Skip to content
    • — about/contact —
    • — hello —
    • — latest —
    • screaming into the void
    • baking shows
    • little stories

MiTHology (4.0)

  • Happy Feast of Saint Kevin

    June 3rd, 2026

    , a.k.a Naomh Caoimhín (or Cóemgen), Abbott of Glendalough, Patron Saint of blackbirds, the Archdiocese of Dublin, and the Republic of Ireland. Also, the patron saint of me.

    This will not be a very informative post, but more of a personal reflection, so if you’re looking for historical info on St. Kevin, you can move right along (or, shoot me an email and I can recommend some cool books).

    Icon by Uncut Mountain Supply, which is actually Orthodox, not Catholic, but they do beautiful work and I highly recommend them

    As I said, this is not an informative post — but here are the basics, in case you’re unfamiliar. St. Kevin lived in 6th century Ireland, and became a hermit in the wilderness at Glendalough, County Wicklow, then was made an Abbott when a monastic city grew up around him there. In this icon, which is my favorite depiction of him, you can see the round tower and his cell, both still located at his monastery in Glendalough.

    You can also obviously see the blackbird’s nest. The most famous legend about St. Kevin is the one where, as he was praying in his cell, a blackbird alit upon his outstretched hand, and Kevin, who like many of those Celtic Saints had a particular affinity for nature and animals, remained so still and peaceful in prayer that the bird built a nest there, and laid her eggs right in his hand. The Saint thus remained kneeling for the whole forty days of Lent, until the baby birds hatched on Easter.

    Or so the legend goes. There are more stories like this about my patron saint. He also had supernatural exchanges with a cow, an otter, even a sea monster. Who knows if those things “really happened.” I like to believe that they did, but imo it doesn’t really matter that much.

    Saint Kevin probably gets so fed up with hearing from me, some random weird American girl who’s not even a very good Catholic. I imagine he wonders how come I don’t go pester some other, more popular saint, like St. Thérèse of Lisieux or St. Teresa of Avila or St. Gemma Galgani or St. Catherine of Siena or any other of those great women who are frequently chosen as patronesses of white female English-speaking Catholics. Why did I choose a male hermit from the sixth century, whose feast day isn’t even mentioned in the Roman calendar — or, I guess you might ask, why did he choose me?

    Story time. Way back in 2007 when I was still a depraved atheist teenager with no regard whatsoever for my eternal soul, I tagged along on a family vacation to Ireland, and was taken on a day trip to Glendalough as a tourist.

    It made an impression. If you haven’t been there, you should go; see for yourself. I remember thinking: “wow! Christianity is still dumb, but whatever this guy Kevin was about — that, I kind of feel like I could get on board with!”

    Seven years later (and the significance of that symbolic number doesn’t elude me, now), I was officially received into the Catholic Church. I took St. Kevin’s name at my Baptism, because I felt like I owed my conversion, in large part, to him.

    But also because back then, in my early twenties, I still took great pleasure in being “weird” and “different,” as a Catholic. I was still pretty liberal. I wasn’t like those basic, “cookie-cutter” Catholic girls who went with Thérèse or Catherine — no, not I! I was edgy and unique! I pretended to roll my eyes and lament that no one had ever heard of my Patron Saint, but was secretly tickled.

    But as time went on and I became — well, I won’t say a “better” Catholic, but hopefully a less-bad one, I stopped wanting to look so unique and edgy. Humility and all. I learned to appreciate the Little Way. Now, I longed to look more “cookie-cutter.” For a time there, I worried that maybe I should have chosen a more “normal” Patron Saint. Like maybe I’d done something wrong.

    Until one day I was chatting with my good friend “J” (whom you may know from this post; God rest his soul), and he asked me about my patron saint, and I, all abashed and apologetic, launched into my spiel about how I’d chosen Saint Kevin of Glendalough back when I was still a stupid liberal edgelord Catholic. But J, without hesitation, was like: “no, that makes sense; he’s a perfect saint for you. I totally believe that he chose you. I’ll pray to him for you.”

    It was like a little light went on. Something clicked or something. Ever since then I’ve felt less apologetic about my Catholic identity: a child of Saint Kevin, one of the legendary Celtic patrons of Ireland, shrouded in mystery and poetry and, well, weirdness. Because really, the legends of the Celtic Saints are pretty bizarre at times. It’s a whole other flavor of the Faith.

    There are many more things I could say, both about the Life of Saint Kevin and about my friendship with him, but I won’t keep you too long. I’ll just say this: initially I was drawn to him because of his solitary nature: the way he retreated far away from society, spurning human companionship (even kicking one girl off a ledge, they say — don’t worry, she was fine) in favor of that of animals. But over the years, I’ve come to see more clearly how God intends me to learn from Kevin’s example (the aforementioned kicking of the girl off the ledge is not irrelevant here). And I continue to see it more and more clearly, in quiet and nuanced ways, as time goes on and I spend more time with the stories of this great Saint.

    Which imo is just concrete proof that God knows what He is doing long before we do. An appropriate analogy here, Glendalough being such a wooded place, is our inability to “see the forest for the trees.” While I’m getting overwhelmed and confused by tree after tree, God sees the forest, and always has. Saint Kevin, model of courage, went into that forest and made a home there. Saint Kevin, model of humility and charity, then allowed people to come to him and build a city even though he preferred solitude. Saint Kevin, model of patience, let another creature make their home in his very hand. Saint Kevin, Abbott of Glendalough, ora pro nobis. Happy Feast Day, readers.

  • The Greatest Love Story On TV

    June 2nd, 2026

    CAUTION: SPOILERS for the show Vice Principals.

    .

    Friendship and its portrayal in popular media: as you may remember, I’ve addressed this topic before, in my post about the movie The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent — but in light of a recent discovery, I feel a need to bring it up again.

    The discovery in question is that of the comedy show Vice Principals on HBO Max. I know, I know — this show came out ten years ago (2016 really was a good year, wasn’t it?) — but, as usual, I’m late to the party. My husband and I had had this one on our “maybe we’ll try this if we run out of other shows” list for like three years. And finally, with all our other options completely dried up, we recently gave it a try.

    To my surprise, this ended up being one of the best shows I’ve seen in a long time. Incredible work; I was expecting just a quirky, goofy comedy, but it was actually a really beautiful and tragic character study, and imo an A+ example of “how to make a good TV show.”

    TV writers and producers, take note: they kept Vice Principals to a tight two seasons, which is something more shows really, really ought to do. They had a story to tell and they told it and got it done. Few things annoy me more than storytellers who just drag a dead story along like a rotting corpse that they refuse to bury, for the sake of a dollar. (See: From, which had an absolutely incredible first season, but now in season four is floundering out of control and cringe AF; unfortunately, season one was so good that I have to see the damned thing through to the end, now, which should have come a season or two ago, but I digress.)

    I could have done without the show’s raunchy humor and the repeated violations of the Second Commandment, which always make me wince — but, that’s HBO for you, I guess (“you’re watching too much of the HBO!”); that’s to be expected, unfortunately. But Vice Principals was actually funniest when it wasn’t being gross.

    I can forgive the vulgarity, though, because of how brilliant the show was otherwise. What made it so great, you ask? The same thing that made Unbearable Weight so great: the love story.

    It’s always so cool to me to find a good love story, but especially cool to find one that’s specifically about friendship.

    Modern media is so oversaturated with romance — and don’t get me wrong, I love romance as much as the next girl! But the older and more jaded I get, the more I find myself more enthralled by this mystical, magical phenomenon of platonic love, of friendship.

    What a fascinating thing friendship is. Like I was saying in that other post, as someone with AVPD, friendship has always been kind of mystifying to me. Romantic relationships — those make more sense. There’s an expectation. A transaction. A goal, even. In my teens and twenties, I had plenty of romantic relationships… but almost no friendships. Those, I couldn’t comprehend.

    Because what is friendship even for? There’s no goal. You’re not trying to attain some special status with or ownership of the person. You’re not going to get married and have kids. So, what does a friend actually want from you? Whenever my husband tells me that he’s going to see a friend, or that a friend has requested our company, my knee-jerk response is: “why? What for?”

    Because what is the point? You mean to tell me they just… enjoy your presence? They just like being around you, even if you’re not doing anything in particular? Even if you’re not getting something useful out of it? Just togetherness, that’s the whole goal?

    Mind-boggling. Absolutely wild.

