It took a lot of convincing to get DH on board with having a second. (Our first was an incredibly difficult baby and continues to be a pretty difficult kid.) Then he adjusted really, really well to our surprise #3. I spent most of pregnancy #3 feeling like I wanted one or two more kids. DS2 was born two weeks ago, and right after the birth I felt totally done. But, that was mostly my serious dislike of pushing out babies talking. Now, though, I do feel very at peace with our family remaining this size if that's what's best for us. DH and I have decided to put any permanent decisions on hold for about 3 years. I'm going to go back on the Mirena, which I used with good success between DS1 and DD, and then we'll see where we are, financially and emotionally, in a few years. Right now I feel like, if DH thinks we're in good shape for one more, I'd probably like to have one, but if he doesn't think so, that will be fine, too. I figure that numbers 1 and 2 were my idea, number 3 was neither one of our ideas, and so DH gets to make the decision about whether there will be a number 4, and I'm totally okay with that now, in a way I wasn't when we had two.

I went with other. I like to cook, and most of the time I do all of it. However, DH is good about pitching in when needed. The last month, with my being at the end of the pregnancy and then having a new baby, he did nearly all of the cooking. But he doesn't enjoy it and doesn't have as many meals in his repertoire as I do, so while we'll probably share cooking duties for a while, once things settle down a bit and we're back into a routine, I'll probably go back to being the designated chef.

I was never anti-BC for religious reasons (liberal Episcopalian here), but I did have a brief period where I was pretty sure we were going to use NFP, because I'm kind of crunchy that way. My reasoning was that, we're getting older anyway, having 4-5 kids didn't seem unreasonable, and we'd probably not end up with more than that. Then, like a month after I felt pretty confident with that decision, we got pregnant. DD was only 7 months old, we were using withdrawal and barely having sex (thinking that would keep us pretty safe until I felt more confident about tracking my cycles), and at that point we decided that perhaps I'd underestimated our fertility and we'd better go back to using BC after the baby was born. ;)

MLA is wishy-washy on the matter and considers one standard/preferable but two acceptable unless told otherwise by an instructor/editor.

Not a look I'd go with, but I've seen students on campus do it, and they look fine. To each his or her own. I will wear socks with crocs. I don't care if it looks bad; it's comfy, convenient, and good for walking around a muddy yard. Plus, I personally think it looks fine, and what other people think of my fashion choices doesn't really matter to me.

I use two, out of habit. You are only supposed to use one when using a computer, though. But, since everything corrects that now, I'm not going to worry about changing it.

I wouldn't judge people for getting dressed up to go to Target; I just wouldn't notice. I do think it's kind of sad, though, that people get so worked up and worried about other people not being dressed/made up to their standards. I don't care if you show up at the grocery store in your PJs or in a ball gown. But it's just sad if you spend your time in the grocery store worrying about what other people are wearing, getting upset because they aren't dressed the way you think they should be, or passing judgments on them because of it. Clearly people have different preferences and different priorities. Recognizing that, I don't think there's really any reason to judge somebody's mood, motivation, or morality based on whether or not you think they've put an adequate amount of effort into their appearance.

Maybe this will make you feel better: I took DS and the new baby to a pool party today at a friend's house. DS would NOT STOP turning the hose on and off and then, when he finally got it that he wasn't allowed to do that, bugging me and the hostess about turning the water back on. Then when he realized that his pestering wasn't going to get the water turned back on, he threw a bucket of water on me and my friend who had us over! So I said he was leaving, and he refused to get out of the pool. I had to call my DH to come drag him out of the pool and carry him home. He was yelling and splashing and being a brat the whole time I was waiting (luckily we just live down the street, so it only took DH five minutes to get there). I was mortified. I most certainly have "that kid."

Statistically, you're just wrong. Sorry, but you are. The average BMI in this country is something like 26.8. The average obese person, IIRC, has a BMI of 32 or 33. The number of people, statistically, who weigh 300+ pounds is very small. If you are seeing them "everywhere," then it's probably confirmation bias. But that's not true. Starvation will cause declining weight. It will also cause declining health. And, it's unsustainable as a long-term weight loss plan. But, once we start talking about levels of food intake above the starvation level, we see people's weights begin to vary. Feed a group of people 500 calories a day for two years, and they'll all become very emaciated. (Feed a group of people 15,000 calories a day for two years, and they'd all become very fat.) Feed that same group of people 1200 calories a day for two years (or 3000 calories a day for two years), and their bodies will fall into a bell-curve shaped distribution. Once people are sufficiently nourished, we inevitably see body size diversity. Numerous studies have been done looking at eating and exercise habits. None have found that fatter people consume more calories than thinner people, on average, or that they are less active. For a good number of people, unless they decrease their calorie intake to a starvation level, they will not move their weight out of the overweight or even obese range, at least over the long term. Their bodies compensate for changes in calorie intake or activity level in order to maintain a certain "set point." That's why most diets fail. It's not because people cheat or go off of them, but because most dieters, after about 1-2 years, begin to regain weight even if they maintain or even decrease their caloric intake. Their body begins to slow down various processes in order to maintain or get back to its preferred weight. Unless they drop down to starvation-level intake, regain happens.

