50 Shades of Grey was the absolute worst book I have ever read in my life. It's to the point that I'm embarrassed to admit that I read it, and it's not because it's a sex book. The only reason I finished it is because I paid money for it, and every time I stopped reading it, I got angry at the fact that I actually believed this would be a good book. So I'd pick it up again. Then I'd stop again because it was so annoying. But then I wondered if it would get better; if the book would redeem itself. So I'd pick it up again, then stop again because it was just so freaking ridiculous.

What made this book worse was that I found out after purchasing the book, that it was originally Twilight fan fiction and the main characters were Edward and Bella. When I heard that the book was Twilight for moms, I didn't really think that it was literally... Twilight for moms. The similarities are there - Anastasia Steele (oh god, yes her name is really Anastasia Steele) is clumsy and dumpy and has no idea that everyone is in love with her. Christian Grey is filthy rich and can do whatever he wants, and is totally possessive of "Ana". But when I bought this book I was expecting romance and love. I've read erotic fiction in the past so it really wasn't the sex that turned me off. What turned me off was Grey. In Twilight, yes Edward is possessive of Bella, but it was toned down enough that it was attractive. and you knew why he was possessive -he was a vampire and he wanted to protect her (Ok, I know I'm reaching but hey, I had FUN reading Twilight!) Not many girls will admit it, but every girl loves being possessed just a teeny tiny bit. We all want a man that acts like a man. Grey, however, is psycho. I mean absolutely crazy psycho. He's addicted to fetish sex and finds pleasure in "punishing" the girls in his "relationships", which of course is sealed by an actual contract (and there is actually a whole chapter dedicated to going through the ENTIRE contract). Whenever Ana talks back, he wants to beat her and a couple of times, he does. He spanks her butt raw and then throughout the book whenever she "rolls her eyes" or "talks back" to the almighty Grey, he threatens to put her across his knee. And then he gets AROUSED thinking about spanking her.

When Edward forced Bella to eat (a couple of times in the book), it was cute. When Christian Grey forced Ana to eat, he does so in like every single chapter and it was to the point that I was yelling out loud, "Jesus, get over it she's not hungry WTF!" What made it worse is that over the course of the book, Ana started to feel GUILTY that she didn't eat. She didn't want to be PUNISHED by Grey for not eating! This book was insulting, I was totally turned off by Grey and his severe psychological issues (The dominant/submissive thing is not the only thing wrong with this winner... he's got a number of serious problems - he was molested as a kid by his mother's friend, who he currently is still close with, he doesn't like to be touched in any way, and he's incapable of having a real relationship because everything has to be discussed via that ridiculous contract). By the end of the book, I think she actually does leave him because he beats her pretty badly (with her permission of course - she wanted to see how "bad" it could get).  But seeing as there are books 2 and 3 out there, she obviously runs back to him in full battered wife mode.

Before I found out this book was originally fan fiction, I had a feeling it was. I actually thought to myself about two chapters in, "wow, I feel like I'm reading amateur fan fiction!" The writing is terrible and honestly all this book contains is pages and pages of describing the life of dominant/submissive fetish sex by a dysfunctional guy. I'm sure there are people out there who are into that, but I was shocked this book did so well because there was nothing in there for someone like me (and what I thought was the majority of women), who wanted romance. There was none of it in this book. I found it hard to believe that people actually got aroused while reading this it. It was just disgusting. Honestly halfway through the book whenever Grey and Ana started "getting it on" I rolled my eyes and skimmed past it because it was so repetitive and annoying. And they're making this book into a movie? I can't imagine how they could without labeling it as porn, because there is barely any real content to the book. There's no real story or character development or anything much of substance other than porn sex. Seriously, I can already hear the cheesy soundtrack while a sleazy looking Grey slowly ties an obnoxiously big boobed and pigtailed Ana to the bed and blindfolds her. The pigtails are actually in the book. gag.

And until the day I die, I will cringe whenever I heard the words "Inner Goddess". *CRINGE* Seriously, if you are my friend and you ever talk to me while referring to your "Inner Goddess", I will no longer be your friend. You will be dead to me.

In all seriousness, it bothers me that this book one of the most talked about books lately and because it's getting so much publicity, even making the news for "knocking Hunger Games off the top of the best sellers list". Kids will hear about this book and want to read it, especially because it is being compared to Twilight. It really grosses me out that young kids will be influenced by this book and start thinking that this is what life and sex is really like for adults. DISGUSTING!

I'm currently reading a book called "Do Chocolate Lovers Have Sweeter Babies?". It's a book written by a scientist (I think) who wrote this book while she was pregnant with her first child. She wondered if any of the common, old fashioned myths held any truth to them scientifically and she decided to do a bit of research. I have to admit that although she loses me sometimes when she goes on and on about genes and hormones, for the most part the book is utterly fascinating! The author answers questions like:

Why do you have vivid dreams while pregnant?