    My favorite kind of love stories anymore are these: the kind that’s completely non-sexual, but with all the power and devotion and intensity of a fairytale romance. Platonic soulmates. I freaking love seeing people who love their friends.

    And friendships, it would seem, can have a lot of the same hallmarks as romantic relationships — a lot of the same dynamics, minus the lust. Personally, I’m a sucker for both the “enemies to lovers” and the “extrovert+introvert” trope — and, as my readers know, I always swoon over a good tragic ending in which for whatever reason the couple just can’t be together. 😍 The love story in Vice Principals offers all of these, in a beautifully lust-free context.

    I discussed in the other post how it’s especially cool to see a lust-free love story about two straight men. Male friendships are particularly fascinating to me. Why? Maybe because men are more naturally inclined to lust¹, so a lust-free love is more unexpected, in them — or maybe because I myself am female so it’s just more foreign. In any case, there needs to be more media portrayal of lust-free love stories between two straight males.²

    The best episode, and the one that encapsulates the love story most tidily and beautifully, is season one episode five, “Circles.” The part where Neal shows up and punches out the nasty neighbor with the confiscated brass knuckles — and then lets Lee take credit for it when his wife shows up — and this was before they were even officially friends!, this was the unspoken turning point in their relationship. Just🤌

    (I must also point out one thing the show did really well, unrelated to the love story: Amanda’s arc as an aspiring novelist. The crazed, desperate “I just want to know if it’s any good” — and Neal being the only one to “get” her work, and how that makes her love him more — and Neal’s ex telling her at that party, “you should write Nicholas Sparks novels!” and the way you can see her groan inwardly — ugh, all so painfully relatable, for any wannabe writer like myself! Amanda was a great character, and I was glad that they made her more than just a hot blonde.)

    So: take all the best tropes from erotic love stories, but put them in the context of a purely platonic one. Kinda funny to mention purity when we’re talking about such a lewd show, but pure is exactly what their friendship is, and the vulgarity of the surrounding story actually serves to highlight the purity and innocence of their love.³ Add in the two main characters’ (and actors’!) incredible chemistry, the superb pacing of the story, and the unhinged, slightly-surreal comedy, which surrealism sometimes, like here, allows a story to be more real — it all adds up to Vice Principals being, in my correct opinion, the greatest love story on TV.

    Do you know any other great movies/ shows/ books/ songs that celebrate platonic friendship, whether male or female? Give me your recommendations!

    .

    Footnotes

    1. It’s true, don’t @ me. I’m not here to complain about men, though, nor am I saying that women are any better. Women are just as pathetically desperate to be desirable and pleasing and cared-for as males are to penetrate. I do think it’s arguable though that, of these two selfish tendencies, lust is the more selfish, and the more icky. However, lust is also less all-pervading, psychologically — more compartmentalizable. What I mean by that is, I think women’s desire to be desirable/ preferred over others can infect everything for them, even their female friendships, leading to cattiness, bitchiness, competition, and two-facedness.ª Whereas male friendships, untainted by lust, are free to be pure, sweet, simple, and wholesome — all traits that our culture doesn’t typically associate with masculinity, but which are, in fact, peak masculinity. Maybe that’s why I find it so attractive when men have devoted friendships with other men. Like yes sir, I see that you are capable of a totally unselfish love and that your masculinity is so strong as to be unthreatened by expressions of fondness and affection for another man 👀 — ok, I see you. To employ a meme, imo “the sluttiest thing a man can do is be a good platonic friend to his bros” — which is, perhaps, kind of ironic, or something.

    a. Or maybe this is all just me exposing my own sad paranoia and inability to trust anyone. “Women are catty and men are just disgusting dogs! Just avoid everyone, and you’ll be perfectly happy and safe! A flawless strategy — what could go wrong?!”

    2. I only know a few. Two of my favorite “bros before hoes” anthems are this one and, of course, this one (NSFW).

    3. “But Mith,” you may be arguing, “their love was anything but pure and innocent! It was toxic AF, and that’s why they had to break up and could never be together” — that’s a good point, but I would argue that the reason their dynamic was so toxic was because Lee is very mentally ill; he has deep psychological issues, as well as a bigger, more dominating personality than Neal, who is basically good but weaker and more of a follower. These weaknesses combined lead to them enabling each others’ worst behavior — but despite all that, underneath it all, they do genuinely love each other. They are each other’s closest and deepest and most profound relationship, and they’d each die for the other in a heartbeat, even now. 10/10.

  • Compliments from uggos: okay or no?

    May 26th, 2026

    **Note: I, the writer, am an uggo myself, so don’t @ me. I’m a solid 2/10, maybe a 3 on a really good day.**

    I’ve noticed a meme lately in which conventionally-attractive or fashionable individuals post about how they don’t want compliments from unattractive people. Apparently, compliments are only valuable now if they come from someone that you perceive as equal or superior to yourself.

    I take issue with this.

    In theory, I get it. I would absolutely rather receive a compliment on my writing from Donna Tartt than from some teenager with an AO3 account. Similarly, I’d much rather have a priest call me virtuous than your average secular rando on the street.

    However, does that mean that I would turn up my nose at a compliment from a teenage fanfic writer? Does that mean I wouldn’t still appreciate the secular rando’s generosity? Of course not!

    Of course I’d still be grateful. Even if I wouldn’t take advice from these people on the craft of writing or the spiritual life, that doesn’t mean that I can’t appreciate their seeing me in a positive light and going out of their way to try to be kind.

    Because maybe the teenage fanfic writer aspires to learn to write better — maybe she’s trying to elevate and hone her own craft — I should be honored that they see me as an inspiration for that! Or maybe she doesn’t aim to write well herself, but still appreciates good writing. Also cool. And maybe the secular rando is quietly interested in the spiritual life and looking for a way in. To be able to point them in the right general direction by my example would be a huge privilege and honor.

    Because here’s the thing. Being an uggo does not preclude one from being able to recognize and appreciate beauty and fine taste.

    Personally: I don’t bother too much with my appearance. I do very minimal makeup, because I lack the confidence, budget, and frankly the motivation to do a more glamorous look. Same with my clothes. I don’t like my body, so I dress to conceal the meat-tank in an appropriate way.

    But that doesn’t mean I think I’m a great dresser. My look is in no way an example of my actual taste. Just because I dress bad doesn’t mean I like bad clothes!

    I am, in fact, able to recognize when someone dresses well or does their makeup well, and I love to see it! If beautifying yourself is how you choose to spend your time, energy, and money, I love that for you! You and I are different people with different priorities. I can see that you are good at something I am not good at. Why must you take my opinion so personally, as if I’m contaminating you with my respect?

    Why can’t you take a simple compliment? Even if I’m not exactly Donatella Versace, doesn’t it feel nice to know that some little ordinary person appreciates your efforts?

    In truth, I don’t compliment strangers anymore, or anyone that I don’t know too well. I used to do so pretty often — but now, I see it as too risky. You never know who’s gonna take it the wrong way.

    So it’s not like I’m personally butthurt by these fashionistas online telling me not to compliment them. Because I don’t do that anyway. It’s more that I just don’t get it — the arrogance. You think you’re so great, so superior, that us basics don’t even deserve to form a positive opinion of you? Talk about ugly. That’s such an ugly way to be.

    .

    One of my favorite things to see is celebrities who love and celebrate their fans. Like how Nicki calls her fans “Barbs” and Megan calls her fans “Hotties,” and so on. When they thank the fans and express love for us. As a fan, it makes you feel so uplifted! Like: yes, I am a hottie — Megan herself says so! Even if I am just a little old trash person! I love it when celebs, with all their money and power and privilege, appreciate us little plain people and are grateful for us and lift us up like that. — So why do these ordinary influencers, who aren’t even anywhere near as beautiful or powerful or rich as Nicki and Megan, think they’re above being liked by normies and uggos? You think you’re better than Thee Stallion?!

    Now, I guess it’s possible that I’m just way too easily moved by compliments — by others’ feedback in general. I have AVPD, which means I have not just shitty self-esteem, but a fundamental, unshakeable conviction that I suck. So whenever someone deigns to say something nice about me, it makes me feel like I owe them something in return. (Predictably, in my youth, I was one of those sad girls who said “sure” to any boy who gave them attention, no matter how gross he was, because she felt like she owed them something for being so kind as to find her attractive.) Maybe if I had healthier self-respect, I wouldn’t see compliments from others as valuable, or meaningful at all, unless they came from above.

