It Has Nothing To Do With Fate

Well.  I came across some disturbing poll results today.  The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy did a little polling and if their results are even a little bit indicative of what is going on out there, they really have their work cut out for them.  Before I get to the part that will have you wanting to jump out of a high window, I want to mention that while this organization may sound like they're all about the teenagers, it doesn't seem like that's all too accurate.  The people that they polled were grown-ass adults, ranging in age from 18-29.  And actually, that makes the results even more frightening. 

Participants in this survey were asked if they agreed with this statement:  “It doesn’t matter whether you use contraception or not; when it is your time to get pregnant, it will happen."  I would like to take this opportunity to point out that these questions were asked recently and this isn't archival data from the 1700s.  This was done in 2011 and again, with grown-ass adults.  That's why it scares the bejeezus out of me that four in ten actually agreed with that statement.  Wait.  Wait.  WAIT! 

Were these people not privy to the ol' very basic sex education classes that I sat through in high school?  Just the beginning part of that question "It doesn't matter whether you use contraception or not" makes me cringe.  Of course it matters!  That's why it exists!  It's contraception!  It's purpose it to be used and then to subsequently prevent pregnancy after you have all the sex!  But four out of ten morons believe that it's just fate?!  Doesn't matter what you do.  If it's going to happen, it's going to happen?!  Uhhh, I honestly don't know what to say about that.  Forty percent is a little too close to half for my liking.  Fate.  OK, then.  Moving on...

Here's another one:  "Thinking about your life right now, how important is it to you to avoid getting pregnant/getting someone pregnant?"  This was asked of unmarried young adults aged 18-29.  Again, grown-ass people.  72% said that it was very important.  That's good.  You know what's not good?  The other people who answered.  Only 12% said that it was "somewhat important".  How is that even a choice when you're talking about getting pregnant or not?  16% had some sort of a variation of it not being important to them.  The parameters of the survey do not outline whether or not it was a requirement that participants in the survey be sexually active, but I can't imagine why they would want people who are not having sex to be a part of this survey.  If you're not having sex, the problem of unplanned and unwanted pregnancy has nothing to do with you.  So if I am to assume that those 16% that don't give a crap are currently sexually active, then I'm a little more than just concerned that they don't give a crap.  Those are the kind of people that I want studied at great lengths. 

Explain this to me:   "Fully 94% of unmarried young adults 18-29 say they have all the information they need to avoid having or causing an unplanned pregnancy."  BUT "11% say they know “little or nothing” about condoms, 42% say they know “little or nothing” about birth control pills, and 73% say they know “little or nothing” about IUDs."  HOW are you between the ages of 18 and 29 and know "little or nothing" about condoms?!  I can kind of understand the IUD thing, but only because it's not talked about or mentioned as much as the other two.  But condoms?  What sort of grown-ass adult knows nothing about a condom?!  I wish that they broke that answer down by age.  Then again, maybe I don't.  If I found out that it was mostly 29-year olds that answered the question that way, I'd have to start walling off my walled off compound again.  I cannot be part of a society where people who are almost thirty know nothing about condoms.  I just can't! 

Then there's this:  19% of the people surveyed answered 'Yes' to this:  “There is so much negative stuff said about birth control that it makes me feel I’m better off/my partner is better off just not using it.”  Negative stuff?  More negative than having a child that you're not ready for (and apparently have no idea how it came to be either)?!  What exactly are they referring to that is so "negative"?  Because the way I look at it, it's all of the getting pregnant that's the negative part of having sex.  Regardless, even if there are "negative" things about birth control, it's disturbing to me that one in five of these softheads thinks that no birth control is the way to go instead.  Twenty percent.  That's about twenty percent too high for me.  What is wrong with you people?! 

So you have all of that stuff going on, but then you have questions like "I have all the information I need to avoid having/causing an unplanned pregnancy."  Somehow, 94% of these folks answered 'Yes' to that question.  But these are the same people who forty percent of them think that it's just fate if you get pregnant regardless of your contraceptive usage!  Clearly, they do NOT have all the information that they need.  No, the information that they have is a bit outdated.  Medieval even.  Perhaps someone should inform them that science has made great strides since the days of leaving everything up to fate. 

