Dear Wendy
Dear Wendy

Friday Links: October 12

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

From Salon: “Don’t Touch my Breasts, Hon”

From Yahoo Shine: “Dad Under Fire for Revealing He Has a Favorite Child.”

From The Gloss: “Unsettling New Website HeTexted Determines Whether Or Not He’s That Into You… Based On His Texts”

Is this true?? From The Telegraph: “What do women want? To be married, of course”

From HuffPo: “Why Do You Want To Be in a Relationship?”

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 and Twitter here.

63 comments… add one
  • SarahKat

    SarahKat October 12, 2012, 1:20 pm

    THE TELEGRAPH LINK HAS DOWNTON ABBEY SPOILERS. BEWARE! BEWAAAAAAARE!!!

    Reply Link
    • the_optimist

      the_optimist October 12, 2012, 1:57 pm

      Oh hell. I should really read the comments before clicking on these articles.

      Reply Link
  • MaterialsGirl

    MaterialsGirl October 12, 2012, 1:32 pm

    The “dont’ touch my breasts” article was so sweet.

    Reply Link
    • avatar

      Rachel October 12, 2012, 1:36 pm

      Agreed. I almost cried at the card he left for her.

      Reply Link
      • avatar

        jlyfsh October 12, 2012, 1:40 pm

        yes, very sweet card and letter.

        Link
      • avatar

        6Napkinburger October 12, 2012, 2:26 pm

        almost? what, are you dead inside? (sitting blubbering at work)

        Link
      • avatar

        lemongrass October 12, 2012, 2:42 pm

        Yeah, I definitely teared up.

        Link
      • the_optimist

        the_optimist October 12, 2012, 2:41 pm

        I’m doing breathing exercises over here to keep from falling apart at my desk.

        Link
    • katie

      katie October 12, 2012, 2:41 pm

      ok, the whole part about her husband was cute and everything.

      BUT.

      does that actually happen? oh, sorry ma’am, you have this one gene. were going to have to cut out parts of you. no, nothing is wrong with you now, but were just gonna cut you up anyway.

      that sounds like science fiction kind of shit. like, oh, sorry ma’am, your baby is a carrier for something. he will not be adequate for our planet. we are going to have to terminate this and start over again.

      Reply Link
      • JK

        JK October 12, 2012, 2:44 pm

        I know lots of people do the genetic testing for babies, at least. And I wish they knew that genetics counts for a small part of all the possible problems a baby or kid could potentially have. I get it if someone has a kid with a genetic disease, to know the odds of another, but just because???

        Link
      • katie

        katie October 12, 2012, 2:48 pm

        i just wonder if its cut and dry like the article made it seem. i have X gene, so i WILL ABSOLUTELY DIE FROM CANCER UNLESS I REMOVE ALL FEMALE PARTS. i know that with genetic testing for babies, like with the down’s syndrome test, it is cut and dry… but i dont think it is for everything, right?? like its an “increased chance” or whatever. it just sounds like brave new world. scary.

        Link
      • MaterialsGirl

        MaterialsGirl October 12, 2012, 2:56 pm

        You have the option to get tested for the particular gene that gives the breast and ovarian cancer. In her family, EVERY SINGLE FEMALE had one or the other or both. I think she decided that instead of going through chemo, losing hair, feeling like sh*t, having all the youth robbed from her body, she was going to preemptively erase the problem. Definitely not an easy decision, but given her odds, a wise one.
        I hear your point on genetic testing of babies/fetuses though. that could be ethically…challenging

        Link
      • katie

        katie October 12, 2012, 2:59 pm

        but would she have 100% had cancer? thats what i wonder. and then i wonder if doctors actually do this- like, well you have good odds, so were just going to cut you up. that scares me!

        Link
      • avatar

        rachel October 12, 2012, 3:04 pm

        It’s not the doctor’s decision though. I mean, obviously a doctor can suggest that something might be a good idea, but they can’t just go removing things without your permission. Also, I’m fairly sure (though correct me someone if I’m wrong) that someone volunteering to get a mastectomy would probably be required to undergo some sort of counseling first.

        Link
      • katie

        Katie October 12, 2012, 3:20 pm

        Well it’s not his decision, sure, they he definitely thought it was a good idea- and you can bet he got paid for it…

        Link
      • theattack

        theattack October 12, 2012, 3:27 pm

        So? That’s really not the point of this article. If the woman didn’t want to do it then she wouldn’t have. I’m pretty sure I would have made the same choice, and so would many, many other women. I don’t know why you’re questioning her decision about her own body.