They aren't able to become permanently thin. That is entirely different from becoming fit. Are you thinking of obesity in medical terms, as anybody with a BMI of 30 or higher? People like this woman? Or this one? This one? This one if she gains half a pound? That's what most obese people look like. Most obese people have a BMI of 35 or lower. I think the media confuses a lot of people by always using pictures of 400+ pound people when they are talking about obesity, but those people are a tiny, tiny, tiny minority of obese people. Most obese people walk around looking pretty darn normal. And if you think the woman in those pictures can't possibly be fit or healthy, then I think you've bought some of the "thin = healthy" nonsense we've been fed to support the multi-billion dollar diet industry. Please, please, please tell me you aren't using emaciated people in concentration camps to illustrate "fitness." Because if our concern is really health and not just body size, then the whole "there's no fat people in concentration camps" argument would never, ever be used. You know what else you don't find in concentration camps? Healthy people. There are many people who remain fat despite high levels of physical activity. No, people don't remain fat in the face of prolonged starvation. They also don't remain healthy. But, prolonged starvation is NOT a viable option for health or long-term weight maintenance. Once an even somewhat-adequate amount of calories are consumed, we see people's bodies fall into a bell-curved shaped distribution of body weights. So, were there fat people in concentration camps? No. But, once those people lucky enough to survive were released, and began eating normally again, their bodies quickly returned to a wide variety of shapes. Human beings fed an adequate number of calories will be different sizes. That's just how it works. And people's bodies seem to have pretty stubborn "set points" that they will fall into unless they are subjected to extreme starvation or extreme overeating. But, we all know people who CANNOT gain weight no matter what they do, right? We admit that there are people who eat a ton, don't exercise, yet stay thin. Now, certainly if they were to be in a setting where they were forcefed food all day, they'd gain weight. But, once they returned to even somewhat normal eating, they'd lose weight. I don't know why it's so easy for people to accept that, but not to be able to accept that there are many people who, aside from extreme starvation, cannot lose weight past a certain point. Plus, there are plenty of overweight/obese people who are malnourished from eating disorders and it goes unnoticed because they aren't emaciated. I had a good friend who was bulimic for years. She was not getting adequate nutrition. But it wasn't until she entirely stopped eating that she really got thin, and that anybody noticed she was sick. It's actually a very serious problem that bulimia and even anorexia in people who aren't very thin often gets ignored. I came very close to having an eating disorder when I was 14. I was exercising so much and eating so little that I started fainting and having heart palpitations. I went to a cardiologist who noted that I was "well-nourished" without asking me anything about my eating habits. What did he base that assessment on? My weight (which was at the higher end of the normal range, despite my habits) and my appearance (I'm a curvy person who carries most of my body fat in my boobs, thighs, and butt). I probably did look very healthy and well-nourished, but for several months I'd been living on Wheat Thins, orange slices, diet soda, and coffee, while exercising 2-3 hours a day. I was fortunate enough to be scared out of those habits before I wasn't able to make changes, but the fact that my very unhealthy habits were ignored because I looked "healthy" and "well-nourished" says something.

My husband would be very concerned, I think, if I wanted him to wear one. And I think he'd be totally justified in his concern.

Just maintaining facial/body hair. I feel icky if I don't do that.

Nope. There are all sorts of ways in which I'm judgmental and petty, but appearance isn't one of them. Most of the time I don't even notice somebody's appearance, much less judge them based on it.

I just want to add, this idea that not caring about your appearance is a sign of depression is not always true. I'm the opposite. When I'm feeling good about my life, I could care less what I look like. It doesn't register. When I start fretting about how I look--how big my butt is, that I need new clothes, that I should wear make-up--it's because I'm feeling low. I've never personally felt this association between feeling confident and happy and wanting to look physically attractive. I only worry about how attractive I am when I'm feeling insecure or depressed.