This is all not good.  It's all very bad, actually.  The fate question really threw me for a loop.  If you'd like to see this data so that you can cry over it yourself, it's available here.

Sphere: Related Content

That's NOT How You Got Pregnant

There was a headline over at The Huffington Post today that I just loved. And when I say "just loved" I mean "just made me want to stab my myself". The headline read "Man Loses iPod, Accidentally Impregnates Wife". Uh-huh. I'm going to need to know more about this, even though I'm guessing that it will increase the urge to stab.

The headline is referring to an iPhone Touch. But the guy in question (lots of questions), a one Doug Wilson, also has an iPhone 4 which he carries around in his hand all of the time. Literally. The guy doesn't put it in his pocket because, according to what he told those at the fledgling CNN, that "...would be too risky, he said, because he might miss a photo opportunity -- like that crazy "rat tail" hairdo he saw at a fast-food spot recently. ("I was like, 'I've GOT to take a picture of this!')" Um, yeah. OK. Wouldn't want to miss that! All rightee, then. Where does the pregnancy come in?

Well, somehow, this guy managed to find himself a wife at some point, a one probably lovely Ashlee. I'm guessing it was before he started carrying around his iPhone 4 with him whenever he is awake. Just a hunch. Anyway, he claims that it was Ashlee whom he "...accidentally impregnated one evening after forgetting to look at an iPod app that explains the details of the rhythm method." Wait a minute. What now?

Correct. He told CNN "That's how we got pregnant...because I lost my [iPod Touch]." If you'll excuse me for a moment, I need to find a wall upon which I'm going to bang my head for a few seconds.

OK, I'm back. Ow. Where was I? Oh, that's right. I was about to bellow "THAT'S NOT HOW YOUR WIFE GOT PREGNANT!" Your wife got pregnant because you had SEX. It's all of the SEX that gets one pregnant, NOT the app! I'm sure that it won't surprise you to learn that this man, who believes that his iPod has the power of spermatozoa, is from Arkansas. I kind of figured that something like that was in play when he got so excited about the guy with the rat tail hair.

The story doesn't conclude with Doug saying that he has now learned what the rhythm method entails or that he's invested heavily in a nice, large supply of condoms or, most importantly, that his iPod had NOTHING to do with his wife getting pregnant. Nope. None of those. It concludes with Doug asserting that "...the slip-up was yet another reminder that his phone should be turned on, in his hand, ready to accept alerts -- all the time." Good Lord. Really? It wasn't even your PHONE that had the damned app on it! (In other news, there's an app that details the rhythm method for you. According to iphoneapples.com "There are currently 180 apps available in the App Store that help women calculate their time of the month." Huh. So, 180 calendar apps are available. Good to know. Morons.)

While I am glad that they are thrilled about the impending birth of their little girl, I'm a bit afraid for that child. Granted, things were a little stacked against her in the first place, what with the Arkansas locale and all. But this whole "I got my wife knocked up because I couldn't find my iPod" is a bit troubling. I wonder if there's an app that will help one reduce the dependence upon apps? A bit ironic, sure. But in this case, probably warranted.

Sphere: Related Content

Keeping Abreast of a Sucky Situation

From the files of "I don't think so" and the office of "Hell No" we have a new toy from a Spanish toy company known as Berjuan. According to Fox News, the doll is called "Bebe Gloton, which translates as “gluttonous baby”. So, what? It's like a fat baby? With a valve in the back that you can blow into and the baby gets bigger until it's just a round ball with barely distinguishable appendages? Is that it?

Oh, but I only wish it was something that normal. No, see, Bebe Gloton "makes sucking noises as it 'feeds'." That's right. As it feeds. That shouldn't be a big deal, right? There are lots of dolls out there that you can pretend to feed. And while that statement is true, there are NOT a lot of dolls out there that you can pretend to feed with your BREASTS.

Wait. What now?