    Maybe people who respect themselves think of compliments in terms of their usefulness. I guess if that’s how you think, I can see how a useless nicety from a nobody would be simply annoying, just an empty little gesture, whereas a compliment from a role model would be a helpful confirmation that you’re achieving your goals.

    However: I still maintain that it should not be beneath you to be gracious. You don’t have to believe my compliment matters in order to say “thanks” and move on.

    To be bothered by it — that actually seems to betray an essential fragility or insecurity, doesn’t it? If you think being liked by an uggo can bring you down somehow.

    A truly secure person should be able to accept and move on. Would Megan really, honestly think I was a “hottie” if she saw me on the street? Lol, thats funny. But she’s also a gracious person who’s secure enough not to be threatened by respect from an uggo.

    And besides: here’s the other thing: you don’t even know if that person really means what they’re saying!

    Personally, I never trust compliments on my physical appearance from strangers, not anymore. I firmly believe that people don’t mean what they’re saying most of the time, and that more often than not they’re actually making fun of you.

    If the tour guide at the children’s museum compliments my beat-up, decade-old $30 combat boots from Target, ain’t know way I believe she means it. It’s just awkward now. If some random teen girl at the trampoline park tells me I’m pretty, I’m flustered and embarrassed and can’t get away from her fast enough. I always wish they hadn’t said anything. Not because I think they’re beneath me, but because I don’t like small talk and I don’t trust them or their intentions.

    To all you snobs who are so butthurt by an ugly person’s compliment: why do you assume they meant it? They’re probably just bored and making small talk — or quietly laughing at your weird choices.

    There are just so many reasons why you are wrong. With all due respect.

    In conclusion: if you’re someone who refuses to take a compliment from someone you perceive as beneath you: I’ll just leave you to meditate upon the words of the great Kendrick Lamar, “bitch, sit down; be humble.”

  • Is raq right?

    May 24th, 2026

    TW: I do not recommend checking out the profile in question here if you’re someone who struggles with disordered eating/poor body image. In fact, you might not even want to read me quoting some of the things it says in its reels — I know there was a time when it would have been really damaging for me to even read such things secondhand — so, maybe you should just skip this whole post entirely.

    If you keep up with any health & fitness or “body positive” or body size-related content on social media, you may have noticed recently that a certain influencer who calls themselves “@raqisright” is going rather viral. If you aren’t familiar, I’ll summarize what’s going on:

    The account has blown up in popularity due to this person, purportedly a woman named Raq (I say “purportedly” because I get the sense this whole account might be not an actual person but just a troll, using a hired actress or something, and could very well be run by some douchebag named Jayden posting from his parents’ basement or some such), posting highly incendiary ragebait about how skinniness is everything and “fat” people (130 is fat, to her, btw) are all losers who need to shut up and cover up. Her slogan is: “make America hot again” (lol). And her claim to fame, if I’m not mistaken, was a reel of her ranting about how girls need to “act their weight,” i.e. don’t you dare act confident if you’re not skinny — “take that attitude to the treadmill.”

    As you can imagine, tons of content creators, especially those in the “body positive” sphere, are totally up in arms about Raq. They’re stitching her reels left and right, all enraged and in a tizzy, an absolute uproar, about this “raqisright.”

    But… is Raq right?

    Maybe you don’t want to hear my take. Maybe I’m not the “right” person to discuss this question, seeing as how I’m not exactly “free” from disordered ideas about eating, myself. (Those demons and I, we signed some treaties, a while ago, and we have a comfortable working relationship these days. I didn’t want to, but it was the only way, since there was no way to evict them entirely.) However, I’m pretty “recovered,” at this point in my life, and I think I actually have a pretty healthy handle on this whole topic, a healthy emotional distance from it. I don’t get #triggered about weight/body image stuff anymore, really, so I can talk about it calmly and, I like to think, objectively. And, perhaps my history — having spent my entire life (from age 14 on) in the ED/recovery world, and having been all over the map, at every extreme, both philosophically and weight-wise, finally landing somewhere in the middle in both those areas — actually might give me the credentials to say something of value on this issue.

    So here goes.

    .

    There’s one major reason why people are rightfully mad at Raq. And it’s not because those people got their personal feelings hurt by her content. It’s because they are worried about how her content could affect young girls.

    People my age, we are seeing the resurgence of heroin chic (call it Ozempic chic now, I guess), and it scares us; we hoped that it was gone for good, that we as a species had moved past all that, but once again it’s rearing its gaunt and emaciated head, in the world of female beauty standards. We worry about our daughters and their peers.

    I get that. I have daughters myself. I’m doing all I can to shelter them from this weight-obsessed world for as long as I can. Recently, they heard a little friend of theirs use the term “fat dumb idiot” as a joke, much to my chagrin, and now I’m over here having to try to teach them that “fat” is not an insult (on my knees, holding their little shoulders and staring into their eyes like repeat after me: all bodies are good bodies, no joke), but it’s also not something we call someone to their face because it can hurt feelings. Try explaining that nuance to a four-year-old. I hate this world. I absolutely don’t want my kids exposed to “thinspo,” to skinnyism, to this message that Raq is preaching.

    We absolutely need to cancel content creators that promote EDs. We need to quietly shut them down and not give them another second of our time (which, I’m aware, is exactly what I am not doing, with this blog post, lol). So if you’re really angry at Raq, I get that.

    Why am I not more angry, then?

    I guess, tbh, I feel for her. I kind of even adore her. And I also don’t think she’s entirely wrong.

    .

    Like I said, I don’t think “Raq” is an actual person, so much as a symptom. Her voice is just the voice of my ED and yours; the voice that we all know so well, and a voice that, as I mentioned, I’ve long since accepted and made my peace with. Maybe that’s why I kind of love Raq. She feels so familiar.

    And my heart kind of aches for her, this pretty young woman, because when I was at a point where I fully leaned into this philosophy she preaches — a point where, if I’d had Instagram and a bit more style and confidence, I probably would have created a very similar account, saying the very same shit, tbh — I was the most unhappy I’ve ever been in my life. Letting that voice take over, it does give you a short-term emotional reward, for sure, but it destroys you internally. There is no real happiness, for someone who subscribes to those teachings.

    But her account so beautifully encapsulates the short-term emotional reward that I was just talking about: the fantasy of being skinny, pretty, desirable, and better than everyone else because you work harder than everyone else, you can do what those fat slobs are too lazy to do — that high feeling of caffeine on an empty stomach, where it feels like you are light as a feather and you can conquer the world and you are absolutely deserving of everything and morally unimpeachable: that’s the exact emotion that her page illustrates.

    Problem is, that feeling is a lie. It’s a mirage, and not sustainable in reality.

    So yes, it’s bad to perpetuate this idea — to glamourize the ED life. She should absolutely take her page down, and I hope she does, as part of her own healing process.

    But at the same time… is she entirely 100% wrong? I genuinely don’t think she is. Stick with me.

    .

    Tbh I kind of adore this Raq, the same way I adore someone like Britney, or Regina George, or Nicki Minaj (or hip hop stars in general, for that matter). Their world is so different from my own — I don’t want my kids exposed to it, and I personally could never live like that, and have no desire to!, it doesn’t line up with my moral beliefs; but from a safe distance I find them so lovely, so entertaining, so adorable; their confidence is so impressive, and their aesthetic so pleasing, it gives me great fond feelings of “girl power” and all that, and with my whole heart I wish them all the best.

    I actually really hope Raq is a real person, and that she’s as happy as she says she is. Because the alternative is that behind the username lurks either a desperately sad girl who wants to die, and/or some pathetic troll just trying to upset people. Also, I like to think that this beautiful life she describes having is a real thing, for someone. That’s a nice thought.

    .

    Finally — and this is the controversial part, so bear with me: I don’t think she’s entirely wrong.

    There was a time, not too long ago, when content like hers was just normal. We were all used to it. Nowadays, with the advent of body positivity and #awareness, we’re all so used to having our feelings coddled, that when someone speaks like Raq, without regard for our feelings, it hits like a criminal offense. How dare she! How dare anyone say anything that might offend someone!

    But, actually, Raq is right, I think, in a way. Body positivity has, imo, gone too far. And while I don’t agree that heavy women shouldn’t be allowed to be confident or sassy or dress cute, I also agree with Raq that we shouldn’t be “normalizing” obesity.