I put very little effort into my appearance. I don't wear make-up. I don't spend much time on my hair (it's curly, and I either pull it up or keep it down, and let it air dry). I have a very limited wardrobe. I teach part-time, two days a week, so I've got two pairs of work pants and four work shirts, and then t-shirts and a few pairs of jeans/casual pants for the rest of the time. I walk regularly, but for the mental and physical health benefits. I don't worry about weight and we don't own a scale. It was funny, because last night DH and I went out to dinner. (My parents are here to help with the new baby and they watched the kids.) I was wearing some khaki cargo pants, a t-shirt, no make-up, and had my hair in two pigtails with a bandana on top. My parents were like, "So, how much time do you need to get ready?" I was like, "I'm ready. This is it." ;) I don't do dress up, unless it's somebody's wedding, pretty much. For me, I just don't care. I'm not an appearance-oriented person. I'm the person who doesn't notice for two weeks when a friend gets a drastic haircut or my husband shaves his beard. It just doesn't register with me. It's not something, for me, that's worth putting time, money, or effort into. As long as I'm clean and smell good, and everything is covered that needs to be covered, I don't worry about prettying up. I usually look in the mirror once in the morning, when I'm combing my hair, and that's it for the day. There are plenty of issues I struggle with--selfishness and covetousness come to mind--but vanity isn't one of them. And I don't think that makes me somehow more virtuous, because I think a big reason for that is that I'm kind of oblivious and in my own world most of the time, but I do think it makes me life somewhat simpler that I don't struggle in this area. It also helps that, where I live, I'm just not around too many people who focus on appearance at all. I'm very fortunate for that, and I'm especially glad that my kids are in this environment right now. I'm always amazed to see how worked up people get about things like--gasp--seeing somebody wearing PJ bottoms in the grocery store. I can't believe they'd even notice. I was at the grocery store today, and aside from one adorable little girl about my DD's age who had a really cute headband on, I didn't notice what anybody was wearing. It just doesn't occur to me to pay attention to that, much less to actually become upset over what other people were wearing. I feel like, my job isn't to be a decorative object, and if that bothers somebody, that's their problem. But I'm not going to worry about make-up or fancy clothes or whatever just to please other people, and since those aren't things that make me feel confident or together or good (in fact, I tend to feel fake and stiff when I do wear make up or get more dressed up), it's just not where my energy is going to go.

:lol: That's exactly what I was thinking! I'm fortunate that neither DH nor I are very appearance-oriented people. I can't imagine either of us feeling like the other had some sort of obligation to maintain a certain appearance. I think some of the issue here is that people are acting as if body size is something easy to control. People get fat by overeating/underexercising, and can get thin by eating less and moving more. It doesn't work that way, in most cases, though, at least not long-term. Weight is more genetically determined than height, studies have found. So expecting your spouse to lose weight is like expecting them to get taller, in many cases. I think it's reasonable to expect that your spouse will make reasonable attempts to be healthy and happy. So, I think expecting that they'll eat well and be reasonably active is okay. But, expecting their body to be a certain size is not reasonable or okay.

I don't think you were morally or technically incorrect. You were probably fighting a losing battle, though, because any time you say something like that, people will say you totally misrepresented them.

All I've bought for this baby (due next week) is a package of newborn diapers and a 5-pack of onesies. DD is only 16 months old, so we've got all the baby gear already out, and he's going to use her old infant carseat. We've still got a bunch of DS's baby clothes in the basement, and my parents are coming with some outfits, so we think he'll be fine on clothes. I really couldn't think of anything we needed. I feel very ill-prepared, though, just because we've had so little preparation to do.

That one sets my teeth on edge at this point. And, yes, my DS is totally guilty of the "How much?" "How many?" "How long?" questions.

If it was a public park, not on school property, I wouldn't avoid it. My DS would probably love playing with the PS kids.

I think this is how I'd react. Illegal or truly dangerous, and I'd say something. Stupid/inappropriate/irresponsible, probably not, assuming it didn't cross the line into illegal/dangerous. Personally, I'm not comfortable with "I'd want to know" being the criteria. There's all sorts of things I'd like to know, but that doesn't mean that it's other people's responsibility to tell me, or even best if they do.

I get PVCs, and hormonal changes are definitely a big, big trigger for me.

I don't think there's anything inherently traumatic about red ink. I do think a lot of adults might think it's traumatic because teachers would correct their work with red ink in a way that was entirely negative. But I don't think a kid would automatically have any reaction to the ink color, personally. That said, I just use whatever's close at hand. I don't think it's ever been a red pen.

I'm pretty sure my DS "knew" the alphabet song around that age. He also knew the names of all the planets. My DD, though, is 16 months and at this point has a handful of words, and that's all. She has way better fine motor skills than my DS did at her age, though. Kids are just different. I don't think it really matters much, either way, in terms of later academic aptitude.

Nobody feeds their kids fast food, and nobody lets their kids watch TV. Didn't you know? We eat fast food about twice a month. Usually one time it's McDonald's, and the other time it's Taco Bell.