Correct. It is a breast feeding doll. It is NOT a doll that is aimed at women who are going to be breast feeding in the near future. It is NOT a doll that is aimed at women who are of child bearing age. It is NOT a doll that is aimed at WOMEN. It is a doll for girls. It is a doll for CHILDREN. I needed to make that part of this clear because when you read that it "...comes with a special halter top its young "mothers" wear as they pretend to breast-feed their "babies." The halter top has daisies that cover the little girls’ nipples and come undone just as easily as the flaps of a nursing bra would." JUST as easily?! Oh, good! I was worried that they might be confusing and complicated flaps which would make it difficult for a small child to simulate breast feeding with her gluttonous doll! What is going on??

The article over there at Fox News continues the long standing Fox News tradition of including information that is vaguely related to the subject matter and inane at best when it says, "...many health care providers promote the benefits of breast-feeding, parents around the world have criticized Berjuan, saying the idea of breast-feeding is too grown-up for young children -- and may even promote early pregnancy." Good Lord.

I think that we're all aware that there are those who are for breast feeding and there are those who are against breast feeding. I don't know what in the world that has to do with whether or not a doll such as this one is inappropriate or just plain freaking wrong!

The "idea of breast-feeding"? I don't think that we're talking about "an idea" here. It's the act of physically simulating a child feeding a child via the first child's breast! And maybe it does promote pregnancy, and maybe it doesn't promote pregnancy. Again, I do not see what that has to do with whether or not a toy which imitates mammary suckling is appropriate for a child's toy!

Even though there have been many criticisms oft his insane toy, Fox News managed to find a couple of fringe lunatics who support the thing. Take a one Rose Haluschak from El Paso, Texas, who said "I think that it’s great that people want to have a doll that promotes breast-feeding. Most dolls that are purchased come with a bottle. That is the norm in society, an artificial way to feed your baby.” (It's unfortunate that we don't get to learn more about Rose. I'd really like to know how many times she's been in prison, how many children she has had from how many different men (none of which she married), and what was the highest grade she completed in middle school.) I'm just going to take this opportunity to point that that it's not an "artificial way to feed your baby"; it's an artificial way to feed your artificial baby, you pinhead. Who thinks it's great to promote breast feeding to a small girl? Anyone besides Rose? God, I hope not.

Fox News also quoted a one Dr. Manny Alvarez, who is conveniently the managing health editor of FOXNews.com. He said "although he supports the idea of breast-feeding, he sees how his own daughter plays with dolls and wonders if Bebe Gloton might speed up maternal urges in the little girls who play it." For crying out loud, this has NOTHING To do with whether or not you support a woman breast feeding her baby or not! Why do people not get that? Why does everything have to be prefaced with a disclaimer to the effect of "Not that there's anything wrong with that!"?

He continued to make my question how he ever became a doctor (and to wonder if maybe he's just a chiropractor) when he said, "Pregnancy has to entail maturity and understanding." Again, NOT about pregnancy. What he said? True! Relevancy to this topic? None! But even still, it's like he couldn't stop himself. "...breast-feeding reduces childhood infections, strengthens maternal bonding and increases the child’s immune system." We know. We KNOW! What about the doll?? "But introducing breast-feeding to girls young enough to play with dolls seems inappropriate." FINALLY! Thank YOU! Why was that so difficult?!

But as inappropriate as I think this is, I'm wondering if I'm missing something about it that would make me think differently. I say that because over there across the pond at The Daily Mail they ran a story about the gluttonous baby and nearly ALL of the comments that people left were folks saying that they thought this was "fine" and even "great" in a few instances. That totally surprised me and made me wonder if I'm just not getting it. (Don't get me wrong, I still don't like it. I'm just wondering why folks are SO OK with it.)

Look, I'm not saying that this sort of a doll can "promote pregnancy". I'm not buying that. And I have nothing against breast feeding. (Believe me! Nothing!) It's just that a doll is a TOY and toys are to PLAY with. I don't know that every toy needs to exactly replicate how it is in real life. (Are we going to be able to look forward to "Knocked Up Barbie" and "Oral Copulation Ken"? Real life! REAL life!)

