**Side note: I am easily distracted. Just finished uploading my brother’s wedding pics to Snapfish and now I am busy with fun photo-edit-y type stuff.**

Anyway…I fail at potatoes. That’s all I really wanted to say, now that I am distracted by other things.

I also read an article recently talking about the pitfalls of marriage and how to tell if yours will last. I won’t bore you with the details, as it’s the comments I’m interested in. At least half of the comments were along the lines of “marriage is pointless, half end in divorce, there’s no such thing as happily ever after” etc. The other half were “marriage can last! It just takes work.” And rather than post my two cents there, I had an idea to post here. So here it goes:

Why NOT happily ever after? Women in my generation grew up with Ariel, Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, and Jasmine. I don’t think any of us are expecting to be woken by our One True Love with a kiss and swept up on a white horse to a castle in the clouds, but why shouldn’t we get the three words that all fairy tales end with?

Where did we get the idea that HEA means no problems, no struggles, not a spot of trouble for the rest of our lives? Are we kidding ourselves?! Unfortunately marriage involves a union of two people who are most definitely not perfect, which means not every second of every day of the rest of your life is going to be sunshine and rainbows. I got a fortune from a cookie once that said “Happiness is not the absence of conflict, but the ability to cope with it.” I think that’s a perfect analogy for a great relationship. And isn’t that what marriage is about-a great relationship?

My parents have been married for 27 years this September. They got married when they were both 20. I was born just three years later, when my dad was finishing up grad school and my parents lived far away from family. I know there were struggles early on. And there were struggles after that. Yet through everything, somehow they managed to stay in love while raising two children into happy, healthy, productive adults. Yes, they drive each other crazy, but in a good way…and frankly, why not go crazy with someone you love? Then you can at least enjoy the ride.

Did my parents get their HEA? Well, not yet, I would say. They are well on their way. The problem with HEA is it’s the end of story, not a halfway point. When they reach “till death do we part”, then we’ll know if they made it.

So, yes, maybe 50% of marriages end in divorce. Maybe it’s really hard to stay together for the rest of your life. If our grandparents and some of our parents could do it, why can’t we? Why shouldn’t we all get our HEA? We deserve it! If you want it, take it! Demand it! Expect it! But don’t expect to sit there and watch it arrive. Anything worth having is worth working for, right? Why NOT happily ever after?

To Joe and Abby, Paul and Jenn, Jessica and Paul, Brittany and Aaron, Bri and Bobby, Lauren and Mike, and Michael and Missy: “Love each other. It’s as simple and as hard as that.”

Anywho. A couple people have told me that the name of my blog turns them off, and I have begun to think that it’s a bit too…pretentious…for me. I’m the girl who sings at work all the time. The girl whose new favorite blog is “Hyperbole and a Half” (clean ALL the things?), and the girl who doesn’t care who’s watching her dance. I’m not some stuffy jerk in a lab coat.

So I was trying to think of a new name, and two phrases came to me, that I say fairly often. One-”with bells on” and two- “my train of thought just derailed.” I thought the latter sounded better for a blog…but I still like the first one a lot.

Anyway, so same URL (you got here, didn’t you?) but new name.

One of the aforementioned two-for-one personal statements required me to wax eloquently about why on earth I was pursuing graduate studies in the first place. That’s a damn good question.

The simple answer is: “Because I don’t want a second bachelor’s degree.” Which is true, and pretty darn valid as well. I COULD break into clinical laboratory science/laboratory medicine/medical technology (pick a name, already, profession!) by earning a second bachelor’s degree, or a certificate. If I don’t get in to grad school I’m going the certificate route. I just want to feel like I’m moving UP in the world, you know? Or at least that I’m not being stagnant. I HATE sitting still. (Though I’ve been at my computer almost all day…playing that new addicting gem My Tribe.)

The more complicated answer is harder to come up with. I have plenty of reasons, written down in a neat little Word file, for wanting to go into clinical laboratory science. But when pressed to say why I wanted to specifically go to graduate school, I found I had to do a little thinking.

What I ended up writing is that I 1) want the added knowledge and experience that comes with a master’s degree, 2) like the research environment and want to hone my skills in a research-based program, and 3) am aware that there is talk of making a MS degree the entry-level requirement for the field, and in turn creating a PhD. I want to have the education necessary to be successful in a PhD program should one arise before I’ve been out of school too long.

