Brushing Up Against Rental Fraud

The phrase, "Too good to be true," was invented for a reason. Seriously. With my daughter and I looking for a new apartment, and not having a lot of time left to do it in unless we talk our current landlord into letting us stay another month, we're looking at every advertisement online and culling out anything that seems decent. I'm even going into strange rental sections on Kijiji, like "Others," just for the hell of it.

It was there we found the apartment of our dreams. Or so one might think. However, it could easily have turned into a nightmare if I were of a less suspicious bent. Believe me when I tell you there are con-artists everywhere, and it's our disbelief that anything so unusual could happen to us that aids them in their victimization.

Imagine this, if you will:

2 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms, all appliances, all furniture, all utilities included. [Insert stunning description here along with 5 equally stunning photographs.] $819.00 per month.

Contact is made via e-mail, and more photos are sent. They're not looking to make a profit, or turn it into a business, etc. They just want the apartment rented out to someone responsible so it's not sitting there empty. They will buy a plane ticket to come show you the place, but they need you to do them a favour and place an ad for their spouse's old apartment - apparently they are unable to do so because they are currently overseas and the classified ad website will not allow people overseas to place ads on the Canadian site. They dangle the carrot of removing the ad so that you'll be the only prospective tenant.

Being of a suspicious and cynical nature, I took a good look at the ad before I even contacted them the first time. I decided I might as well check it out. If it was a scam, no harm done. Being of that suspicious and cynical nature, I did not send them anything other than our names and phone number, and I wasn't about to send anyone any money, so I wasn't concerned.

The first response was a long e-mail, and asked us to let them know if we're interested. I said I was, and we wanted to view the place. I asked them to send the application, because I figured we could fill it out and give it to them when we saw the apartment. (I wasn't sending them anything with personal details by e-mail.) The 'application' was a few questions in their reply e-mail, along with a request for a picture (that was not mandatory). I replied vaguely, saying my daughter has a full-time job in a factory and I'm on disability. When I came to the question about references I said I would provide references when we viewed the place. With my name and references they would be able to obtain my current address, and it's more information than I want a stranger to have through these means.

No, I didn't send a picture. I couldn't see any valid reason why a prospective landlord would need a picture, and believe me when I say that sent up big red flags with sirens blaring and strobes flashing. My first thought was that the place might be real, but have hidden cameras for underground porn videos of the peeping Tom variety. So I figured if we viewed the place I'd be looking very carefully at mirror placement, and behind anything mounted on the walls.

The next e-mail was when they said they're more than happy to book a flight back here to show us the apartment, but they needed our help in placing an ad for his wife's old place so they can take care of that at the same time. Yeah...right. Just like the people who have fifteen million dollars waiting to be taken out of a bank account, but they need you to do it for them, and it doesn't look like they're asking much - and certainly nothing that will cost you anything - but it generally results in a person being stripped of their life savings.

My response was polite, because it's just barely possible the apartment is real. However, I made it clear that it was their responsibility to be available for viewings, and if they found it inconvenient to do so, they could hire a property management firm. They have the added benefit of being licensed, and can run credit checks for prospective tenants as well. Or they could book a whole bunch of viewings all at once. This person said in the last e-mail that 'he' had come up here once before and the person hadn't shown up - gee, people who break promises? Who'da thunkit? This is an old trick used by scammers who are trying to reassure someone by showing they know how that feels, and implies that they, themselves, would never do such a thing.

I also made it clear that, whatever they wrote in an e-mail, we did not know them. We were not going to place an ad for them which might result either in us being victimized or being accused of collaboration in a scheme meant to defraud others. I apologized, just in case they were on the level, but I very much doubt that they were.

After sending that last e-mail I started to do some research. I found an article in the Winnipeg Free Press newspaper from 2009. It details how a woman lost $1200 in almost identical circumstances. In her case the gentleman had relocated from Winnipeg to New Jersey, but was currently in London. She sent $800 for a month's rent, and $400 for a damage deposit. When she requested keys he demanded another $1200 before he was apparently willing to send them. Once the situation was investigated it was discovered that there was no one in the building by that name, and it was managed by a property management firm with no ties to this person. The police could do nothing. After all, she had sent her money out of the country.

Kijiji warns on every page that a person should never give money to someone they haven't met in person. Their classified ads are meant for person-to-person sales, whether it's an apartment or a bicycle. Near-identical ads for 'dream' apartments have appeared in major cities all over Canada, and I don't doubt that they appear in most other countries as well.

People want to believe they've found a place to live. It hits in a vulnerable area, especially during a time when it's difficult to find an apartment. In the last two and a half years since we moved into this apartment, rent prices have gone up considerably, and apartments are taken almost as soon as the ads appear. Then if you find yourself in a situation where you might not have a place to live in a couple of weeks, you really want to believe that this wonderful place is sitting there just for you. An answer to a prayer, basically. The thought of being homeless scares the crap out of pretty much anyone, and who can blame them?

Still, there are a few hard and fast rules out there if you don't want to be a victim. The biggest one is that you should never trust anyone without reason. I mean, geez people! Why would you send money to someone outside the country for a place you've never even been in? An apartment has to be viewed in person. I'm sorry, but that's the reality. Even real ads will often show an apartment that isn't the one that's available. Management companies have show suites. Even when you go to view an apartment, they often show one that has the same floor plan, but isn't the one you'll be renting. That's pretty standard for big buildings, so then you have to do a walk-through of your actual apartment to list any damage that's already there.

Trust is earned. It takes time to develop. Not everyone is trustworthy. In fact, a very large portion of the population cannot be trusted. I personally believe no one can be trusted for everything. Every human has flaws, and there are certain things each person can't be trusted with. It all depends on their personality type. Some can't be trusted to pay their bills exactly on time, even if they do eventually pay them. Some people don't do things they're supposed to do by the time they say they'll do them. Some people show up late. Everyone has flaws, and those are the things that can't be trusted in that person, but they may be completely trustworthy in every other way. Some people you could loan a million dollars to, and they would pay back every penny with interest, but you know they're always going to blab secrets.