Dolls are more about playing than they are parenting. If the toy companies feel that kids need toys that will allow them to imitate adults in adult situations, what say they teach 'em how get a job? Or mow the lawn? And not just any lawn...MY lawn.

Below is a video showing just how this thing works. The first 28 seconds there is no sound, but don't worry! All the crying and the suckling DO start at 29 seconds! (Just thought I'd save you from spending 28 seconds adjusting your speakers before you realized that there wasn't anything wrong with them like some people did.)

Sphere: Related Content

OctoMom and the Mocktuplets

I've refrained, with great difficulty, until now to comment on Nadya Suleman, the southern California woman who gave birth to eight, yes eight, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight children on January 26. Normally (ah, the irony), my only comment would be "Are you kidding me? Eight? Did she have them in a big box under the stairs? That's a litter!" But this isn't the normal abnormality of giving birth to the entire cast of Eight is Enough. No, this is an abnormal abnormality. And those two things do not cancel each other out to make this one big ol' normal thing. Not at all. It's a freak show and a half run by a psychotic ringmaster.

For some unknown reason, the fertility clinic where a one Nadya Suleman (known by me as the OctoMom) had her IVF done must have mistaken her for a gumball machine or something and crammed at least eight embryos in there. And wouldn't you know it? Of all the "luck", eight of the embryos "stuck". And that is how she came to have fourteen children. Wait. Fourteen? What?

Correct. Fourteen. Oh, did I not mention that Ms. Suleman already had six children? I didn't? She did. Already had six! I guess then that I didn't tell you that those six were all conceived through IVF as well. They were. Hey, I'm not done yet! The ages of the six children are 7 through 2 with the 2 year olds being twins. I'll do the math so that you'll know it equates to one full-term pregnancy every year for about six years. And that equates to being pregnant for 54 months and being not pregnant for 18 months. That's a hell of a ratio there. For every one month that you are not pregnant, you get to spend three months being pregnant. On purpose!! But at least she didn't have to worry about her husband complaining or anything because she's not married. But that's OK because she lives with her parents. And even that's OK because she doesn't have a job. Annnnnddddd....now! Twist off! There ya go. Quick and painful, I know. I've been there.

Everyone wants to know what in the hell this woman was thinking and as luck (or greed) would have it, we're about to find out because she's granted an interview to Ann Curry (of all people for the first interview. Must have been the highest bidder. NBC! NBC!)) and she tells her what her rationale and thinking process was (other than broken!). And what you learn may shock you. It will not do anything good, I'll tell you that right now.

The OctoMom told Ann Curry that she had always wanted lots of kids. "That was always a dream of mine, to have a large family, a huge family, and I just longed for certain connections and attachments with another person that I really lacked, I believe, growing up." OK, so she's still at the stage where she's blaming her parents and her childhood for her issues that she has as an adult. Great. Real mature thinking there. Great. What else?

Well, she said that she "...tried for years to become pregnant before undergoing IVF." So, just sleeping around, hoping to get lucky, eh? (It's about as good of an idea as having fourteen kids!) Great morals also. Grand. Next!

Her mother said that the OctoMom "....always blamed me for having only her (she was an only child)... She was always upset that I didn't have more." Last time I checked, that was kind of the decision of the parent, not the child. Most children do want a sibling, but they tend to get over it when they're an adult. They don't tend to become professionally pregnant. So of course, the OctoMom said that her childhood was "pretty dysfunctional." Oh, well, having fourteen kids while you're living in your mother's house? The house of the same mother who you blame for your condition? Well, that's definitely going to put the "fun" back in "dysfunctional" now isn't it? The OctoMom also said, "I didn't feel as though, when I was a child, I had much control of my environment. I felt powerless." Hmm. I wonder if that's because you were a child! The child isn't supposed to have control of the environment because they're the child! Why do you think I ended up eating things like broccoli and peas when I was growing up? Because I was the child and I didn't have a choice! What is wrong with this woman?

