Thursday, October 1, 2009

Do You Have Any Jewelry? Nope, Go Fish.

Many relationships are unequal. Sometimes the guy puts more into the relationship than the girl. Sometimes the girl puts more into the relationship than the guy. Sometimes both are just lazy asses and nothing gets put into anything. (Wait. That sounds bad. Just by the nature of the relationship, you'd think that something has to get put into something. I mean, that's just....oh, look. Never mind. Where was I? Oh, right! The woman whose former common-law husband put more into the relationship than she did so that when they broke up, there wasn't anything for her to take back and so she fried up and ate his goldfish instead. That's right.

Wait. now?

Correct. Welcome to Pasadena, Texas, where the women are scarce and the cows are afraid. (OK, so maybe that's not the official motto, but it was probably in the running when they were trying to decide!) Now, you know that when a sentence contains the term "former common-law husband/wife" that it's going to be a tale of class and dignity. Of course it is. No, actually, when you hear the term "former common-law" anything, it's usually going to be a tale of the sort of domestic altercation that takes place in mobile home parks and involves individuals doing what is known as the "whiskey tango". Although this little gem of a story didn't involve the particulars, I have every reason to believe that at least one of the participants has danced the whiskey tango on at least one other occasion.

What we have here is a couple who have broken up after an elongated period of time spent living together until it became sooooo long that the state of Texas just considered them to be married. (It's like Texas's way of just saying, "Fine! You don't have to get up off of your ass and go down and get married. We'll just do it for you. OK, we're done. Congratulations.") And after the break-up, the guy did what a lot of immature individuals in a break-up situation did and he took back some of the jewelry that he had given the woman.

Oh, come on, man! You're going to give her jewelry but you're not going to give her a wedding ring and make an honest woman out of her?! What is wrong with you sir? Are you not familiar with the term "a gift"? "A gift" doesn't mean that you're letting someone borrow something of yours. It means you gave it away to them! Then again, he's probably unfamiliar with the concept of something being "given away". It's not like anyone "gave away" the woman to be his bride or anything.

The woman, being fully aware of what a gift is, went over to his place to reclaim her gift (also known as "what is hers"). The man, being fully aware of what a jackass does, refused. That's when the woman decided that what's good for the goose is what's good for the gander (or is it that it "takes one to know one"?) and probably would have taken back jewelry that she gave him, only I guess that there wasn't any. So she did the most reasonable thing she could in that sort of an awkward situation and took his seven goldfish.

Wait. She what? Took his goldfish? Took his goldfish how? Took his goldfish why? Is she a mermaid? Were they their children?

The "how" is unclear, but I'm guessing that she just picked up the bowl and carefully ran away with it.I don't know how you don't stop a woman from running off with a bowl full of your goldfish, but he didn't. Instead he called the police and they went over to the woman's place in search of the abducted water creatures.

According to the Houston Chronicle, Officers went to the woman's home to see if they could retrieve the fish. A one Pasadena Police Department spokesman Vance Mitchell said that the woman said, " ‘They're in there,' and pointed to the kitchen." Finding a plate with four fried fish, officers asked where the others were. The woman answered, “I already ate those." Well, then!

Seriously, what do you say about that?! Offer her some tartar sauce? A lemon wedge perhaps? Apparently, if you're the Pasadena Police Department, you don't say much. The fish, it would seem, were bought by the couple during happier times. Thus the fish were considered to be community property. Huh. Most couples buy houses or cars together. These folks bought seven goldfish. Either that or did really well at seven carnival games. (I'll bet her ex-common law husband can flick a mean ping-pong ball into a cup of water on a rotating tray. She's probably not too bad herself!) Mitchell said, “There was nothing we could do. If he wants to pursue it, it's a civil case.”

Are you sure about that, Officer? Are you sure it's a civil case? Sounds like it might be a bit of a psychiatric case to me. Definitely a nut case!

If I were to bet on this one, I'd bet heavily that she didn't really eat the other three. It's not like it isn't easy to dispose of goldfish. They're a disposable animal to begin with. I mean, I know that there's all different kinds of crazy out there, but is there really the goldfish eating kind of crazy? There might be, but I'm guessing that this is just the goldfish stealing kind of crazy that's going on here.

Say, where's PETA when you need them?! Though even if they showed up in this instance, the woman could have thought that PETA stood for People Eating Tiny Animals and it still would have turned out the same. Guess that man knew what he was doing when he didn't marry her-marry her, eh? If only he could have warned the fish.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

No comments: