Jibralta

This is not a good sign, in my opinion. There is usually some truth in humor. She may have a very bitter attitude towards romantic relationships and sex.

((((((((((((HUG)))))))))))))

If you want to date him, I strongly suggest you get a different financial advisor.

Yes. It is individual and unique to each relationship. I see it as a gesture of trust on my part: My personal stuff is an open book to him. If my boyfriend wanted to read my journals, he's allowed (I won't apologize if he gets upset though lol). When I first joined this site years ago, I accidentally left the webpage open on our shared computer. When he saw it, he called me at work and asked, "Why are you posting on a site called 'enotalone?'" I totally understood how that looked bad and why he was upset. I explained what I was posting and why. I sent him my login info, so that he could see for himself. He didn't use it. But I wouldn't have cared if he did. If something upsets him, I want to know. I want to talk it out or at least try. When we first started dating, he gave me the key to his apartment and said, "Come over any time you want. Surprise me." Granted, we knew each other for 20 years before we started dating, but it's that same theme: "I'm an open book. Go ahead and read me." Why are we both like this? I have no idea. Maybe it's because we're both the product of divorce? Maybe because we've had the same mutual friends for so long that it feels natural to trust each other? We both grew up in the same town--maybe it's in the water lol.

I don't think I would be be offended. But even if I was, I'd want to keep the lines of communication open. If there's an issue that needs to be addressed, I want to be able to listen to what he says and talk about it. He feels the same way as I do about this.

I don't see any problem with it. If he suddenly needed some reassurance, he can have at it. And vice versa. I trust him not to utilize my 'private' information in a harmful way. Corporations and government... that's another matter lol--they have no right to go through my stuff. But my trusted and esteemed partner: yes, of course. Interestingly, my mom has a totally different take, having been betrayed by various men in her life. After more than 15 years together, she still does not give my stepfather access to her phone or computer--and he has never betrayed her trust as far as I am aware. I don't think he's ever asked her for her passwords or to go through her phone; she just makes this point of being 'strong' about it. I think it's a silly overcompensation on my mom's part--really a failure to properly recognize and address the boundary issues that got her into her past troubles in the first place. But I think my stepfather understands that and respects it, which is good.

Why not? Diversity is great. (Both clips end up highlighting the differences in accents)

You're human. You're allowed to be human.

Well, try to take it easy on yourself. It sounds like you're putting a lot of pressure on yourself, and beating yourself up a bit. I know, easier said than done.

I've experienced intrusive thoughts triggered by being in a relationship. It happened to me in every relationship except for the one I'm in now. I suspect it has to do with attachment and abandonment. I don't know the cure, except to have a very stable, loving, and dependable partner. That really isn't a cure, I know. But it's a big help.

That is one incredible run-on sentence. It's almost impressive. Answer to your question: because he's an asshle. If you have friends who are willing to believe his lies, cut them loose. They aren't friends. Let him clear the trash out of your life for you. Go forward and set your sights on better things. Leave him and the rest of this garbage in your past.

It's weird because it's manipulative. Try communicating with people directly.

Did you ever see the program, The Adventure of English? It's quite old now. You can find the episodes on YouTube. The series discusses the linguistic influences of the various groups that invaded England and provides examples. I thought it was fascinating, especially since I'm American and have limited exposure to the various accents in Great Britain.

I don't know what the proportions were, but there was slavery in both the North and the South. Moreso in the South, where the massive plantations were. Racism made the African slave trade worse than 'normal' slavery. The racism was exacerbated by Colonial laws that made it an illegal punishable offense for white indentured servants to intermingle with black slaves. This had started to happen in Virginia and in the Carolinas, and the wealthy landowners feared an uprising. Hence the laws. I suspect these laws had a devastating impact. Great Britain did eventually condemn slavery, but it participated in the slave trade for 150 years. And slavery was still permitted in the Colonies for at least another 30 years after the British withdrew from the slave trade. Furthermore, while the British government distanced itself from the issue, British industry continued to support American slavery right up until the Civil War put an end to the matter once and for all. By 1860, almost 90% of British cotton textile was produced by slave labor from the American South. When the Civil War broke out, the Union blockaded the Confederate seaports, making it impossible for plantation owners to ship their crop to Europe. British cotton mills were the primary consumer of the slave-grown cotton in the South, and the Union blockade destroyed the Southern cotton economy.

I agree completely. You can't learn anything if you edit and alter facts. The inherent racism in Gone With the Wind is a lesson in and of itself. Margaret Mitchell highlights a number of societal and character flaws in this book with impressive skill--flaws that are still controversial to this day. But she never really questions racism. Racism is woven into the very fabric of the book, as if it is an inalienable truth. That can make you angry. But if anger prevents you from looking and learning and understanding, you'll never understand how these things come to be, and you'll be powerless to stop them from happening in the future.