OctoMom's mother, Angela Suleman, stated that she was opposed to her daughter's latest pregnancy. Really? Hey, guess what? I'M opposed to your daughter's latest pregnancy as well! I'll do you one better than that! I'm also opposed to your daughter's other six pregnancies!

The folks over there at the New York Times tell us that the OctoMom's publicist, a one Joann Killeen, has said that "Ms. Suleman had not determined how she would support her family, though they were weighing several media offers, including some for financial compensation." Well that's some real good family planning right there! Don't you think that perhaps that should have been worked out, oh, say before you decided to have more children? Here's a question: How are you supporting the SIX that you already have?? Oh, I'm sorry I asked.

According to an Associated Press article "...documents reveal that Suleman collected more than $165,000 in disability payments between 2002 and 2008 for an injury she said left her in near-constant pain and helped end her marriage." Huh. $27,500 per year. So, let's see. Oh, hey! How about that?! Her disability payments started the same time that her pregnancies did! What a coincidence! (Grrrr......) And if someone is in "near constant pain" without having another human being inside of them, don't you think that playing host to an alien being once a year for six years would result in "constant pain"? I'd think so, but then again, I'm not the boneheaded doctor who signed off her disability papers either. What a scam.

A scam? Oh, I must be some sort of a cynic to think that, right? Well, duh! Cynic or not, this woman ain't quite right. Disability? Spare me. You know, there are people out there who actually need disability and they're finding it difficult to get. I think this chick is looking for a free ride probably in part due to her shopping her story around to all of the major media outlets and wanting somewhere in the neighborhood of two million bucks. And I'll tell you this: I'm all for that. As long as she uses the money to pay for her hospital bill if it turns out that she doesn't have insurance.

OctoMom's mother has said that she expects people's opinions to change now that her daughter is going public. I think she's right. My opinion has changed since this new info has come out. I can't stand this woman even more now! Her mother also said, "She's a very likable person. She's basically normal except for this obsession she's always had with children." You can't throw "except for this obsession" in there and have that justify that she's normal other than that! It's the "that" that makes this not normal! That's like saying a serial killer (sorry for the brutal analogy, but it's all I've got right now) is "basically normal except for, you know, all of the killing." See? Not normal!

This country is in the middle of it's economic downfall and everyone and their dog is cutting back and this woman goes in reverse and turns her uterus into a clown car and starts shooting out babies when she doesn't have a job or a husband and she lives with her parents! You know who needs to pay for all of this? The fertility guy that continued time after time after time to plant embryos inside of this woman as if he were planting a garden! I want him or her to pay for this. And not figuratively. Literally. Cash money. Fork it over. (I'd also like to know how the OctoMom paid for the IVF, as it is expensive and the norm seems to be around $20K. Rumor has it that she once worked at a fertility clinic or a sperm bank. I can't even begin to look into that one just yet, lest my head explode.)

I'll be watching her on the Today Show on Monday. Who am I kidding? I'm not up that early. I'll catch it online or on Dateline on Tuesday. And I'm expecting my opinion of the OctoMom to be different. I don't expect it to be good-different, but I'm expecting it to be different. I know what won't be different and that's my opinion of this whole situation. It's just wrong.

Sphere: Related Content

Things NOT To Do When You're 70

Here's a disturbing headline for you: Indian Woman Gives Birth at Age 70. And with each and every disturbing headline comes a ridiculous sub-title! (Yours to keep as your free gift!) The subtitle reads: When is too old to have a baby? Hmmm. I'd guess that there are probably lots of answers to this question. And if that's the case, I'm going to say that at least one of the answers is seventy!! Actually, I'd like to amend that answer just a bit. I'm going to go with "seventy....duh!" Are you kidding me?!

I am not. It would seem that, according to the folks across the pond at The Telegraph, a one Rajo Devi, "...who married 50 years ago, gave birth to a baby girl on November 28, and is now thought to be the world's oldest new mother." Well, I should hope so! I'd hate to think that there is someone older than seventy out there who is currently in the middle of a human gestation period. Seventy? What is wrong with you? All of the physical mechanics of such an ordeal aside, why would any woman at seventy years old want to not just raise a child, but let it grow inside of her for nine months before expelling it out her uterus? Why? (I realize that I have permanently set up camp in the section reserved for folks who have no idea why anyone would want to do the whole childbirth thing ever. But that doesn't mean I'm not capable of recognizing reasons other than my thinking the whole situation is untoward. I can be appalled and neutral.)