        Link
      • katie

        Katie October 12, 2012, 3:35 pm

        I just find it weird that it is acceptable to go through such a hugely invasive surgery, which has a risk of death by itself, just because you have the odds of getting something else. That seems very weird and science-fiction-y to me.

        Link
      • theattack

        theattack October 12, 2012, 3:40 pm

        I would agree with you that it’s weird if the illness we were trying to prevent was something easier to deal with, like some diseases and disorders that people live with all the time (ie: diabetes, arthritis, gout, etc). But it would still be up to individuals to decide about it, and I don’t think it should be considered unacceptable what we choose to do with our own bodies.

        Link
      • katie

        katie October 12, 2012, 3:45 pm

        well, i mean i agree that you should do what you want with your body. but there still is an ethical problem with that. thats why some doctors refuse to do procedures- you cant just walk into any doctors office and give them money to operate on you. there is ethics and morals to consider too. so i just dont know if i find this practice ethical… i mean, insurance companies are already denying people insurance because of genetic testing, you know?

        Link
      • theattack

        theattack October 12, 2012, 3:51 pm

        You think there’s an ethical problem with a doctor performing a mastectomy on someone who will almost certainly have a quick and life-threatening type of breast cancer if they don’t do the procedure? No, I don’t know. I see your insurance point, but insurance companies are fucked up. Our whole healthcare system is fucked. We definitely shouldn’t be using that as a standard for what’s ethical, because the companies themselves are unethical for denying coverage like that, not doctors who agree to save someone years of struggling with cancer and potentially saving their life.

        Link
      • katie

        katie October 12, 2012, 3:58 pm

        well but thats my main question- are they actually saving her? is she 100% going to get cancer? is she just a carrier? like there just seems to me to be much more to this then just she has a chance at it, lets go to the operating room. that doesnt seem right to me. if it was an actual, real, certainty, then i can see it. but otherwise -because our medical system is so terrible- i just see it as doctors performing more un-nessecary procedures. what if this gene makes her have cancer anywhere else in her body?

        i just dont know about it.

        Link
      • avatar

        bethany October 12, 2012, 4:08 pm

        cancer.gov says that people with the BRCA1 gene mutation have a 60% chance of getting breast cancer at some point in their life. The percentage goes up if you have a strong family history. That same gene mutation also causes cervical, uterine, pancreatic, and colon cancer.

        To get more info:

        Link
      • MaterialsGirl

        MaterialsGirl October 12, 2012, 3:05 pm

        in her case, she’s pretty much 100%. every woman who didn’t undergo a preelected surgery got one or the other. So she may have only had one, but how can you tell which one?

        Link
      • katie

        Katie October 12, 2012, 3:31 pm

        Alright. But then when they find a gene for heart attacks is everyone with a family history for heart attacks going to get automatic triple bypass surgeries at 30?

        I mean does no one else think this is weird?

        Link
      • theattack

        theattack October 12, 2012, 3:37 pm

        If they find a gene that makes it more likely for someone to have a heart attack, but they can still easily prevent it with diet, exercise, etc, then it would be weird for people to go out and have surgeries over it. If they found a gene that practically guaranteed some people would have a heart attack, I don’t think they would be so crazy to try to prevent it from happening. (I don’t think that a heart attack is similar to breast cancer though because most people can get over heart attacks and go back to work with ease, whereas cancer treatments make people miserable and sick, and they always have to worry about it coming back, but I’ll go with your example).

        When something is life threatening or utterly debilitating, there’s nothing weird about trying to prevent it from happening.

        Link
      • avatar

        lemongrass October 12, 2012, 3:38 pm

        People get parts of their body cut off/trimmed/added to all the time simply because they don’t like them. It’s called cosmetic surgery. To have an elective mastectomy when the odds are very good she’ll get cancer doesn’t seem weird to me at all. It seems like a sound decision. Natural boobs vs. not getting cancer.

        Link
      • avatar

        Kristen October 12, 2012, 3:40 pm

        I don’t think it’s weird. I think it’s a way of trying to take back your own future. I’m not sure you can compare it to heart disease, which is not as cut-and-dry as inheriting a specific gene that is almost positively going to give you a deadly form of breast cancer.

