Dear Wendy
Dear Wendy

Friday Links: August 31

Here are a few things from around the web that may interest you:

This one caused a commotion when I posted it on the forums earlier this week: “Married Women Don’t Care For You When You’re The Only Single Woman At The Wedding”

From Psychology Today: “Why are couples who cohabitate (before marriage) more likely to divorce?”

From Thought Catalog: “19 Ways To Know You’re Loved”

From demilked: “30 Shocking and Unexpected Google Street View Photos” (Can you spot Chicago, those of you who are familiar with the city?)

From the Huffington Post: “The Key to Raising Confident Kids? Stop Complimenting Them!”

Thank you to those who submitted links for me to include. If you see something around the web you think DW readers would appreciate, please send me a link to [email protected] and if it’s a fit, I’ll include it in Friday’s round-up. Thanks!

You can follow me on Facebook here.

33 comments… add one
  • avatar

    bethany August 31, 2012, 1:28 pm

    I love the one with the Google Street View stuff! I could look at Street View all day!

    Reply Link
    • JK

      JK August 31, 2012, 1:39 pm

      It was awesome!

      Reply Link
    • avatar

      GatorGirl August 31, 2012, 2:40 pm

      I wish they had listed the location of each picture with it.

      Reply Link
      • avatar

        bethany August 31, 2012, 2:43 pm

        This website tells you where some of them are:

        Link
    • theattack

      theattack August 31, 2012, 10:07 pm

      I was kind of expecting my parents’ house to be on that one, because their Google Street View has my old dog pooping in it.

      Reply Link
  • avatar

    Addie Pray August 31, 2012, 1:29 pm

    Paulina Meat Market! Aw.

    Reply Link
    • avatar

      ktfran August 31, 2012, 2:36 pm

      I live 5 blocks from there and have yet to go. What is wrong with me?

      Reply Link
      • MaterialsGirl

        MaterialsGirl August 31, 2012, 3:01 pm

        you do? suwheeeet. I love that whole LSQ area

        Link
      • avatar

        ktfran August 31, 2012, 4:03 pm

        I do. Me too! It’s my favorite place to hang out. That and Three Aces on Taylor.

        We need another Chicago DW meetup.

        Link
  • avatar

    ele4phant August 31, 2012, 1:44 pm

    I read the forum one about the single wedding guest, and it made me wonder: How was she really behaving?

    If she truly was behaving as described, yes the wives are a bunch of jerks. But seeing as she is the one self-reporting on her behavior, I also think its possible that she was embellishing, or maybe wasn’t even aware, how obnixous she was being. Even if these weren’t guys she were interested in, she did say she was a) drinking a lot, and b) just going through a rough break-up. I know when I’m just coming out of a crappy relationship, male attention and the ego boosting that comes along with that feels good. And with booze, sometimes you aren’t the best at policing your own behavior. I think its possible she was being more flirtatous then she let on.

    Obvisouly, the onus is on the married men, not her, to be the ones to respect their relationships and refrain from flirting back. But at the same time, if I saw a drunk women indiscriminately flirting with a bunch of taken guys, I wouldn’t think highly of her either. Its just bad form. I’d definitely give her some side eye, even if I wasn’t one of the wives.

    So anyways, yeah, I’m curious to know how she really acted, because despite being the center of the situation she may not be the best judge of how things actually unfolded.

    Reply Link
    • avatar

      GatorGirl August 31, 2012, 2:37 pm

      I 110% agree with you. Some of the things I said during the forum conversation weren’t phrased well but you hit the head on the nail. If you’re drinking as much as the author says they were you can’t really have an accurate view of the evening. Plus the authors view is baised anyways.

      Reply Link
  • avatar

    MissDre August 31, 2012, 2:16 pm

    “19 Ways To Know You’re Loved”

    Wendy needs to send that to more than half the LWs…. Seriously. “He cheated on me, but I know he really loves me!” Really?