Were you wondering how a 70-year old woman gets pregnant? (Ew!!) Well, it wasn't the good old fashioned way, unless you consider fertility treatments to be "the good old fashioned way". According to a one Dr. Anurag Bishnoi (Translation: Dr. Something Unpronounceable), "Rajo Devi and (her husband) Bala Ram approached the centre for treatment and the embryo transfer was done on April 19." "Embryo transfer?" Was it on a bus? A subway? Why was it transferring? This is where things started to not make complete sense. In the seniscal sort, of course. Having a child at age 70 doesn't make any sense, but there are other things as well that I question (shocking, I know).

The article states that, "It was not clear whose egg and sperm were used in the successful treatment." Wait! Hold on there, cowboy! Back up that rickshaw for a moment. It wasn't her egg and it wasn't his sperm? Well, that would make sense, considering eggs, just like those you buy in the grocery store, do have an expiration date at some point way before 70. Sperm has an expiration date as well, but the shelf life of sperm is longer than that of the egg and also you cannot buy sperm in the grocery store, thank God. But that would mean that she was, quite literally, just a host. Which leads to the question "WTF?"

See, if it is someone else's sperm and someone else's egg, you're getting a kid that is totally different than the one you and your spouse would have produced. In that case, there is absolutely NO need for you to tote that kid around inside of you for nine months. None. The hostess had said, "We longed for a child all these years and now we are very happy to have one in the twilight years of our life." Twilight Zone, perhaps. Did they not know of other options that are available for having a child without physically giving birth to what amounts to someone else's child? I mean, sure, it's her oven, but it's totally someone else's bun.

Actually, these folks seem to be confused on the whole concept altogether. This is an avenue that they pursued before deciding that childbirth at 70 was the way to go: "Devi's husband, aged 72, had also wed his wife's sister after 10 years of his first marriage did not result in children. His second wife also failed to become pregnant." So.....what now? He...he married his sister-in-law? While he was still married to his barren wife? I'm failing to see how that is going to make the situation better. It certainly can't do much for one's morale when your husband, whom you are presumedly still married to, is off attempting to impregnate your sister who (I'm assuming) is a willing participant is what seems to be the Indian version of the Jerry Springer Show. All we need now is a fistfight and a couple of chairs thrown across a stage and we're there!

"The couple said they were facing social stigma for being childless for the last 55 years." Were facing? As in "going to face"? Or "had been facing" up until this time? Because it's worded as if the whole "social stigma" hadn't kicked in yet, but they could see it coming. I can't imagine that would be the case unless there's, perhaps, a 56 year cut off for childless couples before they are subjected to stigmas socially? I don't know. Personally, I'm kind of thinking the guy just wanted to sleep with his sister-in-law.

Look, seventy is pretty old to be trying to do many physical activities. And while I don't advocate just sitting around and getting old, most physical activities that you can do when you are 70 do not put another human's well-being smack dab in the middle of your uterus. Unless there has been a drastic change in how children grow up and are raised, I'm pretty sure that they still need someone to raise them! Those are the kind of things that I think of. They are not the kind of things that these people think of, as evidenced by Ram's statement that he ".....wasn't worrying over who would look after the child if they died. The upbringing of the child is not a problem. We have a joint family as is common in rural Haryana." Well, that would explain all of the fornicating with the sister-in-law.

But he's missing the point. Sure, the 'joint family' can raise the child, it takes a village, blah, blah, blah. The fact is that it is difficult for almost everyone when a parent dies and it is almost always more difficult for a child when a parent dies. Just because you're being raised by your village doesn't mean that you are not going to wish that your parent had not died. And that doesn't happen just when you're a kid; it happens when you're an adult as well. (Look, I had 37 years with my Dad and it wasn't nearly enough. If I had only had, say, 7 years with my Dad, I think I would have felt cheated.) And the average life expectancy of people living in India is around 62.8 years, a figure which both of these folks have already exceeded by 8-10 years, so don't expect them to be around when the kid turns 5.