    There’s this fine line here, this gray area, that I don’t know if we as a society are capable of living in because we like extremes too much. But obesity needs to be de-normalized without being stigmatized.

    No, it’s not good to be overweight, just the same way it’s not okay to be sick. But that also doesn’t mean that fat people don’t get to exist, to post photos of themselves, to find love, to dress however they want.

    We need to stop with the “love your body at every size” thing. Loving your body is not necessary. It’s just a body.

    We don’t all need to love our bodies. Nor do other people need to love our bodies. (Someone once commented: “women’s bodies are not advertisements for women’s bodies,” and I think that sums it up.) And fatness is a very normal symptom of life in 2026 America, so it’s just stupid to get mad at people for developing this condition when our society and way of life make it dangerously easy to develop.

    But that was a tangent. My point is, I think that someone like Raq does deserve to be proud of themselves for being fit in a culture that promotes fatness. You don’t have to love your body, but if you do, that’s nice; congrats to you. Being healthy and pretty is not necessary, not morally relevant, but still good. I do think we should bring back beauty. I do think we should be less afraid of getting our feelings hurt.

    But what about my daughters?: well, as their mom, I’m not letting them use social media unsupervised until they’re eighteen. Social media is the wild wild west, it’s a free-for-all, it’s filthy and unsafe and no responsible parent would let their kids on there. We all know this, or ought to.

    If you can’t handle getting your feelings hurt, don’t go on social media. And certainly don’t let your kids on there.

    Content creators like “Raq” are just trying to make a living, with their little ragebait. They’re not our babysitters. It’s not their job to protect our kids — it’d be nice, if they cared enough to be mindful of our kids’ mental health, and I’d sure appreciate seeing that; but that’s simply not how this world works. “People gotta eat,” as they say (or, not eat, if you’re Raq, lol). I do feel bad for those young girls who will stumble upon content like Raq’s and be harmed by it. I hope their mothers are there for them.

    .

    The bottom line for me: I wish we could just shut up about bodies. I wish people like “Raq” would shut up. I wish the HAES crowd would shut up. I wish the whole health & fitness industry would shut tf up. It’s an unrealistic thing to wish for, but a girl can dream. They say humility is not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself less, and I wish we could all have such a humble attitude about bodies. The moral weight that’s attached to body size, for us, is so fucking exhausting.

    I wish we could talk about body size in a neutral way, that Raq didn’t have to claim moral superiority, that fat people didn’t have to fight for their right to just exist, that people didn’t see skinny women and start shitting their pants and yelling “sOmEoNe giVe hEr a ChEesEbUrgEr” and that people who prefer fat bodies weren’t seen as having some weird fetish or miswiring in their brain. Bodies come in different sizes, some healthy and some not; so what. This bizarre obsession with being able to run a mile or do a pushup or whatever, as if that’s the ultimate defining factor of health — so fucking what. I’m so tired of it.

    In conclusion: Raq, if you’re real, keep doing you. Society’s gone to shit anyway, so you may as well keep shining, though I hope you find healing in time if that’s what you need. I won’t make assumptions. You’re beautiful and bold and I sincerely hope you’re okay. Best believe I won’t be letting my daughters anywhere near your circle of influence though.

  • The secret

    May 20th, 2026

    to a great marriage, if you want one stupid little blogger’s unsolicited advice, and if I may be so bold as to claim to have figured it out (the secret, I mean), after nine years married — which, despite nine being a relatively small number, I am actually quite confident (indeed, more confident than I am about most things in life) that I may — is: and I’m quite sure of this:

    Dumb luck.

    You have to get lucky. I’m talking stupid lucky. Absolutely idiotic-level lucky.

    Because look at me. I’m a really terrible person. Every time I find myself in an irl social situation, I’m reminded of it: of how terrible I am, how difficult to get along with; of how unbearable, how agonizing is my company. I’m insufferable.

    And that’s just in casual social settings. Don’t even get me started on living with me. My college roommates — I scared two of them right out of the room (they quietly requested to be relocated within weeks of getting stuck with me), and two others gradually became my sworn enemies, eventually openly hating me. And not even because of some specific disagreement over any particular thing. It was just me. I am just that annoying to be around.

    This is not an exaggeration. I’m the kind of person you want to punch just because of the aura they give off, but you can’t ever quite find an excuse to do so, and in fact you inevitably find yourself mirroring my painfully awkward politeness and forcing chuckles at my uncomfortable, weakly sarcastic attempts to appear comfortable, until you’re so fucking uncomfortable yourself you just want to fucking snap.

    Believe me, I am aware of this, and I hate it as much as you do — probably more tbh, because at least you get to request a room change! You get to walk away. If I knew how to not be like this, best believe I’d not. My presence is a curse, and to interpersonal connection I am anathema. That’s why I have this blog — to try and connect and communicate with people minus the crippling obstacle that is my horrible human form. It’s also why I never managed to have a romantic relationship last more than six months, for the first twenty-six years of my life, despite numerous attempts.

    Now, imagine, if you can, an individual who’s not only able to tolerate such an absolute disease of a person, but to get close to them, emotionally, despite the horrors.

    And more than just that, but to be able to actually crack the thick hard shell of agonizing awkwardness that imprisons the horrible girl, and, for as long as he remains around her, to alleviate for her the burden of being so horrible — to allow her to actually relax and have fun and breathe and feel semi-human. Could such a person even exist? He’d have to have a really rare gift, as rare imo as actual supernatural powers, like legitimate ESP or something, if not rarer.

    Now, what are the odds that this one-in-a-billion individual with this superhuman power exists, and exists not only in the same time period as the horrible girl — being born, in fact, portentously, on the same exact calendar date as she, just four years earlier — but also in the same country? Nay, within a hundred, or even fifty, miles of her?

    And that, on top of that, he also happens to be, among other things: loyal, kind, funny, smart, and attractive?

    And — and this one is the least likely of all — that after being around the horrible girl he actually likes her and wants to marry her? And then, to stay married to her?

    What are the freaking odds?

    Just dumb luck. That’s all it is.

    It actually kind of pisses me off, how dumb my luck was and is. How many people more deserving of a good relationship will never be as stupidly lucky. I wish that everyone who longs to find love could find their very own version of my husband. Unfortunately for them, they will not. Because he’s one in a billion, and I got the only one — stupid, horrible me.

    I’m a nightmare of a person. If anyone were to ask me the secret to a happy, healthy marriage, I would simply shrug and point at him, my husband. Oh don’t get me wrong, I don’t just sit there and let him carry me through this marriage; I try, I do try to be a good wife, a wife worthy of him — but my best is, imo, not very good. He picks up my slack without ever a complaint (without ever even admitting, or seeming to realize, that he’s out of my league). He is the glue that holds us together, that holds my life together. He takes care of me completely. For some reason. If anyone ever deserved to have been doomed to a life of loneliness, it is I.

    Dumb luck.

    “No Mith,” you may be saying, “it’s not just luck! Don’t make it sound easy! The secret to a great marriage is [hard work] [self-sacrifice] [prayer] [apologizing first] [never going to bed mad at each other] [insert whatever you believe the secret to be]” — but I can assure you, plenty of people out there bust their butts and pray and make sacrifices and do all the things, and still their partner abuses them or cheats on them or leaves them. The right person won’t do that (or, I dunno, maybe they will, if that’s been your experience, but it sure hasn’t been mine, and personally I wouldn’t think of abuse/infidelity/separation as symptomatic of a “great” marriage, which is what this post is supposed to be about). And to find the right person — especially if you’re a difficult person yourself, like I am — you just have to get stupid lucky.

    Plenty of people out there deserve a happy ending and never get one. Why me? I literally have no idea. It doesn’t make sense. I suspect God has big plans for my children, and really wanted them born.

    Or maybe, dumb luck.

    Anyway, happy nine-year anniversary this week to my husband.

  • Mask Off

    May 15th, 2026

    Hey. I have a question for some of you. And this question might seem five or six years late — but recent events in my irl social circle have brought it back to the forefront of my mind. The question is (and my fellow conservatives and RadTrads are gonna hate me for this, but):

    Why do y’all take such issue with mask mandates?

    Please, do explain. I’m so curious. Because never since all this started have I once heard a single intelligent, rational argument against mask-wearing.