It takes time to know the flaws of a person, and thereby know which things can be trusted about them, and which things can't. Trusting anyone without knowing them is ridiculous. The woman in the above-mentioned article said she trusted the person she sent money to because he claimed to be a Christian. Really? Wow. I can claim to be Jesus Christ, but that doesn't make it true. In fact, I would be less likely to trust someone because they're religious, than I would if they said they were atheists. I do not like organized religions, so I have a huge bias there.

Though I might vaguely feel sorry for anyone who has been ripped off, there's a larger part of me that thinks, "What the hell were you thinking?" Then my sympathy tends to dry up. When it's someone of diminished capacity who is scammed, I feel terrible for them, but with the general population I feel mostly disgusted that they're not using their critical thinking skills. Of course, lack of critical thinking is something that drives me crazy to begin with. It's the reason the vast majority of people believe what's reported on the news. In the US they're not obligated to tell the truth, yet people still believe what they're saying. In Canada that's against the CRTC regulations, and results in fines and other penalties, but that does not mean they don't unknowingly report a falsehood - because it's quite possible those who wrote the stories in the first place weren't using their critical thinking skills and didn't thoroughly investigate their sources. They might report the truth as they know it, but it's quite likely not the whole story.

My basic point is exactly what I said in my very first sentence. Too good to be true is always too good to be true. Follow your instincts, use your brain, question everything, and don't give people money for anything they're not handing to you right then and there. Even when you're doing business with people you know (perhaps especially when you know them), you don't pay them until they've given you what you're paying for - whether it's a service or an item. I offer website design and maintenance as a service, but I certainly don't expect anyone to pay me for something I haven't done yet. Some companies may require a deposit, but it's not necessary. Not when you can build the site and not post it, but still show your client what it will look like once it's published, and there are other ways web designers can protect themselves if their clients don't pay.

In all business dealings (and renting an apartment is a contract just like any other) both parties should be able to provide proof that they're on the level. An apartment is visible proof. If you don't see the place with your own eyes, there's a good possibility it doesn't exist. On the landlord's end of things, they're well within their rights to take a look at your identification and do a credit and reference check. Don't be afraid to offend someone. Honest people will understand and respect skepticism if you're polite about it. It's only the dishonest ones who will react defensively and get angry - most likely because they see their scam falling apart and realize the money they foresaw is slipping through their fingers.

In our case I would expect that this supposed landlord would respect the fact that I'm mature and responsible enough to be careful with regard to my personal information and my money. If I just gave out money to everyone, it would show an obvious lack or responsibility and maturity. Sadly, there will be people desperate enough and gullible enough, who so badly want to believe their dreams have come true, that they will fork over most of their savings to secure a non-existent apartment. I'm not immune to those feelings myself, and I hoped we weren't being scammed. I was polite in my last e-mail because a tiny part of me still hoped it was real. This was before I started researching rental scams and saw the various articles about the different ways people got fleeced. Then I started to see the similarities.

What's funny is that I'm a huge believer in doing things online. I buy groceries that way sometimes, and have them delivered. I shop online for other things, paying for my items electronically. I honestly do not have to leave the house if I don't want to, though you pay a little more sometimes for that privilege. Maybe it's being experienced in the ways of online retail that helps me weed out the scams. The worst thing that ever happened to me was that a ring I ordered from eBay was never delivered, and since I only paid about $10 for it I wasn't all that concerned, particularly since I'd ordered a bunch of other stuff at the same time and sort of forgot I was expecting it.

In fact we just ordered dinner online, but I'm pretty sure they're going to deliver it since we haven't given them any money yet.

Stalkers and Obsessions in Romance and Young Adult Fiction

Recently I succumbed to the urge to read a certain popular series. Pretty much everyone on the planet will know exactly what I'm talking about when I mention the Twilight 'saga' from Stephanie Meyer. Not only were the four main novels in the series wildly popular, but they've all been made into movies as well. I also read two books complementary to the four main ones, and I have to say they really scare me.

No, I don't mean scared in the sense of lying awake at night, afraid a vampire was going to come out of my closet. What scared me was the fact that these novels didn't seem to get a lot of flak from parents. Sure, the storyline itself is entertaining. The problem is the fact that the two main characters have serious mental health issues.

The four main books are written in the first person, which I always find annoying anyway. I prefer third person omniscient, myself, but that's purely an aesthetic and personal viewpoint. The perspective is that of a teenage girl who becomes completely obsessed with what looks like a teenage boy, but is in fact a man who's closer to a hundred years old. If we saw a 100-year-old man walking down the street with a 17-year-old on his arm, in most responsible people that would bring on a large measure of disgust for the dirty old man and his perverted proclivities.

In addition to that, the male love interest leaves her because he thinks it will be safer for her not to be exposed to him and his vampire 'family' any longer. When this happens she basically loses her mind. She becomes nearly catatonic in her grief, and when she comes out of that she's still living life in such a robotic fashion that she's startled to realize she's more like a zombie than a human being. Now that's what we call an obsession.

Even after she realizes what she's doing, and starts to live her life again, she starts taking risks with her life because she starts hearing his voice in her head whenever she does anything that might kill her. At first I thought maybe there was a psychic thing going on in the stories, but it turns out she was really hearing voices - well, one voice anyway - and the voice wasn't actually there. So, now she's obsessed and schizophrenic. She's having auditory hallucinations brought on by adrenaline spikes.

Eventually her obsession comes back to her, and suddenly she's alive again. However, she can't stand to spend even an hour or two away from him without feeling like there's a big hole in her chest where her heart used to be.

Worse than that, though, is the fact that he spends a fair bit of time stalking her before they're even together. He went through her house, he was in her room while she was sleeping and watched her pretty much every night. He looked through her things, including her books and music. When they do finally become an official couple, he sneaks into her room to stay with her every single night. At least by then she knows about it and is actually asking him to stay with her. In fact, she's not actually asking. It's more like pleading.

