Man Discovers His Girlfriend Has A Completely Different Life While Ring Shopping
I knew nothing about her.
A key aspect of being in a romantic relationship is honesty. You have to open up to someone and let them in, see all sides of your life, know the parts of your past that no one else does. You can't have a relationship with secrets anymore than you can have a house with locked doors.
Reddit user, u/throw212awaay, shared his story about one of those times when a door was opened for him and asked for advice:
I have been dating the most amazing woman for the past year and a half. I have been in puppy love before, the kind where they're all you can think about and you smile when you think of them - and we have that too- but she has also brought to me the joy of being together but not together (that magnificent way you can just be and be alone in the same room- her reading a book, me doing a project) and really knowing someone (knowing how her mouth crinkles when she thinks, the way the rain makes her feel,all the stories of her childhood, all the little stuff that makes her a person ). At least I thought I did.
I was shopping for a ring and had been dropping hints that made her smile and we would plan this little suburban life- a deck with a grill, a goofy puppy, a piano. We talked about baby names and vetoed ones, we have the joke names Trevor and Trevina. We'd pick out paint colors and flooring at Lowe's and giggle like idiots. I was 100% confident, I just hadn't chosen a ring, you know,she didn't want a diamond but didn't know what she does want.
Then I got a fb message today from some guy. He said that he was her brother-in-law and that she had blocked him on fb but could I please pass along a wedding invite and it would mean a lot if she was there.
I pressed for more details and it all came out. She was married before to a guy named Brendan and they had a little boy, Sam- she told me before she didn't like that name. The son died in a car accident and afterwards They had an ugly divorce and she cut ties. 5 years of her life, I never knew about and I don't know if I ever would've. I think she was never going to tell me.
I've felt sick about this all day. Made up an imaginary sickness to sit and think by myself and I feel paralyzed by it. This morning I knew her and now I don't. I don't even know how to bring this up or what. I definitely can't go buy the ring and pretend. At the same time, I want to be with. I am hurt but know that was horrible, that she went through something unimaginable but I don't know what that means for us. Am I just a distraction? Is this something she does?
I just don't know. Help?
tl;dr I(30m) just found out my girlfriend(28) of a year+ had a whole life I knew nothing about, right as I've been ring shopping. This life includes a first marriage and a child who passed away. i am stunned.. Advice?
Start The Honesty Train
GiphyShow her the message, and gently ask her about it.
Losing a child is awful and everyone mourns in their own way. Perhaps she would have told you after you guys were officially engaged. Or when you were going to seriously try for a baby.
It's not about you, OP, and I really doubt you are just a distraction. You still know her.
Seriously, stop thinking about it, and just talk to her.
Maybe It Was Nothing
GiphyI think you may be slightly overreacting.
It sounds like she had a pretty tough, emotional time that maybe she isn't ready to share with anyone.
Just because you were in ring shopping mode, doesn't mean she has to talk to you about her deepest emotional feelings of loss. I mean, imagine - you've lost your child and then your marriage falls apart, that's life changing.
I suggest you mention it and see what comes of the conversation. I doubt she was trying to hide anything from you.
Reflect On Your Choices
Giphyshe told me before she didn't like that name
Completely understandable after what happened, and I'm 100% positive she would never want any of her future kids to be called that name.
Anyway, you need to talk to her about this. Don't make it about you e.g. by asking things like 'why didn't you tell me? How could you not mention this to me'.
Her past contains a lot of hurt, and shutting it out of her life is one way to get over it and move on (same like everyone here recommends to go no contact after a breakup).
Ask yourself this. If your gf had told you all of this herself earlier in your relationship, would it have been a big deal and would you still love her and want to be there for her?
If the answer is yes, you would want to still be with her, then you need to work on how to be understanding.
If you can show her that you still love, support and trust her, even when you know her deepest, darkest secrets, then your relationship will only grow stronger.
Don't Be Another Pity Party
You need to sit and talk to her.
You also need to keep in mind that when a parent loses a child everyone they know (close and distant) will feel sorry/pity them. Maybe your the one person in her life who doesn't look at her with pity in their eyes. Doesn't skirt around certain issues.
Like it or not certain occurrences forever alter how we interact with people and for once she just wanted something normal, something she had before the loss of everything.
She could have also had bad reactions from past partners when she told them this and she didn't want to jeopardise what you had. Then the longer she left it the harder it became to bring up.
There's also the third option that's she denying it ever happened, even to herself. Its a known coping mechanism. If that is the one she is using then it will eventually catch up with her. You can never outrun your past, as you're seeing now.