    I get it. Wearing a mask is no fun. It’s uncomfortable. I don’t even have any respiratory health issues, but wearing one of those things, I feel like I can’t breathe properly. During Covid times I got used to it, out of necessity, but still, as soon as I was alone, even if just for a moment, I’d rip the thing off my face, gasping for air.

    And they don’t fully protect you or others agaisnt viruses, that’s true! They’re no guarantee that you won’t get sick! However, do masks help some? Obviously they do! I mean it’s just common sense, right? When you talk or breathe, you expel particles — and, if you are infected, germs — from your nose and mouth. Why not have a shield, a barrier of some sort, to slow the spread.

    It’s the same reason we cover our nose and mouth when we cough or sneeze. Is covering your mouth perfect prevention against the spread of disease? No, but it helps some, because of the barrier provided by your arm, and it’s also significantly less gross than just coughing and sneezing in the open air! — or would you propose that we start doing that, too? “Can’t no one tell me to cover my damn mouth when I sneeze! Don’t Tread On My Right to be Fucking Gross! FREEDOM! 🦅”

    Covering your mouth and nose is common sense, during an outbreak of a virus. Wearing a mask should be too. Isn’t that why doctors wear them when they’re at work?

    Why do people think a mask mandate is “the government trying to control us”? Tell me, please, how does “the government” stand to benefit from us little people wearing masks?

    I don’t disbelieve that the government does not have our best interests at heart, us little people, and might even be out to actively harm us — but the thing is, wearing a mask does not harm us (unless you have a serious respiratory health condition, in which case, just stay home). So how is the big bad government “winning” by me wearing a mask? In what way is me covering the lower half of my face serving the corrupt politicians and billionaires? Seriously, can anyone out there explain the logic? Even if the government is evil, making us wear masks is not, and cannot be, one of their evil ploys.

    “Well it just makes you look like a stupid government pawn when you wear a mask” — stupid because I believe the empirical evidence that there is an infectious virus going around, and I’d rather not inhale your gross droplets? Stupid because I’m following the rules of whatever establishment we’re standing in? That’s like saying I’m a “stupid government pawn” for carrying an umbrella when there’s rain in the forecast, or that I’m a “stupid government pawn” for not shouting at the top of my lungs in the public library.

    You know what I think is really going on? Some of y’all just don’t like to be told what to do.

    And look, I get that too. I’m hardheaded and suspicious and fiercely independent by nature, too. I also prefer to not do whatever’s mainstream and normal.

    But (1) it’s common sense, isn’t it? Why would you not want to protect yourself and others?, but even if you don’t care about that, there’s still (2) the whole “render unto Caesar” thing: if there’s a mandate in place (and that mandate isn’t telling us to do something sinful or otherwise harmful, which this one is not; I can already sense some of y’all about to call me a hypocrite for supporting the SSPX while coming on here and ranting about good Christian obedience — but the difference is, the SSPX disobeys because they see that obedience would actually support sin and harm souls, therefore they opt for obedience to the actual Catholic religion instead of to the individuals currently occupying the Vatican; whereas, in the case of wearing a mask where mandated, no harm is being done and no sin committed, so it’s totally different) — then we have to obey that mandate!

    Which is so funny because most if not all of the mask-refusers are Christians! As Christians, shouldn’t we be the best at obedience? Shouldn’t we be okay with it? Yes, obviously if a rule or law tells us to sin, then we can’t obey it, but the mask mandate does no such thing!

    Some people get way too hung up on individual freedom and personal liberties. Personal liberty is not the most important thing. God’s law is. Obeying the mask mandate is keeping the Fifth Commandment. Why do so many Christians not see that?

    Obeying legitimate authorities, accepting discomfort for the sake of others — as Christians, this ought to be our MO. And Catholicism has always been pro-preventative medicine. I truly don’t understand this back-asswards crunchy culture trend that insists that modern medicine, which saves tons of lives every day and extends and improves so many more, is somehow satanic (until it serves them in an emergency, that is).

    There’s nothing un-Christian about covering your face to prevent the spread of illness. There’s nothing about that little act of service that imposes on your “rights.”

    “But you can’t tell me what to do” — actually, friend, as a human being living in a society, sometimes you do have to be inconvenienced; sometimes you do have to be told what to do, even if you don’t like it. Wearing a little paper mask is not even that big a deal.

    Can anyone explain it to me, then, why you refuse to comply with mask mandates, why they upset you so much? I’m not being sarcastic, I’m seriously really curious. Because tbh I know plenty of individuals who are much smarter than me and whose opinions and beliefs I deeply respect who are, mystifyingly, anti-mask, and I’m dying to understand why — because it just seems like a common sense issue to me. If you think you can enlighten me, I’m leaving the comments open.

  • What is truth?

    May 14th, 2026
    Daily writing prompt
    What’s a word or phrase that annoys you?
    View all responses

    Disclaimer: if you’re someone who uses this phrase regularly, I have nothing against you. Seriously: my favorite person in the world, my beloved husband, uses this phrase regularly. Most people don’t really think about it when they say it, and that’s fine! It’s just become a normal part of the English language nowadays, unfortunately. So please don’t take this post as an attack. I’m just taking a moment to wallow in my irritabiliy and give my inner “armchair critic” a moment to sound off, because it’s fun and cathartic, and what else is this stupid little personal blog for if not a bit of fun and catharsis and sounding off.

    A word or phrase that annoys me: “my truth.” As in, “speak your truth,” or “I’m telling my truth.”

    In addition to simply sounding, imo, annoying, snivelly and whiny, à la “safe space” or “love yourself” or “holding space for…” or any of those saccharine pop-psychology catchphrases that turn my stomach — it’s also philosophically disastrous.

    There is no such thing as “my truth”! There is only the truth.

    What I have is: a perspective, an opinion, a point of view, a version of events, a personal understanding of what things are and how they happen… but that is not the same as truth.

    I get it. It’s just a saying. “My truth” is just a cute, concise, and heartfelt way of expressing all of what I just listed in the above paragraph. However, I still take issue with the phrase, because I think it betrays a flawed understanding of reality.

    We say more about ourselves than we mean to. Often, the way we use language conveys things about us that we don’t even realize; there’s more meaning in our speech than just what we’re trying to convey literally with our words. When we use phrases like “my truth,” it exposes a basic belief (or at least a tolerance, a passive acceptance of the belief, which essentially amounts to belief) that truth is subjective. That there is no objective truth.

    Which is of course false, and hugely problematic. I suspect that the rise of the phrase “my truth” is just another symptom of (here we go again, with Mith diagnosing grave societal ills while sitting in a recliner nursing her baby, but) this grave societal ill of “me first”-ism. “Self-love” gone haywire.

    Our culture these days is so secular, and so self-centered. “Just be a good person” and “just accept everyone and let them do what they want (unless they are Christian)” seem to be the religious tenets that we live by. Celebration of the self and its carnal appetites is a heroic virtue, to us. There is no objective truth — truth is just what any individual wants it to be, and no one has any right to tell them otherwise! To believe in objective truth is offensive. It’s a violation of others’ individual freedoms. “Freedom,” not being subject to any law but ourselves — that’s what we’re all about.

    Which is so far from a healthy and sane understanding of reality and our role in it. The truth exists independently of us, and we ought to serve it and be subject to it. We need to acknowledge that our faculties are limited, that we are small and dumb, that our little POV is not the be-all/end-all — far from it. Something greater than us exists, and that’s the truth… but some of us aren’t ready to hear that.

    There is no “my truth.” There is only the truth. Saying “my truth” just makes you sound juvenile and flaccid of heart.