This is just selfish. That's all it is. People that have children or father children when there is no way that they are going to live to the point where the child is well into adulthood are just selfish. What is even the point of bringing a child into the world when you're not going to be around to raise it yourself? (And I think that about people who are young enough to be bearing children. If you're not going to raise it and take care of it and support it, why in the world did you have it?)

But there's something odd going on here. And not just because the chick is 70 and dude is 72. The picture doesn't look right. What's the deal with where the kid's hand is supposed to be? It's not there! And the guy has this look on his face like he's getting away with something.

Actually, a bunch of folks in this photo look like they're getting away with something. And what is with the woman's hand down there by the baby. That's not a hand! I'm not buying it. I don't know what's up with all of this, but if it comes out later on that they faked the whole thing up, you read it here first.

You know, there are many differences between the people I know who have children and this selfish couple in India who are far too concerned with their own "social stigma". It's not like I didn't know that my buddy is a good mom. But it's when I get to see her in action as the mother of her grown children (18 & 20? I think. Close enough.) that my level of respect for her in general just skyrockets. The time that she takes to think about them and to talk to them, the amount of effort that she puts into maintaining excellent relationships with them, and just seeing how obvious it is that she loves them unconditionally with a love that comes from the very core of her soul. It's absolutely incredible. That child-bearing, multiple-wife keeping, senior citizen couple over there in India could really stand to have a little sit down chat with my friend. I guarantee that they'd learn something of immeasurable value.

Sphere: Related Content

She's The Queen All Right

I don't know a lot about British royalty. I mean, I know there's a King and a Queen, two Knights, two Bishops, two Rooks and a bunch of pawns, but my basic royalty knowledge stop there pretty much. And while I can name some Queens ( Elizabeth I, Elizabeth II, Victoria, Freddie Mercury, etc.), I can't tell you much else. OK, the one has the purse, but anything else and I'm stumped. I could even pick the purse wielding one out of a lineup (of...other queens? I guess?), but there's no way I would know any other old, dead Queen just by looking at a picture. However, even though I would not get very far in the Who's Who of Deceased Monarchs - The Pictorial Edition, I would like to think that I have a pretty good idea of what a Queen would look like.

I was wrong. I don't. And I don't think that you do either. But let's find out, shall we? Behold! QUEEN Victoria!

Are you kidding me?? THAT is Queen Victoria? She's HUGE. And she looks pissed! That's just not my vision of a "queen", you know?

I ran across that photo in a story which ran the headline, "Blooming Enormous: Queen Victoria's 50-inch Waist Knickers Are Uncovered." Naturally, I thought, "What was covering them? A tent?" According to our friends over there across the pond at The Daily Mail on Sunday, the knickers (aka underwear) are being sold at an auction by Charles Hanson, who is a regular on BBC1's Bargain Hunt (which is like Antiques Roadshow but with cool accents and scones). They are rather large, handstitched and have a tiny gold crown embroidered on them, as well as the letters "VR" (which stand for Very Rotund). It was the size of the knickers that, apparently, sparked a bit of conversation and debate about the size of Queen Victoria.

Apparently, Vic was less than 5 feet tall and, judging from the size of the knickers (50 inches around at the waist), sported the girth of an elephant. And that might be a conservative estimate, as some records have her busting out at over 60 inches in the 1890s! (A sixty inch waist?! And she's only five feet tall? They would have had to paint a line around her circumference so you could tell if she was walking or rolling!) Apparently there are some who say that how large of a beast woman she was has been greatly exaggerated over the years. They blame in on some of the clothing having a drawstring which, when drawn, would cause the size to appear larger. Well, unless that drawstring could also double as the rope in a Tug-of-War game, I don't think that would be the case, really.