It's not right to lie for so long to someone you plan to spend your life with but in this case it is understandable. No one can understand how it feels to loose a child unless you have lost one yourself.
Be kind when you raise the issue. Don't allow any temper into the conversation and allow her to get it out as she needs to. Please don't force her to answer all your questions unless she is ok to do so.
Remember, It's Only Half About You
GiphyAm I just a distraction? Is this something she does?
This is extremely concerning to me. Why would you think this? You think this is about you? Is this something she does?? What, have a kid, that kid dies and then she has a horrible divorce? Yeah, I'm sure that's just "what she does". Jeez dude. I know you're shocked, but take a step back for a minute.
Think It Through
Okay, this is the sort of deception you can work through with help, given that we all understand that a loss of a child will, well, f-ck you up for lack of a better turn of phrase. I can understand wanting to lock that away from yourself, which it seems like she did.
Take the space you need to approach this rationally, since it seems like you haven't talked to her. From there, you can evaluate if this is workable or not.
Be Prepared For The End
GiphySome people go through something so traumatic that they need a restart in life.
Move to a new place, make new friends, make new love, and block out the past.
The death of a child definitely counts as one of these. She obviously does NOT want to think about this, or deal with it at the moment.
I'd be very careful on how you broach the subject with her. If you go after her angry or as a victim don't be surprised at being dropped. You need to get over your hurt feelings and think about this from her point of view.
[usernamedeleted]
Maybe Let It Go?
GiphyOn one hand I can see why your is steamed OP.
On the other I can see a mother who's life imploded in the worst possible way and likely has no desire to relive those event again in any way.
I'm a parent and I can't even comprehend what it would be like to lose my child. I can't even try and think of what that would feel like.
I wouldn't confront her about this. I would pass on the invitation, I would let her know that I would be willing to listen, and hold her, if she wants to share her past. I would also have a question, Will her past impact our future or is there anything we/you/me could do to help ensure it doesn't?
Some People Just Need To Run Away
Oh, man. What a situation.
You are probably not a distraction, and this is probably not "something she does." This is not okay, not by a long shot, but it could honestly be that she was hoping to just outrun the grief. To not have it be part of her anymore.
When you go through something awful, it's a lot easier, sometimes, to only be around people that don't know about it. Rudyard Kipling even wrote a poem that talks about this--the lines
There is knowledge God forbid / More than one should own
always suggested to me something that I learned as a teenager--sometimes when people know you've been through Hell, when they look at you, Hell is all they see. It holds you there. It makes it really hard to outgrow the horrors of the where-you've-been, when you can see it reflected in people's eyes.
So...from my perspective this was probably not an attempt at manipulation, but instead an attempt to just...not be that person anymore. Not be the grieving mother, not be the injured ex-wife, not be the divorcee whose marriage and relationship with family was shattered (even now, her ex-brother-in-law wants her company! That does not tell me that she is a bad person).
That does not, however, make it okay. Not when the two of you are talking about marriage. She should have told you when you started talking about rings and baby names, and you're not wrong to feel conflicted and maybe a bit angry and hurt about it. Stunned, absolutely.
My advice would be to sit her down and to tell her that her brother-in-law got in touch with you. Don't accuse, don't shout, don't get angry, just tell her that you were told to pass on a wedding invitation, and see how she responds to that. Be calm.
Does knowing that she has lived through this grief make you less likely to want to marry her? Does knowing that she bore and lost a child make you less likely to want to have children with her?
H/T: Reddit
Scientists Have Developed A New 'Planetary Health Diet' That Could Literally Save Lives And The Planet At The Same Time
In an attempt to help curb worldwide issues such as climate change, and malnutrition in poverty stricken areas, a joint commission by EAT, a non-profit seeking to transform the global food system, and The Lancet, an old and respected medical journal, has released a recommended guideline for dietary and planetary health.
The report recommends cutting back meat consumption to at most, a burger patty or equivalent a week, and supplementing your protein intake with nuts, legumes, and beans. An increase in veggies and fruits would make up the bulk of your meal plate.
The dietary guideline was established by a coalition of over 30 scientists, researchers, and doctors designed not just with human nutrition in mind, but also sustainability. With estimations that the planet will reach 10 billion people by 2050, scientists are working to figure out how to feed them all.
Additionally, the red meat industry has for a long time, been known to be a contributor to greenhouse gasses, while land conversion for food production is the greatest factor in biodiversity loss. The report from the EAT-Lance commission estimates that through nutrition and agricultural changes from this diet, we can save 11 million lives every year.
That sounds pretty great.