    Reply Link
    • avatar

      bethany August 31, 2012, 2:44 pm

      I thought that was a good read, especially if you think about your friendships while reading it…

      Reply Link
      • avatar

        ktfran August 31, 2012, 2:54 pm

        Yes! I was thinking not just about a significant other. But my friends and family. It holds true for anyone in your life.

        Link
  • avatar

    *HmC* August 31, 2012, 1:47 pm

    That Psychology Today article about the detrimental effects of co-habitation makes all the same basic points as this op ed piece from the New York Times in April:

    Wendy also posted that article for a Friday Links. Not much to add, just thought it was interesting that they make almost the exact same points, but this newer one is shorter and doesn’t cite as much.

    Reply Link
  • katie

    katie August 31, 2012, 3:02 pm

    so, this part of the co-habitation article bugs me:

    “Couples who are already engaged to be married when they move in together do not experience the same detrimental effects as those who become engaged after they cohabitate. They have better communication skills, fewer negative interactions, higher relationship quality, and more confidence in their marriage post-wedding”

    i dont think that an engagement does that. an engagement does not give you any of the things mentioned- a healthy honest relationship gives you those things, cohabitating or not, married or not, engaged or not.

    Reply Link
    • iwannatalktosampson

      iwannatalktosampson August 31, 2012, 3:12 pm

      i dont think that an engagement does that. an engagement does not give you any of the things mentioned- a healthy honest relationship gives you those things, cohabitating or not, married or not, engaged or not.

      YESSSSSS

      Reply Link
    • JK

      JK August 31, 2012, 3:22 pm

      What??? You mean engagement rings aren´t magical? A diamond doesn´t automatically make your crappy relationship into a perfect one??? Then why is everyone so desperate for one?

      Reply Link
      • Lili

        Lili August 31, 2012, 3:25 pm

        Because engagement rings cure diseases. Specifically singleitis.

        Link
    • theattack

      theattack August 31, 2012, 10:25 pm

      First of all, I totally agree with your point that an engagement doesn’t make a relationship healthy, and a cohabiting relationship can exist wonderfully before an engagement.

      Buttttt I want to point out some other factors here that could support that engagement-hypothesis.
      – Engaged couples theoretically SHOULD have a higher proportion of healthy relationships than couples who are just dating. (Obviously all DW readers know that this isn’t a very strong point, but I’d like to think that it’s at least slightly true).
      – The commitment mindset that the article mentions. Engaged couples more clearly see a future together than people who aren’t engaged because there are concrete plans. Engaged couples are in an actual legal contract with each other. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re planning for it any better than serious dating couples, but again, theoretically it should. If they’re behaving as they should, engaged couples will be very careful with their relationship because they understand that the patterns they create and the way they interact together will last as long as their marriage does, which they’re hoping is for forever. Dating couples who aren’t planning for marriage yet (Note: not dating couples who are heading toward an engagement) might not be in as much of a forever-mindset, and they might not be as concerned with establishing good patterns in their relationship. So it’s not that an engagement ring magically gives you a better relationship, but that establishing your domestic patterns after you know your relationship is permanent might force you to make better relationship decisions than someone who isn’t sure if they’re going to stick around. By that theory, living together after a couple decides they’re serious and definitely staying together would be the same or similar as living together after getting engaged. And again, all of this is assuming that people behave in ways that are good for their relationships, and we all know that isn’t true.

      Reply Link
      • katie

        katie August 31, 2012, 10:54 pm

        we could also say that theoretically, more marriages should last because you actually say vows that promise they will, you know? theoretically, everything is perfect.

        being engaged is not a legal thing. “fiance” is not a recognized legal term. offbeatbride actually did a great article about creating a power of attorney for that situation, where you are not legally married yet but still want those legal ties to happen. the power of attorney will grant those things that marriage automatically comes with. without it, a fiance means nothing if the worst should happen to one partner. until the marriage certificate is signed, mom and dad are the next of kin, and the couple is in the same predicament as homosexual couples usually find themselves in.