Not only are the royal undies up for bids, there's also a chemise and a nightgown. And you want to talk big? Holy Rotund Royalty, Batman! The chemise measures 66 inches across the royal breastline. I'll do the math for you and report that 66 inches equals 5 and a half feet around! You'd need a map to find your way back! But I guess that when you're the Queen in the 1800s and you have all of those little jester guys around just bringing you big turkey legs and hams all the time, I could see where one could pack on the pounds pretty quickly. I mean, really, without the Internet, what are you going to do in your castle all day long besides eat?

And the more that I learned about Vic, she seemed less like a Queen and more like she should have been living in a trailer park in South Florida. Again, according to the Daily Mail On Sunday:

• Queen Victoria was born in 1819 and was on the throne from 1837 to 1901, having become "plump" in 1845 at the age of 26. (Translation of plump: Got stuck in the castle.)
  
  
• In the 1880s, her petticoats were enlarged from a 38 inch waist to a 46 inch waist and some claim that her waist expanded to 50 inches or more. (Judging from the size of the underwear, I'd say that they were correct.)
  
  


• The 1899 Christmas dinner featured five courses which were followed by a buffet of "boar's head, beef, and game pies." (Game pie? Like what? Monopoly? Chutes and Ladders?)


• Apparently, she followed a low carb diet (sort of like the Atkins of the late 1800s) which involved eating large amounts of meat. (I can believe that. She seems to have definitely eaten large amounts of most things.)
  
  
• The Daily Mail on Sunday reports that she was "self conscious about being less than 5 feet tall and tried to control her public image." It doesn't say HOW, though. What's she going to do? Carry one of those fun house mirrors around with her all the time? Have a big sticker that says, "Objects in front of you are smaller than they appear"?
  
  
  
• Although she was a massive monarch, she married Prince Albert and they had NINE children. (And how many of them did she eat?)


• At some point, she uttered the phrase,"We are not amused" and it is thought by some that she was referring to being pregnant, as she seemed to despise it. (Yet she did it NINE times. Well, again, without the Internet, what are you going to do in your castle all the live long day?)


• She tended to give her used knickers as presents to her ladies in waiting and the ladies of the houses she was visiting. (Wait. What was that? EW!!!)
  

Here are a few things ol' Vic thought about marriage and pregnancy that she wrote in letters to one of her daughters, Alice. Alice had left the castle (or palace or golden house on the hill or whatever) to marry the guy who would end up being the Emperor of Germany.

• "...and therefore I was in for it at once -- and furious I was. What made me so miserable was -- to have the two first years of my married life utterly spoilt by this occupation! (The occupation of being pregnant.) I could enjoy nothing -- not travel about or go about..."



• "What you say of the pride of giving life to an immortal soul us very fine, dear, but...I think much more of our being like a cow or a dog at such moments."
  
  
• "I positively think those ladies who are always enceinte quite disgusting; it is more like a rabbit or guinea-pig than anything else and really it is not very nice."


• I have no adoration for very little babies. An ugly baby is a very nasty object -- and the prettiest is frightful when undressed." (Wow. So, you're getting the idea here, right? She hates sex with men (or at least, with her husband), hates being pregnant, is not real fond of babies. Hmmm....)
  
  
  
• Here are her thoughts about her son, Leopold, when he was six: "Leopold...is the ugliest.I think he is uglier than he ever. he is the ugliest and least pleasing of the whole family. He walks shockingly--and is dreadfully awkward--holds himself as badly as ever and his manners are despairing, as well as his speech--which is quite dreadful. It is so provoking as he learns so well and reads quite fluently; but his French is more like Chinese than anything else; poor child, he is really very unfortunate." (Leopold had problems later in life, didn't he?)


• "We poor creatures are born for man's pleasure and amusement, and destined to go through endless sufferings and trials..."

OK, that's enough. Could she sound any more resentful because she's gay? That has to be it. Gay, gay, gay. And since she couldn't be having a royal lesbian lover, she must have decided that she would just pack on the pounds and hope that it would keep King Horndog at bay. Well, there we go! The mysteries that are the massive Queen Victoria have been solved. She was, in the very sense of the word, a queen.

Victoria's secret, indeed.

God Save The Queen!

Sphere: Related Content