    Ahem, alright, I’ll hop off my silly little soapbox now. I’ll just leave you guys with this quote from Scripture:

    John 18:37-38: ” ‘For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth.’ … Pilate saith to him: ‘What is truth?’ And when he said this, he went out again to the Jews, and saith to them: ‘I find no cause in him.’ “

  • “remember who you are, white trash girl”

    May 13th, 2026

    Radio ‘round these here parts typically sucks, this being one of those small Southern towns, heavy on the bro country and Prot pop (ugh); but every now & then it comes through. Internally, the radio has also not been great lately, due to recent events aggravating the ol’ AVPD, cranking up the volume on my symptoms, the paranoia heightening like spiny gray urchins of static, ballooning, blurring out even the good channels, the important channels. An objectively horrible person, tense, scattered, sleepless, this morning rushing out the door already late for an appointment I’d forgotten about, now speeding along sans caffeine or makeup, jabbing the radio buttons, seeking something, anything, to do the job of caffeine & makeup for me – when what should I hear but, of all songs, “Let’s Go” by Trick Daddy, a song they never play anymore, much less in this town, a song that I haven’t heard in many years – a song which bears the honor of being my official “coming out as a rap lover” song 20+ years ago, the one that I came out of hiding for back in high school, having pretended for so many years that I was too cool for that shit, turning up my nose at it, pretending to exclusively like the obscure, “cool”, “edgy”, “punk rock” stuff that the cool, edgy, punk rock kids would approve of, until one day I heard this one & knew that i could not, would not hide a minute longer. Windows down, volume up, sunshine, the cool spring wind in my scraggly unwashed hair! It’s ok after all! When I tell you it hit like a hefty dose of the best drug, and all those spiny edges melted, momentarily illumined inside, all fresh & soft. I know as a Catholic I’m not supposed to like this shit, but man, when I tell you it felt so healing, it felt like the Voice of God right beside me, gently whispering:

  • Is it ok to enjoy love stories?

    May 12th, 2026

    This post is related to my post on music, and also inspired in part by an article I read a couple months ago in Benedictus – actually, it was an excerpt from an old book called “The Ecclesiastical Year,” and it was about the Feast of the Annunciation, a.k.a. Lady Day. If you read Benedictus you might remember the piece I’m talking about.

    “Love reciprocally for and from a mother is one of the safest kinds: it contrasts with the dangers of love for a lady sought in marriage passionately, the perils of which are well illustrated by those romantic stories which so pleased readers in the days of chivalry, and in which St. Francis of Assisi, St. Ignatius of Loyola, and St. Theresa found some delight which they afterward repudiated.” Basically, the point of this little excerpt seems to be that the love for and of Our Lady is purer and more perfect than any fleshly love; superior, obviously, to the sort of love told about in love stories. Thus her “knights” on earth are better examples of real chivalry than any of those fictional characters which we enjoy so much.

    The author doesn’t completely disparage the whole genre of chivalry/romance, though. “[T]he well-instructed Catholic does not need to be told that he must not starve out all love for family in kindred in his zeal for loving Jesus and Mary.” It’s only the misinformed and ignorant, Fr. Rickaby asserts, who react dramatically and violently to the Church’s advice to be cautious regarding fleshly affections: basically, getting all up in arms, claiming that the Church ‘hates love’ or some such, and veering hard to the opposite extreme: idealizing passionate love, claiming that it’s the greatest thing on earth, “an inspiration to high deeds and noble living, as well as a source of ennobling power.”

    Which, this seems to be still extremely true of society today, don’t you think? Those who hate Catholicism love to accuse us of hating love – as if we’re all stuffy and prudish and afraid of pleasure. Which is very false. And it’s definitely true that our culture idealizes romance. I’ve talked in other posts about how weird and unfortunate it is that, as a society, we’re so obsessed with romantic love – it seems like every song on the radio, every popular TV show and movie, glorifies romance as if it’s the one thing to be desired above all else. Which attitude is, I think, pretty unhealthy for young folks to absorb.

    I don’t want to be one of the ignorant and misinformed people that Fr. Rickaby is talking about in this excerpt. Obviously, I’m aware that there’s nothing wrong with enjoying a romantic story, as long as that romantic story is healthy, orderly, clean, and appropriately contextualized: always secondary to, and always leading towards, love of God.

    But, I guess my question is: is it ever okay to enjoy a secular love story per se? It’s similar to my question about enjoying pop music. Basically, the question underlying both of these seems to be: is it ever okay to deliberately arouse the passions/excite the emotions over something secular?

    Of course it’s true that we can safely enjoy some secular things, as long as we don’t get carried away. But what does it mean to get “carried away?” How do we know if we’re getting carried away? And, does reading/watching romance stories, or listening to love songs, fall under the category of safe secular things that we can enjoy in moderation? Or is it always an occasion of sin?

    Getting carried away: I imagine “getting carried away” would mean that you’re enjoying a thing so much that you neglect your religious duties, or find yourself tempted to sin. So is it only bad to arouse the passions if it leads you to sin or temptation?

    Or, is arousing the passions always bad all the time, simply because you’re getting yourself into a state in which your emotions have taken over and the will/intellect is no longer in charge?

    – But then: just because you are arousing the passions for a while, does that always mean that the intellect has been subordinated? Isn’t it possible to enjoy a bit of (clean) titillation for a little while, as long as you are able to put it down and walk away and go about your business when the time for it is done? If you’re addicted to pleasure, that’s a problem, obviously. But if you’re able to decide when and how much to indulge, and stop when you’re done… is that still a problem, I wonder?

    And obviously, I’m not talking about pleasure/stimulation that’s sinful. I think (emphasis think, don’t know for sure) that it’s possible to enjoy a love story without lust getting involved.

    Let’s take an example. One of my favorite guilty pleasure shows: Outer Banks. (CAUTION: SEASON 3 SPOILERS AHEAD, stop reading here if you haven’t yet watched season three.) Take the scene where JJ rescues Kiara from that detention camp place her parents stuck her in. It’s so romantic. Completely non-sexual, but, still tugs on the heartstrings and makes you feel all mushy inside (at least, if you’re a dork like me, I guess). Similarly, let’s consider another embarrassing guilty pleasure of mine: the song “As Long As You Love Me” by Justin Bieber ft. Big Sean. It’s a totally clean song, nothing sexual in it, not even any innuendos or allusions. And (for me, at least) it gives you the feels in your heart, but is not what I’d call erotic or sexual or anything like that. (I know some would say that the rhythms alone make this song base and sexual, even though the lyrics are pretty innocent.) Works like these ones light up pleasure centers in the heart/chest region, but not so much the loins. So: are this scene and this song safe territory? Or is such romance always lustful because of what it leads to/evokes/suggests? Is it okay to enjoy things like these, in moderation?

    I really don’t know, which is why I am writing this post. I’m not trying to make excuses for myself. In the past, back when I had MiTHology 2.0, I used to write all of these awful posts attempting to dissect the teachings of the Catholic Church that bothered me, and to “disprove” them — to prove, for example, why things like non-traditional marriage and female priests should actually be okay. Lol. I am no longer doing that, here. I hope I’m not that arrogant anymore. My priest told me that listening to impure pop/hip-hop music is a sin, so, that’s that; I accept that as the truth. I’m just thinking out loud here, and wrestling with a teaching that I find difficult, and looking for outside opinions if anyone is actually reading this and has an opinion that they care to share. Probably I should work up the nerve to ask an actual priest about all of this, but I have AvPD, and asking people for things is really hard.

    No longer making excuses; trying not to, anyway. But it’s awfully tempting. Because sometimes, sinful things look awfully pretty and well-done, like fine art. There are some rap music videos that a part of me thinks are absolute works of art, and certain performers in that genre are undeniably talented at what they do, like, their skills are impressive to listen to! It’s really amazing to me what Nicki Minaj can do with her voice. I’m like, surely it must be okay to just appreciate the talent at work, here? – But, on that note, you could, in theory, have “really well done” porn featuring talented actors and beautiful scenery, I guess, and it would still be porn and therefore despicable. There do exist, I guess, really skilled and agile pole dancers, but pole dancing is still a sinful thing to perform in public. A beautifully-designed dress can be a fine work of art and still really immodest. So, just because something is well done, doesn’t give me an excuse to enjoy it.

    Something like porn is obviously always bad. But that’s not what I’m talking about here. I’m just wondering how okay it is to enjoy a nice clean love story – specifically, one that’s not necessarily Catholic. I’m aware that there are good Catholic works of literature out there that deal with the sacrament of marriage and with healthy Catholic relationships. Those are surely fine and good to enjoy in moderation. But, something like Outer Banks, while not smutty or graphic like some other shows, is decidedly not Catholic. Pop songs like the Justin Bieber one have nothing to do with God – but are they necessarily evil?

    Like I was saying about these two examples: they are certainly sensual, in a way, in that they are pleasing to the senses; but the pleasure centers that they light up are more emotional than sexual. Does that make them better, safer?