I was teenager once myself, and I remember the volatility that comes along with that. I think we're all a little unbalanced when it comes to first loves. I had a couple of them. My relationships when I was a teenager were monogamous ones that lasted at least a year each. The entire year I was fourteen I was with one guy and he actually asked me to marry him - he was nineteen, so looking back that seems a little off-kilter to me. I had my first major obsession when I was fifteen and sixteen. It was a tumultuous relationship with a Roman Catholic whose mother didn't approve. I did my share of stupid things, but the heartbreak was over a couple of weeks after he dumped me. I'm not one to hang on. It probably has something to do with having a healthy (or sinful) measure of pride. There was no way I was going to prostrate myself before someone who didn't want me.

I was also a parent to a teenager. My daughter had her own mild obsession, and eventually her feelings were no longer 'unrequited,' but they grew apart and it was over. Basically she had a lot of interest in what he was doing, and in his life in general, but stalking is not something that was ever in her character - even less so than it was in mine. In fact, when I was a teenager I longed desperately to fall in love, get married, and make lots of babies with a man who adored me. My daughter has little interest in that, though she does want a kid one day. She's not a lesbian, so it isn't about her orientation. She just doesn't like the idea of spending that much time with another person, which the exception of her own child. Thankfully she hasn't made me a grandmother yet, because I'm just not ready for that. I'm still vaguely within the age of being able to have kids myself, so it just seems too weird to me.

Now my daughter is almost halfway through her twenties, and completely skipped out on any mental health problems associated with teenage crushes. I'm in my early forties. The funny thing is, I personally feel the danger of books like the Twilight series. Romance novels are often the same, too. There's still an envy there for me. At my age the statistics aren't good when it comes to me finding anyone I can give my whole heart to. I've had moments where I thought I'd be able to, but the feelings weren't reciprocated so I shut my own feelings down right away. It's not that I don't have them; I just don't let my brain run off with my heart.

Still, there's a sadness and envy invoked by obsessive love stories, even for me. I think we're all somewhat conditioned to think of that as the only real love there is. Even when we know better logically, a part of us still wants that unquestioning devotion and adoration. Beneath the tough exterior beats the heart of a marshmallow, I guess. I know better than to ever put myself in that position with anyone, because I've seen where those situations usually lead. Besides, I'm not really that mentally unhealthy anyway, that I absolutely can't live without someone. The proof is in the pudding in my case, seeing as I've been separated for a long time. There was an interruption of less than four months, where I was seeing someone, but it never got to the 'I love you' stage.

After I was done reading the Twilight books I felt sad. I didn't want the stories to end, because a very dangerous and insidious part of myself wanted to live vicariously through an obsessive love story. As an adult woman with a better understanding of mental health, however, I can deal with those feeling in a positive manner. Teenagers, on the other hand, do not have the life experience to see the books for what they really are. They're unrealistic, and they're very dangerous. Showing teenagers a happy ending within such an unhealthy context can breed an unhealthy real-life situation. Even with a parent telling them that the relationship in the series is not a good one, and explaining why, no teenager is going to believe it unless they've already been given a very good background in what it means to be in a healthy relationship. Considering the statistics on divorce and domestic violence, however, those teachings are very limited.

Speaking from a bizarre personal perspective, I was lucky in one way. I had a terrible childhood, being raised by terrible grandparents, yet it was my physically abusive grandmother who gave me my foothold on reality and feminism. She wore the pants in that house, and she's the one who told me (the first time she saw me reading a romance), that reality was not anything like its portrayal in romance novels. For many years, historical romances were my very favourite books. Eventually, after years of personal experience that was contrary to the happy endings I was reading about, I realized she was right about that one thing. It was also because of her that I never felt I was anything less worthy than any man, because I was raised in a home where a woman was deferred to in all things.

Teenagers, especially those who come from broken homes, are looking desperately for role models for every aspect of their lives. If their parents don't have a successful relationship, they look for people who do - even if they happen to be fictional, dangerous, and unrealistic. With few real human relationships to look up to, they look to movies, books, music, and any other form of entertainment. The Twilight series gives them characters with a happy ending, but if either of those people were living in the real world (vampire lore aside), the ending would probably be very different. Obsession is not love. Obsession often becomes possession. Even within the books, right from the beginning they claim ownership of one another, and grant ownership to each other.

The very real need some people have to 'belong' to someone else stems from emptiness within. There is a hole inside them, desperately wanting to be filled - just like the movie Jerry Maguire, with the whole, "You complete me," thing. Nobody completes anyone else. We're all individual human beings. My former mother-in-law used to tell me that if I'd wanted to accomplish my own things in life, I probably shouldn't have gotten married. Um, what? I wasn't allowed aspirations and goals because I was married??? Her son was allowed those dreams, though. Right. That makes total sense. Never mind the fact that I was the breadwinner in the family at the time, and he was disabled. Reaching for goals was my way of looking to be a better provider, but that wasn't allowed because I was supposed to be nothing but a wife. Of course, this advice was coming from a divorced woman who had been nothing but a wife to her husband, yet he left her anyway. I always felt like saying, "So how did that work out for you?"

My view on the subject, and something that came up during a discussing about one of the guests we had on the show recently, is that people shouldn't even get into a relationship until the hole inside them is filled and they're a whole person. Until then you don't know who you are or what will be best for you. You're still striving and your core personality is still forming. The guest on the show was saying all women want men to take charge, which is completely overstating what women want. I'm certainly not one of those women who want a man taking charge. If there's a decisions to be made that will affect me, then I want to be a part of making the decision. I don't want anyone arbitrarily making choices for me.

Thankfully that notion brings to heel any thought of having a man swoop in and rescue me from my own life, which is what a lot of romance novels are about. The man comes along and everything that was wrong in a woman's life is miraculously fixed by him. It doesn't work that way, especially if you're a woman who's the least bit independent. Men seem to feel as if they have to fix everything, even when a woman has a problem and she wants to vent about it. Men will try to tell her how to fix it, rather than just listening and letting her vent.

Often the 'fixing' comes in the form of advice, but sometimes it involves actually doing what the woman should be capable of doing herself. Some women do like that, but there's a trade-off that I would personally never be willing to make. When you allow someone to 'fix' your life, you're also allowing them to take over decision-making, which renders a woman useless and redundant to her own life. Suddenly the man is taking charge of her, rather than simply her problems - and mostly because there's now the unspoken agreement between them that she can't handle the herculean chore of running her own life without his help.