Can you tell if you're having a boy or a girl?

Does excessive heartburn mean you will have a baby with a full head of hair?

She also goes into how environment or food will affect the baby, how different levels of stress can make or break your baby, and so many other fascinating things. Of course, these are all theories, and you have to take these theories with a grain of salt. However everything is backed up with extensive research and experiments. This book is not for the PETA lover though, because almost every chapter lists some sort of experiment that was done on lab rats and other animals.

Anyway, I'm not quite done with the book, but I read a chapter that kind of hit me a bit, and it's making me rethink my birthing plan for my next child. Basically the author discusses what happens in the first hour after birth. A test done on mice where baby pups were "separated from their mother shortly after birth let out cries of distress as if they were being tortured and their stress hormones rocketed. Over a long period of time, they became sickly and brain damaged." People may think this is cruel, but this is what happens to babies and their mom's every day in hospitals. Babies are placed on mom's chest for about a minute before they are taken away to be weighed, fingerprinted, and checked for health. Moms who have C-sections sometimes don't see their babies for almost 24 hours after birth!

The book states that in the first hour of birth, the "golden hour",  babies have a super-sensitive sense of smell and whatever odors they encounter, even unfamiliar ones, are imprinted in their memory. This window is extremely short however, and babies exposed to these same smells 12 hours after birth showed no memory or preference for them later. This is why babies tend to prefer their mothers or caregivers over others. 

This impression goes both ways - having the baby close to the mom will trigger ocytocin and prolactin, which make you produce milk. "If you spend the hour in an intimate embrace with your baby, you are 8 times more likely to breastfeed spontaneously than a mother who doesn't." Your milk will come in much faster, you may also get a better latch from your baby, and they tend to regain their birth weight more quickly.

The author goes on and on about the benefits of the "golden hour" (the window is literally only an hour!) with your newborn, and it's too long to summarize here.  But this chapter made me think about Avery's birth. I was in labor for 22 hours before having an emergency C-section. After birth, my body was literally worn down and I started to shake like crazy. I was also so out of it that I couldn't make sense of what was around me. Winsor held Avery and tried to show her to me, but it didn't even register that I had a baby, and my first thought was, "what the heck is that?" I never touched her, or held her, or barely even looked at her. I literally could not even turn my head to see her; I had my eyes closed the entire time and was trying to will my body to stop shaking. It took about 45 minutes to an hour for the doctors to stitch me back up, and during that entire time, Winsor held Avery while sitting next to me. Then they took her away to the NICU to monitor her while they placed me in a hospital room. I woke up hours later, finally feeling more like myself, but I wasn't allowed to see Avery until much, much later. Also, because she was in the NICU, They weren't allowed to bring her to me - I had to go to see her. Trust me - walking, even if it's just down the hall, right after you've had a 22 hour labor and C-Section is NOT FUN. The next 5 days in the hospital was a blur of tears, pain and frustration.

A year and a half later, Avery is 1000% Daddy's girl. I know that they say girls attach to daddy and boys attach to mommy, but damn, she is just ALL about dad. Seriously the only time she attaches to me is if Winsor is not around. Even then she sometimes wanders around the house looking for "baba, baba" (Avery talk for Ah-pah, which means daddy). Winsor usually gets her in the morning, but the few times when he had to go into work early and the task fell to me, she would cry at the sight of me and start whining for baba. Also, when Winsor is holding her, she will probably come to me about 1 out of every 10 times I ask her to.  In public, I usually let her be with her dad because I prefer to have my heart broken only at home where there are no witnesses. I'm totally exaggerating because she doesn't hate me of course, but it's very obvious who she prefers. Anyway, I wondered if the fact that Winsor held her during the golden hour had anything to do with her attachment to him? I wondered if the reason I didn't touch her at all until almost a day later prevented her from bonding to me? I always joke that Winsor can keep her and I'll just have another baby to have for my own, but all jokes aside, it's truly heartbreaking because it makes me feel less of a mother...

For my second birth, I was strongly advised to have another C-Section by two different doctors, because of my first birth and the fact that it would be just shy of two years (which is the minimum time needed to heal before having a VBAC - Vaginal birth after Csection). My biggest concern was the recovery time, and that continuing to have a C-Section would allow me to have only 3 babies, and I wanted to option to have four (not that i WILL, just saying I want the OPTION to calm down people lol). I was assured that I can have a 4th baby if I wanted to, and I was also assured that recovery would be much better since it's a scheduled C-Section, vs an emergency C-Section that was performed on a worn down body after 22 hours of labor. Also, apparently if something goes wrong during a VBAC, they would only have about 5 minutes to get me to an operating room before me or my baby would die. GULP. I'm secretly terrified of pushing a baby out, so hearing all these things assured me that having a C-section wouldn't be so bad. But after reading about the golden hour, and also a recent article claiming that C-Section babies have twice the chance of becoming obese, made me wonder if I should attempt to have a VBAC for baby 2. I want to be able to provide the best environment possible for baby #2 to feel secure and to be able to bond with me, even if it's just a theory (and I'm sure there are millions of babies attached to mommy without the golden hour bond), and I want to go with the birthing plan that will allow me to spend as much of this golden hour as possible cuddling with my newborn. If it means pushing out a watermelon out of the hole the size of a lemon and risk pooping all over my doctor, then so be it.

Most of you may know that my dad was sick for many years, over the course of more than 20, before finally passing away last year. He started out with Colon cancer at the age of 35, then Whipple cancer, then stage FOUR cancer in his neck and throat that required heavy duty chemo and radiation, then colon cancer again. During his third major surgery, the doctor noted a small ulcer on his stomach, but he chose to leave it alone because the priority at the time was to remove most of his colon, to prevent any future cancers from forming. A couple of years later during a routine scan, they noticed another growth on his stomach. They didn't know what it was, so they waited, and waited... and did more rounds of chemo because they thought it was cancer, but the growth didn't go away. Finally because my dad's pain was so severe, they had no choice to open him back up. It turned out that the ulcer that the doctor chose to leave alone during his last surgery, had eaten away most of his stomach and part of his other organs. He was in the hospital for months, unable to eat anything and sustaining solely on IV and pain medication (they couldn't even get a feeding tube in him... and they tried twice), before his final surgery to attempt to fix the damage. He never recovered and finally passed away.

Back several years ago, way before his throat cancer, my dad had a golf ball sized growth on the side of his neck. I begged him to get it removed since he was such high risk for cancer, but his primary care physician assured him that it was a benign cyst, and nothing to worry about. It ended up getting so big that it became bothersome, so he finally had it surgically removed. They tested the cyst, and it turned out that it WAS cancer, a very rare form of cancer, that is usually found on people with a gene anomaly. He immediately got a test done to check for this gene anomaly, and the test turned out positive.

I don't know much about it, but apparently, those with this gene anomaly are at a much higher risk for cancer of the digestive system, particularly stomach, intestine, or colon cancer at a particularly young age. It's also hereditary and there is a 50% chance that offspring will also have this gene anomaly. I only know because my dad's doctor called me shortly after my dad's death, and asked my brother and I to come in for a test. I ran it by my brother but of course he was terrified and reluctant. My mom however forbid us to take the test. She said it's better not to know, and that she wouldn't be able to handle the results. She also told us that the only reason this doctor wanted us to test at all is for his research, rather than because he cared about our well being (the hospital he works at is a university research hospital). I on the other hand felt that it was better TO know. It wouldn't prevent the cancers of course, but if I turned out positive, I would have to get a screening every two years, where there is a better chance of catching anything very early on.

Anyway, this all happened around a year ago. We never got around to taking the test and although it would be on my mind sometimes, I never really brought it up to my brother again. Then a few weeks ago, I was at an OBGYN appointment. Since I recently moved back to NJ, this was my first time seeing her. She asked me stuff about my medical history, and when I mentioned my dad's medical history of colon cancer, she strongly advised that I be tested for Lynch Syndrome. A quick internet search told me that Lynch syndrome is a genetic condition that predisposes people to colon cancer and other cancers as well. While most people have about a six percent chance of developing colon cancer at some point in their lives, people with Lynch syndrome have about an 80 percent chance. Women with Lynch syndrome also have about a 10 percent chance of developing ovarian cancer and a 50 percent chance of developing uterine cancer (which is why my obgyn is the one mentioning the test). Lynch syndrome is caused by mutations in specific genes, so I'm pretty sure that this is the same test that my dad's doctor wanted me to take, and most likely the cause for so many of my dad's illnesses. My doctor told me that she will set me up for a test on my next visit, and sent me on my way.

I didn't think anything of it at the time, and just thought, hey I guess it's better to know. but I just saw on my calendar today that my appointment is coming up! I had a mini meltdown and wondered if I wanted to take the test at all. I knew that if I took it on my own, my brother will NEVER go on his own because he's just like my mom - it's better not to know. I wondered if I should tell my mom I was going to take the test? What would I do if I was positive? I'm approaching 34 years old, (Holy cow, I just realized I AM 34 years old!) which is only a year from when my dad started getting sick. I couldn't help but wonder if I was fated to go through the same things my dad did.