    Obviously, not all fleshly love is bad. The love that an atheist mom has for her children is still a wonderful and powerful thing. The love between two friends, regardless of whether they are Christian or not, is a good and beautiful thing. The sentiment of love is good and beautiful. As Fr. Rickaby said in this excerpt, it’s not like all Catholics are required to give up their love for their earthly family! That would be ridiculous! Even romance is good and healthy and all, if it’s engaged in without sin.

    But enjoying romantic stories? Or even just emotional stories/songs at all, in which the whole gist of the story is a relationship between mortal characters? As someone who loves these, I guess I’m just wondering whether it is ethically permissible to love these.

    What do we think, fellow Catholics? Is it safe to cherish ~feelings~ about non-religious things? Is it okay to enjoy a clean romance novel here and there? Are non-sexual romantic pop songs okay? Is it ever okay to intentionally arouse the passions about something secular?

  • Am I a bad mom if my two-year-old is still in diapers?

    May 11th, 2026

    (Please note that, in this post, I am not talking about special needs or neurodivergent children. I’m aware that they are in a different situation entirely.)

    A few years ago, on Writer Twitter, I met a fellow aspiring author, a really cool lady, and we agreed to try being critique partners, and traded the first few chapters of our novels for each other to mark up (which was an absolutely sickeningly terrifying experience, for me, but I was really trying, at that point, to become a Serious Writer, lol). She was a generation or two my senior, but we wrote in the same genre, and I liked and trusted her. She left me a lot of thoughtful feedback — but the comment that jumped out to me the most was on a part where I mentioned a two-year-old child that was wearing a diaper to bed. My critique partner wrote in red: “A two-year-old in diapers?? Really??!”

    At the time, I had a two-year-old and an almost-one-year-old, both still decidedly in diapers. So, I just laughed in confusion, reading that. I figured my critique partner must not have much experience with kids. I seriously had no idea, at that point, that anyone on earth could consider it at all weird for a two-year-old to be wearing diapers!

    But then, some time later, I read somewhere that it’s only in recent decades, since the advent of disposable diapers, that parents have delayed potty training until age two/three. According to this source I read, back in the ‘50s and earlier, kids would be potty training around their first birthday – pretty much as soon as they could walk. So, some parents look down on us modern moms, for whom disposable diapers make it easier to be “lazy.”

    A confession: I’m a mom of three, soon to be four, and I do not do cloth diapers. Womp womp. I know that that would be the morally superior, crunchy thing to do. And I did do some research about it and seriously considered it – but honestly, I’m overwhelmed with laundry as it is, and just don’t want to.

    I’ve potty trained two girls so far, and am working on it with my son, who’s currently two. I’ve found, thus far, that each kid is extremely different. My eldest was unconventional: she was pooping in the potty every single time by the time she was two years old, but despite all my efforts, refused to pee in the potty until after she was three (and we had a real battle about it). But once it clicked, she never looked back, and has had almost zero accidents since. My second was a bit more normal about it. She was agreeable and a good learner, and fully trained by around two-and-a-half, well before three years old — but is more prone to accidents, even now, at almost four. My third (my only boy) currently hates the potty, doesn’t want anything to do with it, and at this point I’m resorting to rewarding him just for sitting on the thing at all. And my methods and process have been pretty much the same with each of them. I’m not super rigid about it; I start introducing the potty before they’re two, but the training process is more gradual than rigorous. It’s just what works for us.

    Is this a moral failing? Do I deserve the harsh judgment of these old-school, early-potty-training moms online? I don’t know.

    Maybe if I did cloth diapers, it would compel me to potty train my kids earlier. I know a mom from church who cloth diapers, and is currently potty training her fourteen-month-old because she simply can’t stand the laundry anymore – which, I imagine I’d feel the same way! But I also can’t help feeling like maybe she is the superior mom and human for this.

    My family’s pediatrician (who is a “normal” pediatrician, not a crunchy/holistic one) doesn’t start talking about potty training until two years old. When I told her my son was still pretty averse to the potty, at his two-year well check, she was totally unconcerned, and said that was still normal, that it was still early. So I guess this is the norm, in 2025. But just because something is the norm in modern times, certainly doesn’t mean it’s the best! If anything, maybe we should be wary of what’s considered normal in these modern times!

    So why don’t I just train my kids earlier, if I’m that concerned about it?: well, basically, because it’s easier.

    For one, less cleanup. I hate cleaning up pee. The earlier you train, the more accidents you have. Training my eldest when she was three years old was a pain in its own way, but there were relatively few pee spills to mop up.

    For two, it’s easier to instruct a slightly older child. With my two-to-three year old, I was able to have a slightly more rational conversation with her about the potty; and, although we butted heads, I found this approach far more intuitive than trying to teach a one-year-old about it. Maybe this is just because of my personality type. Being ILI in socionics/INTJ in MBTI/LVEF in psychosophy, I have a “logical” way of thinking, and so it makes the most sense for me to solve problems and approach obstacles that way.

    So yeah. It’s easier, for me, to potty train at a slightly older age, around two and a half. Parenting is hard, as we all know. I do try to make it easier where I can. Don’t we all?

    I do worry that I’m a bad or lazy mom or human for trying to make my life easier this way. Am I doing my kids a disservice somehow? Would they be more confident, and get off to a more self-assured start in life, if I had them out of diapers by age two? I don’t know. Some might say yes. But on the other hand, I worry that the struggle of going through potty training at a very early age might disrupt the peace in our house and end up affecting them negatively. Keeping stress low and moods positive as much as possible is not a luxury, but a necessity, I’ve found, when parenting.

    There’s also the argument that all those disposable diapers are wasteful and terrible for the environment. Although, the older I get, the less certain I am that the environment is as big of a concern as we’re made to believe it is (I don’t know, though; I’m on the fence, still) – and if it is, I know for absolute certain that there’s nothing a little person like me can do about it, that no matter how many reusable grocery bags and cloth diapers I use, no matter how much I inconvenience myself, it won’t matter a whit as long as all these big corporations, the air travel industry and meat production industry – the ones who actually have it in their power to change things – continue to not change. So, I’m honestly not super swayed by the whole “waste” argument.

    And I haven’t read up a lot on the psychology of potty training earlier vs. later, but, I’m not aware of any compelling evidence that a child is happier or healthier if they potty train earlier. Am I wrong?

    I guess in the ’50s and earlier, they were just more used to doing more cleanup. Nowadays, we don’t have to worry that much about that. Certain things are just easier now, because of advancements like disposable diapers. We also have things like washers, dryers, refrigerators, microwaves, all of which make life easier now than it used to be. Is it a moral failing to utilize such things? I can’t imagine that it is.

    Like I said, I’m just trying to make our lives easier, because when life is going smoothly, I’m a more patient, happier, and successful mom. Maybe if I were a tougher and stronger type of individual, I’d do cloth diapers instead of disposables. Maybe if I were more resilient and patient in general, I’d potty train at one instead of two.

    Maybe these are moral failings. I like to think it’s more like they are imperfections, or even maybe just morally neutral characteristics, of mine that I’m aware of and doing my best to work with, to make sure my family is as happy and mentally healthy as possible. Being flexible and low-stress about the potty is what’s been working for us.

    But if you have a really strong argument against potty training at two-three, or in favor of doing it earlier, my inbox is open.

    .

    ETA October 2026: My final answer to this question can now be found in this post.

  • #8: “Honeysuckle” by Bar Fridman-Tell

    May 7th, 2026

    Caution! The book that I’m talking about contains explicit sexual content. I do not recommend this book if you are someone who struggles with lust. I do, however, recommend this book if you are a woman who’s sick of feeling trapped by the male gaze/ weary of the stupid instinctual desire to be desired by men.

    Normally, I do not read books with graphic content, as a rule. Why did I make an exception for Honeysuckle? Well, because the story is otherwise exactly the kind of story that I love: a weird, dark love story with lots of psychological suspense, ruminating, and, brooding; masterfully written, each sentence a delicious and intentional work of art. And bonus fairytale vibes. So, unfortunately, by the time the story got graphic, I was already committed. Well done, Bar Fridman-Tell.

    This is a brand new novel from a new novelist btw. I won’t spoil it for you, but a quick description: it’s inspired by Welsh mythology, specifically the blodeuwedd, a figure from the Mabinogion. A magical-realistic fairytale, Honeysuckle takes place in an alternate-universe Wales, where magic is taught at universities and exists alongside relatively modern technology such as trains and telephones (it’s never explicitly revealed what year it is, but the internet does not exist in this story, which is cool).