Not being able to run your own life, and having someone do it for you, puts you in the category of being a child. It's not just women who are placed there, but on average it's almost always the female in a relationship. There are women to this day who work, but allow their husbands to interfere with problems they face in the workplace. Husbands who feel their wives aren't treated well, or properly (as in sexual harassment cases), will come charging in to confront the supposedly guilty party. Now consider how this woman will be treated in the workplace from now on. Sure, maybe the original problem never rears its head again, but then she'll never be respected again either. She will be known as someone who can't handle real responsibility. If she wasn't in a position of authority, she will never be promoted to one. If she was already in a position of authority, her authority will not be respected and she will not gain additional authority.

This is also the danger in reporting sexual harassment if it's done in a place that doesn't really respect legislation. Suddenly she's a woman who 'can't handle a joke' or simply can't enforce her own authority. Speaking personally on that, I've always just given as good as I've gotten when the harassment was directed toward me. No man ever dared to step over the line with me either, but then I have the sort of personality that makes it very clear I would never tolerate it. People just know that I have indelible lines that can't be crossed. On the other hand, when I saw other women being harassed I did report it, in writing, so that there was no way the company could get away with not doing something about it. Reporting someone else being harassed doesn't have the same connotation of being a whiner who can't handle things. I was also in a position of authority within the company, and it was my duty to do something about it.

The tiny part of me that would want a man to swoop in and be my dream-come-true/knight-in-shining-armour, is the part of me that's tired, I think. I've spent my life fighting to keep my head above water, against some rather interesting odds. I've had many challenges, and I think it might be nice to one day not have to be the one who does all the struggling, so therein lies the answer to my wishful thinking. The few times I think like that, I remind myself of the price to be paid for wallowing in that fantasy. I've made the mistake of going there on occasion in my romantic history, and after a few decades of being slapped for it I'm now fully conscious of that price. I always have much less of a fight to keep my head above water when I count only on myself to keep me afloat.

What I really need, if I ever have another serious relationship, is someone who is capable of running their own life, and someone who has my back that I can fully trust to be there for me emotionally, but not someone who tries to take over the running of my life. Decisions can be made mutually, compromises are perfectly fine, and acceptance of who I really am is mandatory. That last thing is so vital, though, and very few people are actually capable of acceptance when it comes to their life partner. Especially when their life partner has some unusual quirks.

Speaking from personal experience, there are very few people in the world who accept the fact that I sleep during the day, and that has always been my natural pattern. Never mind the fact that I crack every joint in my body, and swear like the proverbial sailor. I can be harsh, too. I'm not unforgiving, but there are people I've removed from my life because I also don't forget. My mother and step-father are good examples. I may have forgiven the fact that my mother left me when I was four years old, and knowingly left me in the care of monsters - her parents. I could never forget it, though. I could never forget the fact that she suspected my grandfather of molesting me, and still left me there. Two deep betrayals that made it impossible for me to ever trust her, or allow myself to love her. The childish yearnings for motherly love disappeared within me forever. I do not want any kind of mother in my life. My step-father turned out to be a faithless jerk who fooled around on my mother, and that shows me a character flaw so important to me that I could never trust him either.

So, I can forgive, but when a person shows their colours you can't simply forget about them. You have to factor those flaws into the big picture. In some cases a person's flaws make them more human and lovable. There's a quote from the movie Hellboy that says, "You like someone for their qualities, but you love them for their flaws," and I think that's very true. Perfect people aren't even very likeable, never mind lovable. There is too much envy involved when another person is 'perfect,' along with self-consciousness because we know we aren't perfect. Of course, no one is actually perfect, but sometimes a person views another unrealistically as being being perfect.

Maybe my imperfections will be lovable to someone some day. I hope so. For the most part I'm content with my life, and I could probably be content to be alone for the remainder of it. It's not really what I want if I'm being honest with myself. If I wanted to be alone, I wouldn't feel sad after reading books like Twilight. I wouldn't have registered with an online dating site a year ago - a profile that I deleted when I started dating someone exclusively. I haven't done a new profile yet because I'm just not ready to start up with a stranger again, and it takes a long time to really get to know someone enough to love them - either on the basis of friendship, or on romantic love. Attraction comes instantly, as does infatuation, but the kind of love where you would notice someone was missing from your life if they weren't there...that takes time. Starting a brand new relationship with a stranger is not something I've got the time or energy for right now.

I was talking to a friend about how holding hands with someone can feel weird, and he said that if I was madly in love with them then I would probably want to. He's right. I would. I would feel the need for physical closeness. I'm actually very affectionate that way when I love someone, or even when I'm in a romantic relationship where I really like them. It's the only kind of relationship where I can be really touchy-feely. I can hug my daughter, but neither of us likes hugging very much so it only happens on occasions like birthdays, or when there's a death of one of our pets. When I lost Stimpy (my first ferret), I think my daughter was afraid to hug me, because I was already falling to pieces. Getting comfort when you're like that can sometimes be just enough to break you. The stiff upper lip starts to quiver, and then you're a blubbering mess.

Back to the topic at hand, however. Obsessive love and stalking are so prevalent in all forms of media that it has become absorbed almost to our cores. I think almost everyone I know has that little piece inside them that wishes they could have that. I'm sure I'm not alone there, or how would the writers of romantic fiction ever make any money? Rom-coms wouldn't make a penny at the box office, either. Men are told to be persistent, despite the fact that it's actually harassment to keep going after a woman who says no. It's part of the rape culture. Men are rewarded for persistence by eventually getting their rocks off, even if it's not consensual - often because the woman gets tired of being harassed and gives in to what she starts thinking is inevitable.

Romance novels used to be called 'bodice rippers' for a good reason. Almost every book involved rape in some form or another - usually a man was 'pushed beyond reason' into 'giving her what she really wants.' Apparently forcing a woman into sex solved all relationship problems - yes, that was sarcasm. This was only twenty years ago, and despite the fact that publishers are telling would-be authors that they don't want that kind of book, they're still publishing books about very unhealthy relationships. I actually wrote a historical romance many years ago. It sits (completed) in a box somewhere. It will never be published under my own name, because I will never allow myself to be pigeon-holed as a romance writer. Once that happens you're rarely seen as any other kind of writer.