If you had the choice to know whether or not you had a higher percentage of dying early or inheriting a severe illness, would you take it? There's no guarantee that you will get the illness of course, and you will only know that you "may" get sick. Is it better not to know at all, or would you want to know? For something like this, "being healthy" and "eating right" really doesn't have much to do with it. My dad was pretty healthy, constantly worked out, and there was no sport he couldn't master. He got sick because of a genetic disorder that was passed down to him, and in that sense, he was just unlucky. But would anything have changed if he knew at age 35 that he had Lynch Syndrome?

After catching up on Walking Dead, Winsor and I had a pretty big discussion on the outcome of the last episode.

**Spoiler Alert! Don't read if you haven't watched yet!**

A couple of episodes ago, the group butt heads with another human party, and barely escaped. One guy, who was shooting at them, tried to jump off the roof of a building and got his leg caught in a gate. It didn't look as though he'd make it, so his friends left him behind. Instead of leaving him as well, Rick, Glenn, and Hershel decide to free the boy and take him with them, only to bandage him up and let him go in the middle of nowhere to die. When that didn't work out, they brought him back to the farm and tortured him for information about his group. The prisoner's group consisted mostly of men who are known to pillage and rape, and it was obvious that him and his gang were a threat, so it was decided that they were going to execute him to prevent him from escaping and bringing his gang back to the farm.

During the episode, Dale, the old man who has been the voice of reason on the show, tries to convince everyone that killing this man was not the answer. In the end they do decide to go through with the execution, but Rick backs out last minute because his son showed up and wanted to watch.

I was annoyed because I felt they wasted two episodes on this when I felt they should have just left the guy for dead to begin with. He was an enemy and he was badly injured. So why save him, only to dump him again to be eaten by zombies anyway? Dale's argument for saving the boys life was that if you choose to execute him, you should be present during the execution, instead of pretending it never happened. How is that different from dropping him off in the middle of nowhere and pretending he'll make it on his own? I think that is the same as execution. I would rather be shot in the head, than to be left alone to fend for myself with no weapons or shelter.

Winsor felt that the group would not be able to survive with such a small number, and an addition to the group who is a man would have brought value. Because his friends left him behind, there was no reason for him to want to go back to them. He was in a much better situation at the farm with Rick and his group, and the only reason he was with that group in the first place is because he was trying to survive. He felt that the group has become "us vs them" in every aspect, and that it was just spiraling out of control.

While I do agree with everything he said, I think that it went way too far to save the situation. They tortured him, talked about killing him within his earshot, and treated him terribly from the start. At this point, he was never going to trust them, and they were never going to trust him. So based on what has happened in the episode, there was nothing left to do but kill him. When Dale was trying to save him, I found myself getting annoyed because honestly, I felt that at that point there was just no other option! Winsor agreed, but did feel that they didn't have the right to execute a human being in a world where human life is so rare and precious.

At the end of the episode, Dale is killed by a Zombie (which also annoyed me, because it was the fault of Rick's son aka little shit), and it marked the death of the only conscience the group had. What will happen now when there is nobody to remind them how to be civilized? Dale bugged me back when he was going a little too far to prevent Andrea from committing suicide, and then by hiding the group's guns from Shane and endangering everyone else's lives in the process. But now that he's gone, I'm really sad about it because sometimes you need that guy nagging you all the time about doing the right thing. Especially for someone like me, who was shouting at the screen to freaking kill the guy and be done with it already. Despite everything, Dale was a good person and didn't deserve to die that way.

I think I detach myself from TV shows and forget what it could be like in real life. Walking dead isn't real, so it's obvious to go the easy route and murder a young man to save the rest of the group because it's the logical thing to do. I wonder what I would feel if I were actually living it? Would I detach myself from the situation and prevent myself from feeling anything? I've always thought that I would be capable of killing someone if I had to, in self defense, or if the person was truly evil and deserved to die. Anyone can argue though, who am I to say who deserves to live or die? I guess that was the point of the episode.

What would you do if you were in a zombie apocalypse, and you had to make a decision to kill another human being to protect the rest of the group and the only shelter you had?

Everyone has been asking me to post a picture of my brow and liner tattoos. I had a few pics that I took right after with my phone but then lost my phone, and therefore lost the pictures. Since then I've been too lazy to take another one and transfer to the computer to post. But then a friend asked me for Sophia's info and begged for a pic, so I snapped one quickly and texted it over to her. So now I'm testing out this Xanga app for real (loving the app BTW!!!!) and using it to post a pic from my phone. Here's a shot of my tattoos! I'm not wearing any makeup at all so please excuse my sallow face and the dark circles under my eyes. Unfortunately there's no tattoo that will help my complexion. Hahaha