When the book opens, Scarlett is 16. She is married that year and a mother and a widow by 17. At the end of the book, I believe she is 28, but I'm not sure. She is certainly not older than that, though. I've only seen the movie once, a long time ago, after I first read the book. I never had any patience for the movie; it was too noisy and garish for my tastes, especially as a child. When I did finally watch it, I believe I was in my 20s. I was going to watch it again a couple years ago--Arnold had read the book and wanted to watch the movie. But he hated it as soon as the opening credits started and made me turn it off lol. I do want to watch it again, though. I can get past all that gaudiness for the sake of academia. I want to reexamine the differences between the movie and the book. My fading memory tells me that a lot is lost in the movie: the subtle, humorous criticisms, the character nuances. Movies always oversimplify and alter things for the sake of production, and important themes are invariably lost. I think the movie has supplanted the book in the collective psyche, and I doubt that is good.

I'm sorry to hear that you're struggling. I went through something similar in college. I didn't change countries and I'm not black. But I wasn't really accepted. In retrospect, I think I was too aggressive and outspoken--which is normal for where I grew up. And I was so used to diversity that I didn't really comprehend that other people weren't used to it. I lacked sensitivity. I'm not saying these are the reasons why you are finding yourself an outcast. I'm just saying that I know what it's like, and I can relate. It was a very difficult period in my life, and it lasted the entire time I was in college! Eventually, I did find friends there, but they weren't really good friends like the ones I had back home. When I did finally return home, I was disoriented and unsure of myself, and surprised that people seemed to know me better than I knew myself!

Stop doing that.

Well, I'd take his advice: take a look at yourself. I'm not saying it's all your fault, but why have you let someone treat you like this for seven years? Have some dignity!!

She was very beautiful! Thinner in this screen test than I think she was in the movie. You don't realize how small she is here because she's so statuesque. She looks larger than life, like a monument. Do you know she was English? I don't know much about Vivien Leigh, but I do know that later in life she played the role of Blanche in A Street Car Named Desire. I don't know much about that story, either. But Wikipedia describes Blanche as "deeply insecure, an aging Southern belle who lives in a state of perpetual panic about her fading beauty and concerns about how others perceive her looks." I think that a lot of people (with a gleeful degree of schadenfreude) may have seen Blanche as a continuation of Scarlett O'Hara's story. I remember the generally negative opinion of Scarlett that people had when I was growing up, and I was surprised to find out how much I liked Scarlett and related to her. I am sure that Scarlett is still a character that people love to hate. But I just love her. It's an interesting double standard because she and Rhett are essentially the same character. Rhett is generally thought of as a hero, but for some reason people overlook the fact that Scarlett is the unflagging sole provider for not just herself and her children, but many other families as well. Rhett kind of supports a kid in Louisiana somewhere that's probably his anyway. I think Scarlett's humanity is easily overlooked because she is so effortlessly powerful. I mean, it's shocking.

The character development in Gone With the Wind is one of the best parts of the book, in my opinion. Not just Scarlett's, but Rhett Butler's as well. The last time I read the book, I realized that Scarlett was just a kid for most of it, making kid decisions with kid motivations and the typical narrow, experienceless, kid point of view. At the very end of the book, maturity hits. I relate to Scarlett's journey A LOT, and I love how Margaret Mitchell closes the story right as Scarlett's next chapter is about to open. What is she going to do? Well, she's going to do something, and asses are going to get kicked in the process. Another thing the book does really well is vividly illustrate the chivalry and decadence of the antebellum Southern culture while subtly and humorously highlighting the contradiction and hypocrisy within. It makes no such commentary on racism, unfortunately. It is a racist book, written in a much more racist time than we now live in. For that reason, it may be cast aside and ignored or even banned or burned. I hope that isn't the case for too long, because I think this book still has a lot to offer.

I never liked the movie much, but the BOOK--man, what a great story.

The situation is she's a messy person. She wants you, she wants her boyfriend, she wants you, she wants whatever she wants and she isn't too concerned about how it affects people who may actually care for her. THAT is not a good relationship partner. Your best move is to cut her off.

I agree with Wiseman. You were smart for following your gut and drawing the story out of him some more. Being a great 'bestie' doesn't automatically make this guy a good relationship partner. I'd dial it back to friendship if I were you. If that isn't an option, I'd just call it quits altogether.

I think it's best to make a clean break at this point. You both acted poorly. Learn from this, and do better next time!