        Link
      • MaterialsGirl

        MaterialsGirl October 12, 2012, 3:42 pm

        I think it’s more applicable to things that you don’t necessarily need to live. Like breasts and your reproductive organs. She will have to be on estrogen or some other hormone replacement I’m sure once her ovaries are gone, but, I think it’s more of debatable things for diseases which you can do nothing about (like huntingtons). They can screen for heart disease and your likelihood of getting it based on family factors, current lifestyle and the placque in your arteries, but that’s definitely something you can DO about that: eat healthier and get exercise.
        I feel like people with dramatic family histories of certain diseases are more inclined to elect for these types of surgeries. If i found out I had the BCwahtever, I probably wouldn’t do anything about it because the only person in my family with breast cancer was my great great grandmother.. and she was a 60 year survivor (yeah she lived until she was 99.5)

        Link
      • avatar

        bethany October 12, 2012, 3:42 pm

        I am actually having a hard time understanding why you find it to be so weird. Breasts are not an essential part of life. You don’t need them to have a happy, successful, fulfilled life. If there’s a 90+% chance you’re going to get a HORRIBLE disease that could kill you at the age of 35, why wouldn’t you do everything you could to prevent that from happening? It’s not like they’re cutting off your foot because you stub your toe a lot. Cancer is a serious disease, and if it doesn’t kill you, it makes life almost unbearable at times while you’re going through treatment. Chemo literally poisons your body, wouldn’t you want to prevent that if you could?

        Link
      • katie

        katie October 12, 2012, 3:47 pm

        alright, everyone, well ill just sit here as the only one that finds this practice odd… which is fine.

        its just weird and feels creepy to me. i dont like it.

        Link
      • iwannatalktosampson

        iwannatalktosampson October 12, 2012, 3:49 pm

        I would use it as an awesome excuse to get brand new boobies at 32.

        Link
      • katie

        katie October 12, 2012, 4:03 pm

        ok, and id just like to point this out- this is why i think it might be unethical to do this-

        from the komen website jlyfsh posted: “Having a BRCA1/2 mutation does not mean you are going to get breast cancer. And, not having a mutation does not mean you will never get breast cancer; you are still at risk.”

        Link
      • avatar

        bethany October 12, 2012, 4:11 pm

        How is it “unethical” though? What ethic is it going against? Creepy, unnecessary? Maybe to some, but I don’t see how it’s unethical to have this done or to be a DR who preforms these operations.

        Link
      • avatar

        Kristen October 12, 2012, 4:13 pm

        I think it would only be creepy if people with that gene were *forced* to have the surgery. It’s a personal decision, and I think people are well within their rights to elect to remove non-vital organs rather than risk getting a horrible disease.

        Link
      • theattack

        theattack October 12, 2012, 4:18 pm

        You’re right that maybe that gene doesn’t guarantee that she’ll get the cancer, but I’m sure that this woman learned all the facts and thought them over heavily before making this decision. It seems like you’re really concerned with not having procedures done that aren’t 100% necessary. Maybe you and I just have different thoughts about that, but I don’t think it’s bad to have a surgery that could be unnecessary when it has an equal or greater chance of saving your life.

        Link
      • FireStar

        FireStar October 12, 2012, 3:28 pm

        My in-laws have an aggressive form of breast cancer that is hereditary also. It can’t be treated traditionally (biopsy etc) because by the time you do all of that – it has spread. My mother-in-law and sister-in-law have already died from it and several aunts have it also and are just trying to deal with the reality of it. My other sister-in-law got tested – because if she had the gene then it is all but a death sentence. So maybe not 100% likelihood of cancer but if you know it is 90% chance of getting cancer and 90% it is likely to result in death? Aren’t those odds sufficient? They would be for me. The remaining sister doesn’t want to get tested but has decided on an immediate mastectomy if she finds a lump – knowing she is playing Russian roulette a little.

        Link
      • avatar

        bethany October 12, 2012, 3:29 pm

        Drs don’t make that decision for you. It’s an elective procedure.

        Link
      • JK

        JK October 12, 2012, 3:00 pm

        The DOwn´s Syndrome thing is when youpre already pregnant. But there is also genetic testing that you can do to know the likslihood your kids will have whatever disease. I know a case where the eldest daughter had Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis the parents tested and were told they had 50% chance of having another kid with it, they tried anyway, and ended up with 2 kids with AMS (until the eldest died of it a few years later).

        Link
      • iwannatalktosampson

        iwannatalktosampson October 12, 2012, 3:35 pm

        By genetic testing with down’s syndrome being cut and dry do you mean that when they do the test while the mother is pregnant they can know for sure whether or not the baby has down’s syndrome?

        Link
      • avatar

        rachel October 12, 2012, 3:41 pm

        It’s definitely not certain…or at least not early on. A friend of mine had a scare while she was pregnant. The first round of tests showed something might be wrong, but her daughter is perfectly normal.