A good example is Nora Roberts. Under her own name she writes romances. Under the pseudonym of J. D. Robb she writes what's called the 'in death' series. All but one title uses the words 'in death,' such as, "Naked in Death" and "Glory in Death." The books' main character is a female kick-ass cop in the future. For a long time, because it was known to be a pseudonym of Nora Roberts, those books were always put in the romance section of every book store I went into. There are romantic relationships within the series, but the books are mainly about the main character being a homicide cop. They're murder-mysteries, and yet they were labeled as romance. Now when I go in the book store, though, they're finally filed under the main fiction section. I haven't seen them in the romance section for quite a while, but it still took a long time for the series to be recognized for what it really was.

Another reason I don't think I'll submit my romance novel for publication is that I'm rather ashamed of it. I'm just as guilty of writing anti-feminist crap as any other romance writer. I would have to cut and slash the novel to ribbons in order to fix the problem. I don't want to be another Stephanie Meyer, creating mentally ill characters for people (particularly teenagers) to emulate. I would prefer to be responsible with my writing and portray women as something other than helpless victims to their own ineptitude. So, despite my (not-so-secret-now) wishing that I might have that sort of unhealthy connection with a man, I know better than to fall for it. I can only hope that most teenagers will outgrow their interest in the series.

Maybe there's an antidote. Maybe one day I'll write about the kind of relationship that's real and healthy. Two people dedicated and devoted to one another, without having to give up who they are. People who don't orient themselves to their partners to the exclusion of all else in their lives. Now that would be a relationship worth emulating. They say, "Write what you know," though, and I have no personal experience from which to draw.

Ignorance is Only Bliss to the Ignorant

"Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." Thomas Gray, Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College

This phrase is constantly misinterpreted by the masses. In fact, until I researched it I didn't realize there was any more to it than the commonly uttered, "Ignorance is bliss." Once you see it in context, however, it's readily apparent that Thomas Gray was in no way promoting ignorance. He was, in fact, being nostalgic about his youth.

Ignorance has never been blissful to anyone other than those who are ignorant, and even then the ignorant suffer for their lack of knowledge and understanding in life. Far too many people choose to be uninformed about far too many things, and generally we are punished for it whether we know it or not. When we aren't the ones punished, it's always some other creature or person who is.

Animal rights is one good example of ignorance working against everyone and everything. As much as I hate the thought of animals being abused in general, I'm not going to look at this from the perspective of their suffering this time. From a completely unemotional and selfish human standpoint, let's examine why animal abuse is bad. We'll take bees as the first example. Not too many people spend much time thinking about them, other than perhaps beekeepers and those in the agricultural and environmental fields. The funny thing is, bees are one of the most vital components in the mechanism that keeps people alive on this planet. I won't post the quote attributed to Einstein about bees, because research has determined that Einstein probably never said it. Einstein wasn't a botanist, entomologist or biologist of any kind, so talking about bees wasn't exactly his schtick. However, the message within the quote remains somewhat valid. Without bees to pollinate, we would lose a very large portion of our food supply. Not all of it, but a huge amount. That's the direct impact. The indirect impact is that many of the things pollinated by bees are what support animal life in the wild. This affects anyone who might hunt for food.

I'll give a second example of how animal cruelty impacts humans, and then we'll move on to something else, but it's important for people to make connections like this. A second example is necessary to demonstrate a completely different sequence of events that many do not consider. How about we go with any sort of breeding facility for meat products. Pigs, cows, chickens and their ilk, are most often raised in sub-standard conditions. I'm not saying illegal, either. I just mean animals that are penned in tight quarters, given growth hormones and antibiotics that are unnatural to their systems, and that are often treated very badly. There are plenty of videos out there showing the beatings and abuse inflicted on farm animals, so if you're interested by all means Google it, but I won't include them here because I can't stand to watch them.

My point is this: These animals are not healthy. They're not allowed exercise because the meat becomes tougher. They confine them to keep them tender for our chewing pleasure. How healthy are the humans you know that don't get any exercise at all? The ones who stay firmly planted on the sofa, and often don't even get up to go to bed because they sleep on the couch - those are the ones I'm talking about. Chefs talk about the 'marbling' in the meat that makes it so juicy - well, that's nothing but a fat, out-of-shape animal. Now start adding those unnecessary antibiotics or growth hormones.

The other issue regarding close confinement is the fact that it spreads disease very rapidly, and quite often that meat finds its way into our grocery stores and onto our tables long before they discover anything is wrong with it. Generally people have to die before anyone notices that "X" farm's beef is not quite the safest thing around. If you confine large numbers of people in buildings, disease spreads just as quickly. Think of everything from the common cold to swine flu. Well, the same thing happens with animals who are closely quartered.

Going beyond animal treatment and things that actually impact each of us directly when we're ignorant of the facts, I want to talk about the more altruistic concerns where ignorance is harmful to others rather than ourselves. In these situations, selfish people simply aren't going to care, but I believe most people do actually care about their fellow humans. I think they often choose to shield themselves from inconvenient facts, though, so they don't have to feel guilty for pretty much everything they do in their daily routine.

One daily routine that's almost universal, is getting dressed after we wake up and changing into pyjamas when we go to bed. The question becomes, where are you buying your clothes? Following that line of thought, where are the stores you shop in getting the clothes, and/or materials the clothing is made from? Are your clothes free-trade and cruelty-free? If you're buying from Walmart, and a wide variety of other retailers, there's a good chance your clothes were made by people who are working in unsafe conditions and aren't even being paid enough to eat anything more than a bowl of rice per day.

Maybe you saw something about this in the news in April of 2013 when 1,129 workers were killed because a factory collapsed on them. Originally the death toll was 1,127, but two more people died within a month. A number of companies selling the clothing that was made there signed an agreement to improve conditions. Walmart did not. Another seven people died in October 2013 from a fire in a fabric mill in Bangladesh. Lack of transparency from many retailers makes it difficult to find clothing you don't have to feel guilty about, but if you're interested you can get some information here on where to find it. That link also provides information on the companies not doing so well, and in some cases provides a link where you can express your concern or take action in some way. Sadly you're likely to find some of your favourite brands and companies on that list, including Disney.