I really hope that my sincerity in saying that I do not want a second bachelor’s degree doesn’t come back to bite me. I hope that it shows that I have indeed considered the multiple paths to this career, and chosen the best one for me.

It’s the 50th anniversary of “The Pill” this year. Whether you believe the Pill to be one of the single greatest inventions of our time, or you think it’s the medicinal equivalent of the Antichrist, the impact of this tiny pellet of hormones on American life (and indeed, the lives of women around the world) cannot be denied.

Reading many of the comments on the above CNN.com article, I learned a few things. One, many people still believe that oral contraceptives are abortion. Which the Pill is not. The hormones prevent ovulation, which means that an egg will never be released from the ovary and never have the chance to be fertilized. Two, many people also believe that the Pill’s entrance into pharmacies and medicine cabinets promoted promiscuity among young women. I highly disagree.

Most people are not deterred from doing something simply because society or law dictates that they must. For example, people who choose not to do drugs do so not just because most drugs are illegal under U.S. law. They have no desire to engage in that sort of behavior. What stops people is their own personality and values, not a law in a book.

Promiscuity and the Pill works the same way. Sure, with its release in the 1960s it allowed women the freedom to have casual sex without needing to worry about pregnancy. But the truth is promiscuous women were already promiscuous. The Pill didn’t turn nice girls into sluts. People will do what they want to do, based on their own values, not based on a tiny little once-a-day pill.

Another group of comments that struck me as in need of discussion were the ones alleging that the Pill destroyed monogamy. First of all, let’s get one thing straight. Sex before marriage, whether you agree with it or not, has been around since the beginning of marriage.

Moving on. Biologically speaking, humans were designed to ENJOY SEX. If you can find an actual useful purpose for a clitoris, please let me know. Obviously nature didn’t intend for sex to be only within the context of marriage, and then only for procreation. I am a firm believer in monogamous relationships, but unlike the Protestant couple in Monty Python’s Meaning of Life, I don’t want to only have sex twice because I only want two kids.

One of the causes of the death of monogamy was no-fault divorce. While the invention of no-fault divorce liberated a lot of women from abusive, going-nowhere-fast marriages, it also meant that divorce was cheap and certainly easier than working things out. There’s a time and a place when divorce is a welcome thing. I’m not advocating that women (or men) stay in abusive relationships or marriages where there is a clear disconnect that can’t be fixed. Perhaps we can bring back monogamy not by teaching our children that virginity is a special gift that should be saved for one person, as many comments suggested, but by teaching them that committing your present and future to another person is a decision that should not be taken lightly, and a decision that, once made, should be for life.

The Pill did great things for women. It allowed working women to decide when they could become mothers without risking their jobs. In 1962 a woman could be fired for no other reason than that she became pregnant. It allowed women to decide when they were financially, emotionally, and physically ready to become a mom. Planned children are wanted children, and wanted children have better lives.

Now the Pill allows women to control their monthly cycles, and if you’re like me, it’s a welcome thing. Cramps that render you unwilling to do anything but lay in bed are not fun. My mother used to stay home from school in high school because her cramps were so bad. She had a hysterectomy at 30. Thankfully, my parents already had two children and didn’t want more. So she had the hysterectomy to get rid of the pain. Because of the Pill, I won’t be forced to do the same thing. (Though on certain days I think about it…)

One last thought. I’m quoting the following comment word-for-word: “Courtship and romance existed because the man was fighting for a unique and special gift from the woman. With today’s attitudes, thanks to the pill, the “gift” is easily available and the price has gone down. Romance, love, and commitment are dead.” EXCUSE ME? Are you really suggesting that before the pill, men only treated women with love, affection, and respect because they wanted sex, and NOW they don’t have to because we’re just giving it away??? What about treating women with love and respect because it’s the right thing to do? What about doing it because you want to commit your life to this woman and you want her to do the same for you? What about doing it because every time you have sex, you’re being given a gift, and not just the first time? It seems to be that, based on the above argument, the Pill has actually given women a way of deciding which men are worthwhile partners and which ones are unevolved chauvinists. Thanks, Margaret Sanger!

EDIT: I just saw this comment on a CNN.com opinion piece by Raquel Welch arguing that these days in America, no one is able to keep it in their pants (which is somehow the fault of Pill, according to Ms. Welch…) Anyway, here’s the comment: “However, teaching girls that their virginity should be “saved” is also telling them that their value lies between their legs, and not with their personality or heart, all the same. so it’s sort of double-edged sword.” Good perspective.