        Link
      • iwannatalktosampson

        iwannatalktosampson October 12, 2012, 3:45 pm

        Yeah I didn’t want to jump to conclusions with katie’s comment but Ethan’s mom (his mom was pregnant when he was 12) was told that his sister was going to have down’s and that the best choice was abortion. She’s extremely religious and was super offended and would have never considered that an option. Now she is 15 and healthy as a horse with no down’s syndrome.

        Link
      • katie

        katie October 12, 2012, 3:51 pm

        oh no, i was meaning that the fluid test that actually tests the babies genetics, so its like not a test that says the baby will have a X% chance at it, but rather, we have tested the baby and they do/do not have it.

        like, if someone tested me and told me 100%, you will get cancer, i might opt to do something like this lady did. BUT, if its just oh, well you carry the gene, you might have it, you have so much of a chance… i dont think i would do something so drastic

        Link
      • avatar

        Kristen October 12, 2012, 4:20 pm

        I think it’s a lot more serious than “you might or you might not” get it. The presence of this particular gene means your changes are extremely, extremely high. That’s why people like the author typically see their grandmother/mother/sister/aunt all pass away at a young age. It’s so sad.

        Link
      • avatar

        Kristen October 12, 2012, 4:20 pm

        *chances

        Link
      • avatar

        lemongrass October 12, 2012, 3:43 pm

        Yes. The first test is an ultrasound which tells you whether your baby has a high chance or not (which is often wrong) and the next test is an amniocentesis which is when they draw amniotic fluid out with a needle through the pregnant woman’s stomach for testing. An amniocentesis is 100% correct. It also has a 0.5% chance of miscarriage.

        Link
      • avatar

        Kristen October 12, 2012, 4:17 pm

        Yep. You can also opt for the new MaterniT21 test, which is noninvasive (it’s only a regular blood draw). It’s almost 100% accurate.

        I ended up declining all of the testing, but I think it can be really helpful for some people. And as a side benefit, this blood test can tell you the gender of your child super early (it detects the presence of any Y chromosomes in your blood).

        Link
      • avatar

        lemongrass October 12, 2012, 4:21 pm

        I also declined the testing. I’m not finding out gender either, but not for ethical reasons, simply for the surprise.

        Link
      • avatar

        Kristen October 12, 2012, 4:26 pm

        I always thought I’d want to keep it a surprise, but now that I’m actually pregnant, I really want to know! The pregnancy itself was enough of a surprise for me 😉 haha. I think it will help everything seem more concrete.

        It will be so exciting for you to find out at the birth though! Do you have a slight preference either way?

        Link
      • avatar

        lemongrass October 12, 2012, 6:27 pm

        It was really, really tempting to find out even though I wanted a surprise. When my midwife asked me if I wanted to know it took everything I had to say “Yes. Well, no. I do want to know but don’t tell me.” She said “I’ll just sharpie over the gender then and forget in 5 minutes.” I have this picture in my head of my husband telling me what the babies gender is and I really want to hear that excitement in his voice.

        I don’t have a preference. Except that I can’t figure out a boy’s name so girl would be easier on that aspect. Both genders terrify me. You?

        Link
      • avatar

        Kristen October 12, 2012, 7:03 pm

        It’s not letting me reply to your comment for some reason. Hopefully you still see this!

        “Both genders terrify me” — this made me laugh so hard. I’m kind of hoping for a girl, but either will be awesome. My husband’s family is realllllllly pulling for a boy to carry on the family name, so it would be neat to have them be happy, too.

        You have a lot of willpower! I think even if I didn’t want to know, I’d have a hard time saying no when the result is right in front of me. I love the image of your husband announcing it, though. That will be really special.

        We bought a home doppler this week so we could hear the heartbeat in between appointments, and it’s so cool! It’s nice to have that peace of mind when you don’t look pregnant yet and the 1st trimester symptoms have faded. I really want to feel the baby move!

        Link
      • avatar

        lemongrass October 13, 2012, 1:18 am

        Feeling the baby move is the most awesome thing ever. I have an anterior placenta, which means that the placenta is in the front so it’s harder to feel the baby but I think my baby must be pretty strong because I feel it all the time!

        Link
      • avatar

        jlyfsh October 12, 2012, 3:02 pm

        i think that this gene in regards to breast cancer is different than other things. there’s a link here with more info: http://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/GeneMutationsampGeneticTesting.html.