There is another sense in which ignorance is really not bliss, and that has to do with how it affects the people around you just in general conversation. You get this a lot with people who like to spout off with statements like, "Political correctness has gone too far." Says who? Says the person who isn't being hurt or oppressed in any fashion, (or in some cases they are and don't know it because it's so culturally ingrained). This happens with any kind of struggle for equality, be it feminism, marriage equality, racism, etc. Most statements from people who shrug off political correctness are coming from white, heterosexual, non-disabled males who are part of some sort of organized religion. You can get mad at me if you want to, and state that I'm making generalizations, but I was actually pretty specific there. Take a close look at the rhetoric being spewed by many so-called God-fearing Christians in the bible belt. Actually, a close look is completely unnecessary and might actually become a forest for the trees scenario. That kind of attitude is best seen from a distance for a wide variety of reasons.

White people do not generally experience racism. It can, and does, happen in a small number of cases in areas comprised predominately of people of non-Caucasian descent. White people almost never experience racial oppression. When I talk about oppression, I mean the action or force that causes real harm, not someone simply making a snide remark. I'm white, and have never been oppressed for the colour of my skin. Hence, I will never understand what that is like, other than by comparing it to the fact that I'm female and have experienced unequal treatment based on my gender. However, even within the feminist movement there is a great deal of non-inclusiveness when it comes to people of colour.

Men, at this point in history, do not experience gender oppression. There are some cases where they are discriminated against, such as in the case of custody and support hearings, or when they are assumed to be the abuser in a domestic violence situation. My point is that they aren't told they have less value than a woman because they're male. There were times in history, and in various cultures, where men were the underdogs. They aren't now. In a case by case comparison, it is women who are overwhelmingly treated as the less important of the male and female genders. There are people who have it a lot worse than women, however. I refer to those who are transgender, or intersex (someone who is born with both sexes - what most people refer to as hermaphrodites, although that is not a scientifically correct term). Imagine living your life as neither of the accepted genders. There are countries in which you can be legally defined as a gender other than male or female, but in the western world those people are completely discounted by the ignorant among us.

Overweight people are treated like human waste and fat-shaming is standard behaviour. Naturally low-weight people are accused of being anorexic. For some reason our size becomes the definition of who we are, and where we are situated on the social ladder. Admittedly, quite often a person's size can be attributed to certain psychological factors. Overweight people are often overweight because of psychological issues that compel them to overeat. A number of extremely skinny people are underweight in an unhealthy way, and also for psychological reasons. The problem is, there is no way of knowing which cases is which merely by looking at them. Never mind the fact that if you really stop to consider the reasoning behind either extreme that is the result of unhealthy thought processes, you realize that there is every reason to provide understanding rather than judgment. There is the pain that brought on the issue to begin with, and now there is the pain that results from their issue being so blatant and open to criticism.

Going beyond insulting and hurting people with our ignorance, there's the simple annoyance factor. Ignorant people are very annoying to people who actually take the time to learn about things. I mean, let's face it. There really is no excuse for not learning about a topic before waxing enthusiastic on it. You want to talk about how great the bible is? Fine, but maybe you should actually read it first. Don't leave out all the parts that contradict you. If you want to talk about marijuana legalization, and tell everyone why you think it's a terrible idea, it's best if you understand a little something about it. Don't be like Nancy Grace who mouths off about deaths that never happened, and violence that didn't occur, not bothering to back up your words with any appropriate sources. Maybe you want to talk about gun control, but if don't know anything about the current legislation, or the legislation being proposed, your arguments won't be very effective. You'll just sound like an ignoramus extremist of some sort, no matter what side you're arguing on. If you happen to find yourself in a conversation with someone who has some knowledge, you'll notice that you're not very well liked or respected after that.

Ignorance is lack of knowledge. When I was growing up people also liked to call someone ignorant if they were rude, though it's an inappropriate use of  the word - in other words they were ignorant of the definition and meaning of ignorance. However, ignorance often results in rudeness when an ignorant person is shown to be wrong. People tend to get defensive under those circumstances, and will exhibit angry behaviour. There again ignorance becomes an issue to surrounding people. If people don't like being shown to be wrong about something, then people certainly don't like it when someone attacks them verbally or physically out of frustration and hurt pride.

Much of the anger we see in political and social issues today is based on ignorance. Quite often willful ignorance, too. They simply refuse to listen to other possibilities or compromises. They don't want to know why the people on the other side of the argument think they're right. They don't want to open up to the possibility that there might be a kernel of sense in a differing opinion. Most often they simply talk over what they don't want to hear.

"We have two ears and one mouth, so we should listen more than we say." Zeno of Citium

The quote from Zeno can also be applied to our eyes. We use our eyes to read and learn. If we applies twice as much time to learning and listening, as we do to speaking, our whole civilization would improve instantly. Beliefs do not have to be static. Beliefs should always be fluid and open to new information. If reality contradicts our beliefs, we are left floundering in a state of cognitive dissonance. We can't honestly reconcile the two things, and that friction can become quite psychologically painful. Conversely, refusal to believe in a thing does not mean is ceases to exist.

It's impossible to argue with someone who refuses to listen to a counter-argument. It's called the invincible ignorance fallacy, and is a circular argument in which no evidence put forward is acknowledged. You're talking to someone who simply denies any validity of the information that has been presented, and it's something you see a lot in debates between scientists and creationists. Creationists deny any and all evidence put before them regarding evolution, or that contradicts their belief that the world is only 6,000 years old. There's actually a video you can watch with Richard Dawkins (a very well-respected scientist in case you haven't heard of him), where he is put through this, and the look on his face is priceless. He simply can't get over the woman's refusal to even acknowledge the evidence he verbally demonstrates. The full video is almost an hour long, but there are highlights you can watch where you see the complete blankness on this woman's face as she repeats over and over that there's no evidence. That's one of the best examples of the invincible ignorance fallacy I've seen to date. In one sense it makes me laugh, but in another sense I want to hang my head and cry.