        i kind of think that saying engagements are better because you are “establishing domestic patterns” is a little insulting to people who date… i imagine someone being like, oh its ok. i can cheat NOW- were not engaged yet. i dont have to be “good” until then, because then it gets serious. any pattern that you create -dating, engaged, married, whatever- will impact things. so i dont think its right to say that engaged people are “better” because they care more about establishing good habits.

        i do agree with the forever mindset though. people who dont have a forever mindset (or atleast somewhat of a future minset with the other person) wont do well. its the whole team mentality… but those problems crop up no matter if the couple is casual or serious, married or not. i think, bottom line, labels and societal expectations like engagement and marriage have no bearing on how you behave in a relationship. you either have a healthy one or you dont.

        Link
      • theattack

        theattack August 31, 2012, 11:35 pm

        No, I agree with you. It’s the forever mindset in an already healthy relationship that makes it work. I’m not saying that people who are dating have an actual excuse to not behave as well in their relationships, but theoretically people become engaged after they’ve already been doing that. The population of engaged people should have a higher percentage of people in healthy relationships, because dating people can include everyone from 1 month relationships to very serious, healthy, forever relationships. I’m just saying that mathematically, engaged couples should have their shit together more than dating couples. Please don’t get me wrong – I am NOT saying that engaged couples are better than dating couples. Just that proportionally they should be better off as far as living together in a healthy way. That’s why I excluded dating couples who were seriously planning for their future.

        But actually an engagement is legal. No, there’s no power of attorney, and yes, your parents are still your closest of kin. But an engagement is a legal contract to marry. When one person breaks off an engagement, the other person can sue them for breach of their contract to marry. Similar to how you could sue your landlord for his ridiculous BS. Legally they are supposed to marry each other.

        Link
      • katie

        katie September 1, 2012, 11:15 am

        i have never heard of that! the engagement as a legal contract part.. i googled it, and the only stuff i found was that you can sue for the damages related to planning the wedding- so the ring (different states have different laws whether it is a “gift” or not), any deposits on catering, djs, ect.. i couldnt find anything about just suing for the breach of contract… but, i think this is because to sue for a breach of contract, there has to be damages related to the breach of contract. so the cost of buying a wedding dress is a dangible damage if a couple breaks up.

        interesting.

        Link
      • theattack

        theattack September 2, 2012, 1:25 pm

        You can also argue emotional damage, but I’d imagine that’s harder to prove than physical stuff. And in my state a broken engagement means that a woman has to return the engagement ring to the man, so I think that’s actually a somewhat separate issue in states with that law, but definitely very much an issue without that law. I wonder though if a man could sue for the depreciated value of the engagement ring.

        Link
      • theattack

        theattack September 2, 2012, 1:28 pm

        Also, I just don’t think that people know they can sue for that, so it’s not very common. My fiance’s lawyer bosses spent last weekend joking with me about how I couldn’t break off the engagement because he would sue me for me.

        Link
      • avatar

        ele4phant September 2, 2012, 3:03 pm

        I find it kind of absurd that people could sue one another for broken engagement.

        I mean, an engagement is essentially a verbal agreement to get married, right?

        (sidenote – I guess the ring is tangible, but they are not required to become engaged, and plenty of couples choose by preference or circumstance not to get one. After all, engagement rings were just a marketing trick of Debeers that popularized the idea, it’s not like it was a common culture practice. Suing for damages over the expense of the ring to me would seem entirely seperate issue from suing because of a broken agreement).

        I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that verbal agreements usually don
        t stand-up in court. Addie Pray, can you back me up on that?

        And beyond the legal aspects of it, what’s the point of getting married if you are already legally bound by the engagment, ya know? If engagement is seen as a serious committment by not just the couple but also the government, then what does marriage get you?

        Its always been my feeling that an engagement is when a couple indicates “Yes, we want to get married. But we’re going to give ourselves this buffer time to seriously consider any deep conflicts or issues that we may not have spent the time hashing out when we were just dating. And if necessary, back out before we become legally bound together if some of these dealbreakers arise.”