        I think when you test positive for that gene and have multiple family members who have passed away or are survivors of breast cancer/ovarian cancer it kind of changes things. I’m sure she consulted a doctor and they went over this multiple times before going this route. I mean I feel like it’s extreme, but then again I have a friend who has lost multiple aunts and has a mother who has survived breast cancer twice. If I was told I was Extremely high risk and I could potentially prevent developing breast cancer by doing x, y, and z. I would seriously consider it.

        and i some people are told something along the lines of you’re baby isn’t compatible with life (can you imagine?). i’ve read some blogs about mothers whose children fell in to that category. some chose to terminate and others chose to keep the pregnancy. all of them ended up losing their babies though 🙁

        it’s like the test they do for huntington’s. can you imagine taking the test and knowing, at some point in time, you’re going to develop a degenerative brain disease and you will eventually die.

        Link
      • avatar

        rachel October 12, 2012, 3:07 pm

        Wasn’t there an episode of Scrubs about that? The guy’s father had Huntington’s and he didn’t want to get tested. I don’t know if I would either.

        Link
      • avatar

        bethany October 12, 2012, 3:28 pm

        yes, it absolutely happens. People with that gene are essentially guaranteed to get breast cancer eventually. If I had that much of a family history and tested positive for the gene, I’d have the double mastectomy tomorrow.

        Link
      • the_optimist

        the_optimist October 12, 2012, 2:53 pm

        Well, she did say that both her mother and grandmother had cancer and that her mom’s was particularly aggressive. It sounds more like she was making an informed decision based on family history.

        Link
  • JK

    JK October 12, 2012, 1:47 pm

    I was just talking about the favourite kid thing with my mother the other day. I think the word favourite being thrown in there comes off badly, but I believe that you DO get along better with one of your kids than with the other/s. Of course you love them all, and would do anything for any of them, but some personalities just mesh better than others.

    Reply Link
    • avatar

      Addie Pray October 12, 2012, 2:09 pm

      so which of your daughters is your favorite? go on, you know…

      it’s ok, i’m my mom’s favorite. i just called and asked, and she said so. i think the youngest child is always the favorite. we have a free spirit that is attractive, you know? we have that “je ne sais quoi” that the eldest lost along the way and that the middle kids weren’t even born with. .. tra la la tee da.

      Reply Link
      • JK

        JK October 12, 2012, 2:14 pm

        I am definitely enjoying the 1 1/2 year old more. The nearly 5 year old is going through a totally rebellious phase, and we argue nonstop (now she´s at mum´s so I get a relatively quiet afternoon). But, the eldest is Arturo´s favourite, so it´s even. 🙂

        Of course as middle child I missed out on being anyone´s favourite, my brother is totally my mother´s favourite, and my sister is dad´s.

        Link
      • avatar

        lemongrass October 12, 2012, 2:52 pm

        My husband was always told that he was their favourite son and I am their favourite daughter-in-law. They only had one boy, but whatevs, I’ll take it.

        Link
  • avatar

    6Napkinburger October 12, 2012, 1:47 pm

    WOW. Just read some of those texts. Some of them are clearly fake but others are so pathetic, it hurts to read them.

    Reply Link
    • TaraMonster

      TaraMonster October 12, 2012, 5:04 pm

      I know, right? I actually got sent a link to the actual site earlier today and the link Wendy posted discussing it summed my thoughts up pretty well. That shit was depressing as hell!

      Reply Link
  • katie

    katie October 12, 2012, 2:24 pm

    lol… that “favorites” article got sooo much press. crazy.

    so i know that cats and children are not the same thing, BUT i do have a favorite cat. leo is cuddley and he likes people and he is social, so he is my favorite. i dont feel bad saying that. zoe, i of course love too, but she has anxiety issues and socialization issues (of which some/all i am responsible for), so she is decidedly not cuddley and she hates everyone except for me and jake. but, zoe is a lot smarter then leo. leo is pretty dumb, lol. i do love both of my kitties, just for different reasons.

    that is my extent of understanding having a favorite child.

    Reply Link
    • avatar

      MissDre October 12, 2012, 4:30 pm

      Hahahaha my mom tries to get me to admit which of the cats is my favourite. I guess I’d have to say my oldest cat Na’ima because we’ve been together through everything, for nearly 7 years now. I tell her she’s my soul mate. But I really do love all my cats!!! I also had a cat named Leo, I swear he was a person trapped inside a cat, he was so damn smart! I had him for 14 years but he died of cancer 🙁

      Reply Link

Leave a Comment