I can only hope that people start consciously choosing to open their minds, learn and grow. It isn't as easy as it sounds, either. We're all guilty of closing our minds in certain ways. We're all guilty of jumping to conclusions at one time or another. It is impossible to be the perfect thinker. We work with what knowledge we have obtained, and what abilities we currently have to improve ourselves. Then again, we also have choices. No one can force us to think a certain way. We may be conditioned to do so, and many live in societies where it is forbidden to speak certain things aloud, but every person on the planet has the option of free thought.

Cohabitation Conundrums and Pet Peeves

Okay, so you've been seeing someone for a while, presumably happily. Then one of you gets a bright idea. Possibly you both think it's one of those lightbulb moments, and that it's brilliant in its simplicity. Perhaps it doesn't even pop up as an idea per se, but rather a talking point in a conversation, and somehow you wander off the beaten path into "Destination: Insanity," where no one in the relationship has ventured before. Maybe one of you thinks the other needs a frontal lobotomy, and vows to run away at the first opportunity.

For the sake of argument, however, let's assume both parties in a relationship are happy enough together that they actually want to share living space, and that when the idea floats into the nearby airspace no one is swatting at it like a pesky mosquito. That being established, now what? Do you scout the apartment listings and hire a moving company?

Well, first things first. Determining whether or not it actually is a good idea is probably an idea destined for induction into the Brainiac Hall of Fame. There are a few question that need to be asked here:

• How well do you know each other? It isn't necessarily about how long you've known one another, but how well. Some people can be dating for a year and barely know one another - for three reasons. One, they hardly spend any time talking, or in each other's company. Two, they don't talk about anything in-depth that will allow any mutual knowledge. Three, they've never had to face any difficulties as a couple and have no idea how their partner processes those situations. Screaming fits might not be desired.

In other words, do you have any idea what it's going to be like to be around this person all the time, and are you absolutely certain you're not going to end up in jail for killing them at some point down the road?

• Are your goals for the future compatible? Let's face it. Many people romanticize relationships and picture a moment of church bells and stale cake to be smooshed into one another's respective faces. There's nothing wrong with that, if that's what you both want. If only one of you is cherishing those dreams, you're more likely to be smooshing dog crap into the upholstery of their cherished La-Z-Boy.

You need to talk about every single deal-breaking dream you've got, whether those dreams involve an infestation of rugrats, ball-and-chain ceremonies, or trips around the world to look at that exact spot where Ghandi went on a hunger strike. When I say deal-breaking, I really mean that. We all have them. We each have many dreams, but not all of them are things that we absolutely must have in our lives before we die. Sometimes there are compromises, but quite often there aren't.

• Are you spiritually compatible? Spirituality is often only an issue if you're planning on having the aforementioned ankle-biter invasion. If one of you is a Catholic and the other is Hindu, or even if one of you is an atheist, you could experience a few "Holy crap!" moments once the short humans with the overly large heads arrive on the scene.

Discussing how you intend to raise your children, and what portions of your faith you wish those children to adhere to, could save you major arguments in the future - not to mention a divorce and court hearings. If you're not willing to compromise on the faith of your children, you absolutely must choose someone who is either of the same faith, or who honestly does not care what faith is chosen for their offspring. Do not assume because someone is an atheist that they don't care if your kids practice Judaism. They may be dead-set against it.

• Are your daily habits compatible? If you're even considering cohabitation, you're probably not against pre-marital sex, so let's assume for now that you've managed to get some nooky during the whirlwind that is known as courtship. Leaving aside sexual compatibility for the moment, which is a book in and of itself (but I'm willing to tackle it in a paragraph a little further down anyway), we need to figure out if Person A puts the cap on Exhibit T, and Person B puts the seat down on Exhibit L. If you're doing the hunka-chunka, and are considering sharing a residence so that you can presumably do the hunka-chunka on a more regular basis, you've probably spent a night or two together. If one of you is running off ten minutes after knocking boots, it does not bode well for the success of your future cohabitation.

Toothpaste tubes and lavatory lids aside, maybe your schedules conflict in such a way that would make regular bed-sharing difficult, or one of you is a neat-freak who gags at the site of slovenly socks. Is your partner a sports nut that screams so loudly at the television that the neighbour's rugrats have gone deaf? Maybe you bring your work home with you all the time, and your partner acts more like a frat boy who has to smoke a bowl with his bros.

• If you already have your own children, do they get along with your partner and any children they have? Do you get along with your partner's kids? This one is a biggie. You can't take your potential future step-child to the pound if there are incompatibilities here, much as you might think it would do them a world of good. Plus, they may go so far as to bite you if you try.

Kids really make things complicated when they aren't shared offspring. You have to deal with every one of the above-mentioned issues with your partner's kids, on top of dealing with whether or not you actually like the spoilt little buggers. You can ooh and aah all you want over your partner's kid, and put up a good fake front, but you need to be completely honest with yourself about how likely it is that you'll be able to stand being around them for longer than ten minutes.

• Do you have compatible pets? Pets usually aren't as bad as kids. Having said that, they do come with their own set of issues. Some animals are grumpy. Some are predatory and/or jealous. If one of you has a pet snake, and the other a pet mouse, well...you get the idea. Cats and birds are known adversaries, and it's not always the cat that comes out the winner there - just ask any parrot owner.

Introducing pets is a very delicate process, assuming your pets can't be kept separate or in cages at all times. If it's done right you can still have problems if you don't continue to keep an eye on the situation. However, if it's done wrong the damage can be permanent. The introduction has to be done cautiously, and only two pets at a time. Both animals need to be fully controlled by their owners, and the experience needs to be a relatively pleasant memory for both creatures. In other words, don't allow one animal to chomp down on the other and try to shake the life out of it. Have treats handy to distract the animals. Both animals need to feel secure, and know that there's no threat. Sometimes it's best if you just allow animals to get used to one another's scents first, without physically introducing them, if there's a real danger of one animal attacking the other. Swap their blankets back and forth for a few days.