The EAT-Lancet commission lists very specific macronutrient ranges for their proposed diet, from 300g of veggies per day, to only 7g for red meats. However, it's this specificity that is drawing criticism.
John Ioannidis, the chair of disease prevention at Stanford university has praised the growing attention to how diets can affect the environment, but states the commission doesn't represent the scientific uncertainty between health and nutrition.
Dr. Georgia Ede, who writes for the site Diagnosis: Diet, took issue with the report's specific recommendations. Dr. Ede's website makes the case for low carb and paleolithic diets.
She points out the commission says,
"We have a high level of scientific certainty about the overall direction and magnitude of associations described in this Commission, although considerable uncertainty exists around detailed quantifications."
And yet, they recommend 0 to 58g per day of poultry, with a 29g midpoint. This seems very specific.
People are not willing to give up meat so easily.
Still, the report is a good starting point for the discussion we need to have about food's connection to not just our health, but the planet's well-being.
As Dr. Howard Frumklin, head of the Wellcome Trust which helped found the EAT foundation says himself,
"The links among diet, health and the environment are well-documented, but, until now, the challenge of attaining healthy diets from a sustainable food system has been hampered by a lack of science-based guidelines.
"While this report does not have all the answers, it provides governments, producers and individuals with an evidence-based starting point to work together to transform our food systems and cultures."
What should be a discussion is turning into an argument.
If we're going to be able to feed everyone, ensure their diet is nutritionally balanced, and try to curb climate change, it's important that people start talking about the positives and negatives of their current diet. The report provides a sense of context to which people can compare and share their ideas and study.
People Are Roasting Trump Over His Mind-Numbing Observation About The Wetness Of Water 😂
Donald Trump thanked the first responders who came to the aid of victims of Hurricane Florence. The storm devastated portions of North Carolina, dumping massive amounts of rain and damaging millions of dollars in property. Many natural areas were destroyed, some farmers lost everything and more than a few people have been left homeless. The first responders after this massive storm were literal life savers, and Trump was absolutely right to thank them. Unfortunately, the sentiment of his message was lost for many people because he didn't seem to put any effort or preparation into what he was saying. Then, in the middle of his off-the-cuff message, he confused everyone by talking about the wetness of water.
As Trump described the storm and the importance of first responders he told the world:
This is a tough hurricane, one of the wettest we've ever seen from the standpoint of water. Rarely have we had an experience like it and it certainly is not good.
The Tweet went out in the middle of the day on Tuesday, September 18th. At the time of this article, it hasn't even been up for 24 hours and already has over 13,000 comments. Many of them pointed out how Trump didn't even seem to try...
and how asinine his description was.
We don't know if Trump will continue to address the public by releasing these kinds of videos, or if they will continue to be as unrehearsed as this one is. We assure you, if they are, Twitter will have plenty to say about it.
H/T: Huffington Post, Twitter
Michael C. Hall Is Starring In A One-Night-Only Broadway Musical About Skittles—And No, We're Not Making This Up
Super Bowl Sunday: it's the only time when commercials are more popular than the show they interrupt. However, this year's best ad might not even be on TV.
Funny, irreverent, and sometimes controversial, Super Bowl ads have become as much of an event as the big game itself. Even those who don't watch football will tune in and watch as brands fight it out for the most talked about commercial of the year.
For advertisers though, getting your ad in front of one of the largest television audiences out there doesn't come cheap. A 30-second spot for this year could cost up to $5 million!
Candy maker Skittles decided to skip the Super Bowl and head for Broadway. For one-night-only, Skittles The Musical will appear on Broadway starring everyone's favorite serial killer, Dexter actor Michael C. Hall. No, we're not kidding.
The concept has so many people scratching their heads that Skittles needed to make another ad just to explain it.
Skittles The Musical ))) Starring Michael C. Hallwww.youtube.com
Anxious over appearing in the musical Hall sits down with a therapist, who like the rest of us is not exactly sure what it is. Hall explains the 30 minute advertisement is a real musical, you even have to buy tickets to go see it.
At one point Skittles even takes a self-deprecating jab at themselves and Hall, implying the musical is a terrible career decision.
After all, who is going to pay $207 a ticket to go see a 30 minute advertisement for Skittles?
A whole lot of people apparently
Tickets to the performance at the Town Hall theater in New York are almost sold out. People may not know what's going on, but they are ready to taste the rainbow.
