "Married to my best friend for x years!" and wondered if I am the weird one because I never describe my husband in those terms ("best friend"). That just somehow doesn't feel right to me, for reasons I can't articulate. Well, that was a mess of discombobulated thoughts. :) But your post really got my mind spinning! :D

I just wanted to say that I agree with this, and I think it speaks to a larger problem regarding marriage in our culture: the fact that we've all been raised with this romanticized notion that once you find the right person, sparks will fly, the orchestra will play, and you'll live happily ever after. I've actually heard people say that when you find the right person, things will be easy, because relationships aren't supposed to be work. Well, I think that's one huge, stinking pile of b.s. right there. And I do want to be clear that I'm not arguing the opposite end of this spectrum either; I am not trying to say that any two people can have a happy marriage if they work hard enough. No. Some people are just plain incompatible. But I am saying, finding the right person is only part of the equation, and I think our culture over-emphasizes this part. Becoming the right person is part of it too (and that's a life-long process). Having the right attitude and approach to marriage is part of it too (and once I've got that figured out I'll be sure to let you guys know :lol: ) Compatibility is something that can be worked toward, and it is something worth working toward. It is not, in my opinion, something you should just expect to have magically handed to you by the right person. Well, I know I'm getting off-topic, so please forgive me, and carry on. :)

Just got back from my first run of wwek 2. It was hard. This weekend, I had two "cheat meals" (which is incredibly stupid, because the only person I'm cheating is myself!) and two glasses of wine. Definitely paid the price this morning!

Thank you, ladies! I appreciate the help!

Thank you! :)

Sounds fun! Thanks!

Thanks, I'll look into it!