    The main character is a boy named Rory, whose older sister, a university student, on a whim one day builds for him a blodeuwedd (a living doll built of flora and animated by magic) as a playmate. The story tells of Rory’s relationship with this flower-construct, Daye (who btw looks just like a stunningly beautiful but somehow-otherwordly human girl), as he grows up; he’s eight when the book begins, and nineteen when it ends. As you can imagine, their relationship goes through some intense changes, which are further complicated by the fact that Daye needs to be surgically/magically re-fashioned out of fresh flora every time the season changes, making her dependent upon Rory for her very life — and by the fact that she is bound, by her nature, to obey him. (The honeysuckle woven into her is what binds her to him, hence the title.) The perspective switches back and forth between his POV and hers.

    The philosophical questions that it raises are highly relevant to today, imo, in this age of AI girlfriends and robot companions. But even more interesting, for me, than its questions about agency and intelligence and free will, was its study of romantic relationships in general.

    I think any girl who’s ever felt stuck in a relationship with a controlling, manipulative, immature guy will really empathize with Daye. Or if you’ve ever been in a relationship with someone who clearly didn’t really see you for who you were, and didn’t care to — someone who was just in love with one facet of you, or some imagined version of you, and only wanted you to play the role of that character for them.

    Yeah, you can tell that I didn’t like Rory, lol. In the beginning you sympathize with him. He’s just a lonely boy. Really, the elephant in the room this whole book is his parents’ absence, and his sister seems more rightfully upset at them, whereas Rory just accepts it — interesting; typical older/younger sibling stuff, I guess — but anyway, by the time he’s a teenager, you find it harder to sympathize. The author, an adult woman, has managed to write a very realistic teenage boy POV (as far as I can tell, anyway, never having been a teenage boy myself) and it’s frankly revolting: the tunnel-vision, the sex obsession, the “but I want it!” mentality, the sniveling self-pity. The way they equate lust with love and treat a girl as their “muse” and call it devotion. Ugh. Gross.

    Which is why I made the above recommendation of this book to women who are sick of feeling trapped by the male gaze, who are sick of the pressure to look sexy. This book really reminded me exactly what it is that we women are enslaved to — what it is that we’re programmed to be so desperate to appeal to. Just this gross, selfish, vile, slavering appetite of males to penetrate. To put their weenies in things. That’s all. That’s what drives everything. Ugh, reading this book made me want to buzz my hair off, get fat, and quit shaving. (I’m not actually going to do those things, I’m a married woman.) But it’s certainly liberating, to see it for what it is. It makes you want to build some wings and fly away from it all. And I don’t even identify as a “feminist.”

    My favorite moment in the book is when Hanna (the girl who briefly crushes on Rory before she knows him too well, but then starts to resent him after he ghosts her because she’s not Daye) calls Rory out for the sleazeball that he is in front of all their friends. Building his own girlfriend who’s unable to say no — ” a pet that he can fuck,” she says, basically, which is accurate. Even if Hanna’s jabs are fueled by booze and jealousy, she’s completely right.

    And the gross thing is when Rory’s guy friend (can’t remember his name) steps in to console him like “it’s ok bro! you’re good! You’re not doing anything wrong! You know best, after all!” — EWW. My goal in life (one of them) is to raise my sons into the kind of men who will take Hanna’s side in a conversation like this, rather than enabling creeps.

    I mean I guess to be fair, the way Rory sees it, he does have good intentions. He wants to make Daye independent so that they can have a real relationship. He knows it’s wrong to have a romantic relationship with someone who is unable to deny him — but, still, he’s not honest with himself, is he, and he realizes this towards the end. And he’s apparently not that put off by the notion of her inability to say no. We see him take advantage of it several times. (The licking of the lips thing — gag me.) But I mean, boys will be boys, I guess, won’t they. And he clearly never had any male role models or guidance of any kind. It’s pretty sad.

    What a great ending though. I think all the women in the audience were cheering at that part: a metaphor made so beautifully literal, a perfect modern fairytale conclusion. Everything came together exactly as it needed to. I don’t want to spoil it for you, but let me know, if you read it, what you thought.

  • Ultimate Baking Championship Season One Final: Mith Reacts

    May 6th, 2026

    CAUTION: CONTAINS SPOILERS for Ultimate Baking Championship!!

    Well, what did we think of the final, you guys?

    I’m a bit sad. Y’all know who I was rooting for. I kinda felt like the judges were too hard on him… “I expected more”?! “The details are off”?! Complaining about those little strings of chocolate on the pips of the dice? Come on now. I was a little peeved about that. Like did they even look at his roulette cake?! With that gleaming, realistic wood grain chocolate shell? And the way that it actually functioned as a playable game?! That thing was incredible.

    But as soon as I saw Molly making her little “VIP Passes,” I knew she had it in the bag. It just looked like something that the judges would simp for. And it was. Her whole design was so extra. It was so “cover of Food Network magazine.” As the kids would say: she did the most. She really took the theme and ran with it – those beautiful bonbons! The tempered chocolate decorations! Yes, she truly deserved to win.

    However, I also am just kind of generally disappointed with the way this show has gone. Do you agree? It should have been Juan, Clement, and either Robert or Christopher, in the final. As far as I can tell, those four were 100% the most skilled bakers on this show!

    It kind of seems like the judging was engineered to keep it surprising, to keep us on our toes. To keep the plot juicy. Not saying that Molly and Florencia aren’t deserving. They are both insanely talented geniuses. It’s just, I kind of get the sense that this show wasn’t actually about raw talent, so much as it was about “how do you perform under pressure as a TV star,” “how well do you represent the Food Network vision specifically.” Which is fair. Molly had the best story; from day one, they’ve been hyping her up as “the exciting one!” “the reckless one!” “the daredevil!” “the youngest contestant on the show!”, setting her up for an exciting victory. Not that she didn’t absolutely deserve the win tonight. She ticked all the boxes and then some! Major congratulations to her.

    And speaking of Florencia, she had some guts making a pineapple dessert in the finale when she’s allergic to pineapple and can’t even taste it! Apparently she makes that dessert at her shop at home regularly, so she was confident making it. I’m with Jacques on this one, though; spicy desserts do not interest me. Dessert is supposed to be pleasurable, not painful! But I especially appreciated Florencia tonight, because she was the only one who didn’t use booze in every single one of her desserts.

    Well, that’s it for this season. Has anyone heard if there’s going to be a Summer Baking Championship or not?! I need another baking competition show to watch ASAP! Please don’t tell me I have to wait until GBBO comes back in September, I will cry.

    HERE’S THE RECAP:

    Only One Challenge: Epic Presentation Showpiece: One main dessert and two smaller desserts. Themes chosen in order of last week’s leaderboard, so Clement got first dibs, then Molly. Six hours, points awarded out of 100 (25 points per judge)

    • Clement: “Las Vegas” gambling table: chocolate-cherry entremet “roulette” cake; strawberry-champagne playing cards, and chocolate shortbread-praline-bourbon mousse dice
    • Molly: “Rock ‘n Roll After Party” blacked-out entremet with stout cake and malted milk cremeux; Old Fashioned “cigar” petit gateaus; and “High Voltage” bonbons with yuzu and raspberry
    • Florencia: “Carnival” circus tent entremet with chocolate brownie, spicy pineapple mousse, and guava gelee; milk chocolate flexible ganache pretzels; “candied apple” mousse desserts with apple compote and green apple mousse

    Stats: Clement 79; Florencia 71; Molly 91

    ~*~ Ultimate Baking Champion: Molly ~*~

    A dessert is called “sexy”: 0 times. Season Total Sexy Desserts: 3

    Superlatives from the judges: 1, Duff telling Clement the strawberry champagne petit gateau was the “best thing he’d made.” Season Total Superlatives: 5

    Dead family members mentioned: 0. Season Total Dead Relatives: 4

    Duff’s gaping maw spotted: 1 time. Season Total Duff’s Gaping Maw: 16 times (an average of once per contestant!)

    The dessert that I would most have liked to eat: Florencia’s faux “candied apple,” which was fascinating, and also one of the only desserts tonight that didn’t contain alcohol

    Wins so far: Molly (2), Clement (2), Christopher (1), Casey (2), Juan (2)

←Previous Page
1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 21
Next Page→

Proudly powered by WordPress

Loading Comments...