        Link
      • avatar

        *HmC* September 3, 2012, 3:12 am

        “I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that verbal agreements usually don’t stand-up in court.”

        No, it’s the opposite. By default, verbal agreements are binding. By law, most jurisdictions will specify that certain contracts need to be in writing to be enforceable (for example, contracts for the sale of land). And of course, there is the he said/she said issue regarding evidence if you’re talking about trying to prove a disputed contract in court. But, verbal contracts are enforceable unless otherwise specified.

        “And beyond the legal aspects of it, what’s the point of getting married if you are already legally bound by the engagment, ya know? If engagement is seen as a serious committment by not just the couple but also the government, then what does marriage get you?”

        I’m not exactly sure what you mean by “legally bound”, but in most jurisdictions, a man who sues a woman over a broken engagement will win their ring (or the cost of it) back. This is because a ring is given as part of a contract to marry. If the marriage is off, the ring must be legally returned.

        Regardless. the engaged couple is nowhere near as legally bound as a married couple, so I definitely see a difference between being engaged and being married. In the eyes of the law, being engaged means you have to give the ring back if you break the engagement. Other than that, you have none of the rights or privileges of a spouse. It is a completely different legal status. Fiance is basically no legal status. So there is definitely still a point to getting married.

        Link
      • avatar

        ele4phant September 3, 2012, 1:51 pm

        Thanks for the clarification! It certainly seems a complex issue.

        As for what I meant by legally bound, I guess I thought theattack was saying that engagement was some kind of legal status, maybe not just like marriage but also not as easily reversed as a dating couple breaking up. It appears that aside from the ring, and maybe any financial aspects like putting down unrefundable deposits for venues or the like, that’s not the case.

        Which to me makes sense. I’ve always thought the point of an engagement was to single to one another you were serious, but gave the couple some time to evaluate if they were really right for one another, giving them time to back out without dealing with the mess of a divorce.

        Link
      • avatar

        *HmC* September 3, 2012, 7:36 pm

        No problem! Sounds like you’ve got the legal angles correct now. As for the purpose of an engagement, I personally think of it as simply the time to plan the wedding- I’d want the decision about whether the relationship was The One prior to an engagement. But that’s just me and my personal values. I definitely know couples where being “engaged” does not involve a ring or wedding plans, and they still consider themselves in an evaluation mode. Different strokes…

        Link
      • avatar

        *HmC* September 3, 2012, 3:16 am

        No attorney worth their salt would encourage someone to sue an ex for emotional damage. Suing for emotional distress is extremely difficult and generally must involve someone intentionally, physically harming an immediate family member in front of you, or some other such extreme action. Romantic discord is not sufficient. Can you imagine the policy implications if it were?

        Link
    • avatar

      *HmC* September 3, 2012, 2:55 am

      Katie- from my understanding, the article is saying that couples who get engaged or married prior to co-habitation have better communication skills, fewer negative interactions etc. Like, it’s something that has been measured, in couples that get engaged first. You may not agree that an engagement per say doesn’t give you those things, and I’d agree that it doesn’t necessarily give you those things. But, that’s not what the article is saying. It’s saying that couples who get engaged first tend to have less of those detrimental side effects, for whatever reason. It seems to me that you are over simplifying what the article is saying and then disagreeing with the over simplification.

      Reply Link
    • avatar

      Light Rider September 6, 2012, 12:01 am

      Yes, a crappy relationship is a crappy relationship with or with out a ring. But an engagement ring and marriage gives a name to your commitment and direction for where you are going. This is powerful stuff. People that name what they have tend to place more value on what they have. Commitment is a major component to love. Commitment is undermined when it is not named.

      Reply Link
  • avatar

    Lo September 1, 2012, 12:05 am

    I love Paulina Meat Market! That’s my neighborhood! Maybe you should move back Wendy. The Roscoe Village/Southport area has a ton of children and babies and I have never seen one poop in public.

    Reply Link

Leave a Comment