@Skittles I’m ready! Purchased my tickets #SkittlesTheMusical— Corey (@Corey) 1548091647.0
@playbill @Skittles https://t.co/uo9aLkDV2f— robbie. (@robbie.) 1548135341.0
@playbill @Skittles My mind is blown and my heart is warmed. How fun! “Broadway the rainbow” indeed ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜— Allison Wonderland (@Allison Wonderland) 1548185407.0
If someone takes me to see skittles the musical I'll love them forever.— ☆Bambi☆ (@☆Bambi☆) 1548218569.0
On its surface Skittles The Musical may just look like an over the top gag from a brand known for its unusual marketing, but Skittles recruited some serious Broadway talent to put it together including playwright Will Eno and a cast straight from some of the biggest shows on Broadway.
According to Skittles the show will take "an absurdly self-reflective look at consumerism and the ever-increasing pervasiveness of brand advertising in our lives."
And if that wasn't enough Skittles will also be donating all the proceeds from the show to Broadway Cares/Equity Fights AIDS. Skittles parent company will match that donation up to $50,000. You had our attention Skittles, now you have our interest.
Wait so rather than spend a bucket load of 💰to take out a 30sec ad during the SuperBowl, @Skittles will present a L… https://t.co/OVnNQfQ506— Christopher D. Clegg (@Christopher D. Clegg) 1548096836.0
@cadimy @playbill @Skittles If you read the article, it addresses that they're doing a short show in lieu of a supe… https://t.co/3Hxm2lNLyI— a dope ghost (@a dope ghost) 1548094203.0
@lnternetqueer @playbill @Skittles well that's quite neat!— 🦇 (@🦇) 1548094980.0
There is no telling how a commercial/Broadway musical from the bizarre minds over at Skittles will turn out, but it's guaranteed to be an performace like Broadway has never seen before.
Kenan Thompson Just Hit The Ice With Other 'Mighty Ducks' Cast Members, And The Nostalgia Is Real Y'all 😍
A mini-reunion took place over the weekend, as actors from the Mighty Ducks film series met up at an ice rink in upstate New York. Afterwards, they attended an Anaheim Duck's game.
The nostalgia-fest started with Danny Tamberelli, who played Tommy Duncan in the first film, posting photos of the group to his Instagram.
They wore recreations of the bright green jerseys the team wore in the movie.
Watching them, you can almost hear the whine of your old VHS player.
@EW Luv this— christy hale (@christy hale) 1548122543.0
@EW https://t.co/qsDIs6qCFA— Edward Sanchez (@Edward Sanchez) 1548121751.0
There was a Mighty Ducks reunion at an NHL hockey game yesterday. Question of the day: Who watched the Mighty Duc… https://t.co/E2XfitCRBO— Ty Andrew Darbonne (@Ty Andrew Darbonne) 1548162147.0
I want to watch all the Mighty Ducks movies again after seeing the mini-reunion photos. https://t.co/R7YmvBhoXG— Sam (@Sam) 1548147775.0
He was joined by Kenan Thompson, Vincent LaRusso, Colombe Jacobsen-Derstine, and Garette Ratliff Henson. All five acted in at least one of the Mighty Ducks movies.
After the fun of skating around the ice rink, the group switched jerseys to the more modern Anaheim Ducks design. They wore personalized jerseys with the names of their characters on the back.
The Anaheim Ducks account posted about it on Twitter.
Some mighty great people joined us at today’s game! Some of your favorite Mighty Ducks visited us on Long Island a… https://t.co/k9g8iyWMAr— Anaheim Ducks (@Anaheim Ducks) 1548032893.0
People were tagging their friends to let them know!
@LissaBriana @movieweb Omg that’s awesome— Brittany S. (@Brittany S.) 1548112054.0
@kevinlembke @movieweb Lol yeah I saw. Ducks got shut out tho lmao— space oddity (@space oddity) 1548109701.0
The group got to watch a game the actual sports team started because of the popularity of their movie, played on Sunday against the New York Islanders.
The original film starred Emilio Estevez as Gordon Bombay, a lawyer charged with drunk driving, who has to perform 500 hours of community service. Because of his background as a child hockey star, Bombay is ordered to coach a peewee hockey team. While initially reluctant, he guides the misfits to victory.
Danny Tamberelli, Garette Ratliff Henson, and Vincent LaRusso starred in the first film, while Kenan Thompson and Colombe Jaconsen-Derstine were in the second.
It's unknown at this time why the group reunited, though some are speculating for a Superbowl commercial.
But we have to ask the real questions here.
Best sports movie reunion? RT for The Sandlot Like for Mighty Ducks https://t.co/QSsGmJcpkG— Adam Navarrete (@Adam Navarrete) 1548109324.0
And yes, obviously Estevez would return as an older drunker Gordon Bombay who now sharpens skates like my boy Hans— Scott Sweeney (@Scott Sweeney) 1548103145.0