• Are you financially compatible? Money is a major bell-ringer for some. If one of you is frugal and the other spends more money than they earn, it's a big bone of contention when you're pooling your resources. That, of course, is something else that needs to be determined before shacking up with your new love slave. Are you sharing funds, keeping things separate, or a combination of the two? This is not the time to be making ass-you-me type decisions. If you do you can find that ass handed to you in court if you neglect to pay your portion of the rent because you thought it was 'our' money and not 'yours' and 'mine'. Yet another issue with money has to do with large purchases, no matter how you choose to handle your funds. A sofa or bed is a joint purchase, generally, but they're nothing compared to a house. For that matter, are you willing to even consider the purchase of a house? In this day and age, that's more of a commitment than most marriages.

In the vast majority of polls conducted, sex and money are two of the biggest reasons people fight. I can't help you with your sex life - mostly because I don't want to know what weird things you might be getting up to. I have my own weird things to contend with. Money is one area where advance communication can make a world of difference, though. If a compromise is reached before a decision ever has to be made, and both parties follow through on their agreements, all's well that ends well. If not, expect your own bell to be rung a few time - or even your ears from all the shouting that's going to go down.

• And finally, are you sexually compatible? No, you're not supposed to actually answer me. You're supposed to carry on that conversation with yourself and your partner, and leave us innocent folk out of your bedroom Battle Royale. Have you been truly honest with your partner about what you like and don't like? Have you shared the secrets that you intended one day to foist upon them? Are you happy with the ways things are going there - and if you're not happy, are you and your partner working toward a solution?

Now this is just my opinion, but then it's my blog and I'll have a potty mouth if I want to, but I do not think it's a good idea to move in with someone (or especially to engage in the matrimonial legal tangle) when you have never had sex with them. Sex being one of those really big issues that people fight about, it makes perfect sense to me to figure out whether or not it's something you're likely to fight about. We all have those times when we'll argue about almost anything in a relationship, but a complete lack of sexual compatibility will result in mind-blowing fights rather than other mind-blowing activities, and quite possibly some nasty insults that your ego might never recover from. Getting your freak on is necessary if you intend to be anything more than friends. I'm sorry, but it's the truth. If there's no sexual chemistry or activity, you're nothing but friends. That's fine if you've spent forty or fifty glorious years together and things have petered out (no pun intended - okay maybe it was), but if you're just getting started and there's nothing there you've got serious problems and you're not actually involved in a romantic relationship.

 If, after all this insanely boring self-reflection, you still think it's a good idea to share living space, there remains the possibility a frontal lobotomy is in order. Maybe not, though. Maybe it'll be the best thing to happen to you. Nobody can answer these questions for you, but if you're not asking them of yourself you're probably going to end up wishing for that frontal.

The Love Stops Here...No Here! Now Where the Hell am I?

When we talk about love in a new relationship we often use the term 'falling in love' and it's a bit of a misnomer. Falling implies a drastic ending to the process, possibly resulting in a gruesome death or grotesque injury. To be fair that's occasionally true, but we'll try not to dwell on that.

As I was out walking today, grinning like an idiot because my head is kind of in the clouds these days, it occurred to me that the implication of falling in love is that (somewhere along the line) we know exactly when it becomes love, and that it doesn't go past that line. Is there a switch? What's the defining moment where you say, "Eureka - I've found it," and happily begin plotting a nefarious future with your partner in crime?

The reality of love is more that you continue falling for a really long time. I'd have to say that the day you stop falling into love is the day you start falling out of it. The longer we go on with a partner, the more we learn about them. We're not always going to like everything we learn, and it would be beyond tedious if we did, but we can only hope that the things we learn keep turning us on, rather than off.

The one recognizable point might be when we realize we can't imagine a life without the other person in it. We can feel this way about friends, too, but certain differences are obvious...like sex. Still, that point of true friendship is a bit of a key, I think. I've had relationships where I wasn't friends with the person I was in love with, though, and that's probably the reason the relationship didn't work. To be honest, I'm not sure I ever had a partner where they were my best friend at the time the relationship was going on - there was too much competition and combativeness, with a power struggle thrown in to really make things entertaining. I've had friends turn into lovers where the friendship disappeared, and I've had lovers turn into friends when the romance disappeared.

Well, I want the whole package now. I might actually get it, too, considering the whole 'head in the clouds' thing, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to this post. We're not really talking specifically about my love life, but rather an idea and understanding about the true nature of loving someone. A question has arisen in my mind, and as always it must be explored and answered. I'm kind of like a terrier that way - I just can't leave things alone once I sink my teeth into them. Throw in the corpses of relationships-past and we're stuck with a pretty gross image, but I still want my answers.

I'd say we don't really fall in love, but maybe drift into it and sometimes through it. The further we go toward the middle, the denser it gets, but if we're just passing through a portion of it we never really get the whole effect. It would be nice if we could always travel the longest distance through it, because it would be enough to keep a relationship going for a lifetime. Then there are the relationships that aren't on a linear projection at all, and veer sharply in one direction or another - like when a person cheats on a partner. They might have been swimming along nicely when suddenly one of them needs an ego boost that collides with a pretty, flirtatious face, or a handsomely formed bicep.

Let's go back to the part with the infatuation stuff. When we're young, and sometimes we never rid ourselves of this behaviour, we often cherish our rose-coloured glasses to the point of idiocy. The person you're mad about slammed their car into another one because the other driver ticked them off? Hey, no problem! They were just having an off day. Your crush is someone you met at the bar and they're considered a regular there? Oh, that's okay. Once they settle down all that will change. [Please note that I am holding up a very large sarcasm sign with flashing neon and a strobe light.] Apparently we all look pretty through pink lenses.

Often that infatuation stage is what we call 'falling in love' and it does imply that we haven't reach the love part yet. How true that is! You don't actually know the other person beyond your own perception of them. You haven't been slapped out of your delusions yet. It's very easy to pretend everything is perfect, because that's how we really want it to be. On the other hand some of us prefer a cold shower of reality as soon as humanly possible. It's a lot less painful in the end. We don't necessarily decide to end a relationship because of the reality, but at least we know what we're getting into.

Maybe you're wondering why this is important to me, which is a fair question. It's not simply that I'm facing these things at the moment, but also that I'd really like to make sure I don't screw things up in the future. I've made plenty of mistakes, and certainly have no trouble owning up to that, but if I don't look for my own answers as to why that happened...well...like history I am doomed to repeat it.