My DH was once drawn to slogan t-shirts (thankfully, not so much anymore). A few years ago he received a shirt in the mail emblazoned with "She Looked Good Last Night." Apparently this is a quote (or was on a shirt worn by a character) in a remake of the movie, "The Bad News Bears." He thought it was funny. I thought it was incredibly lame, and I told him there was no way I'd be seen anywhere in public with him wearing that shirt. I don't believe the shirt has ever been on his body; in fact, I think it's long since just disappeared. This is just to say that my DH is ordinarily a very sensitive, thoughtful man and I know he wouldn't purposely offend someone. For whatever reason, that particular shirt struck him as being so funny that he had to own it (however briefly), which just tells me that even the good guys can have less than stellar moments from time to time. ;-)

We started to hate this house. boy, does that resonate! I've been thinking, why would ANYBODY want to buy my apartment? Why do *I* want to live there! Remember I mentioned our seller called; they want us to get more aggressive on pricing and are willing to do so as well; they just want a sale. They're exiting the market (retiring to their 2nd home out of state), and they don't want to pay broker fees, or expend much energy selling (which of course don't go hand-in-hand; if they keep us as sellers, they don't pay a broker OR do any work FSBO). They're also really nice, and a bit romantic, and I think they liked the idea of being such a perfect opportunity for us (plus they'r epretty sure we'd be approved by their board, since we're neighbors). Not a businesslike outlook, but I think that was a motivation for them, honestly. Honestly, it's probably not their best move, to drop their price and sell to us. The 3BRs are holding steady. It's the 2's that are dropping. (though I suppose; if they sell to us at $510, it's still more $ in their pocket than a 5% fee on a sale of $530) Here's a brief history: In Jan & Feb, apartments exactly like mine went for $450 and $439. In early May, we got a bid for $450. (asking prices were $465k for all of these, except for the $439k; its asking price was $439k). About a month and a half ago, another guy on the block for $430k. An apartment just like ours (and estate sale, the guy wants out now) came on the market for $420k (the co-op board pressured him not to list below $400k). He got, and apparently rejected, an offer of $400k. It is possible the market has dropped by 11% in 6 months? Anyway, our sellers have said they'd come down in price if it would make the deal. But I'm not so sure it's worth the effort. I think if they list, they can get what we were offering. And I think they can get it before we can get a buyer. I'm just not ready to face the idea that my place is worth only $400k. Maybe that's foolish of me, but it just seems like a fire sale. And even if we got $400k, by the time we pay the realtor, we'll be borrowing $130,000 (that's *if* they're willing to drop the price)--that's more than we wanted to afford, given that we're now a 1-income family, and the maintenance will be a lot more. We'd really hoped our equity would have a bigger oomph than that. The thing is, if the market drops, I don't think that will help us; I honestly don't thin the 3BRs are under the same pressure as the 2BRs. There aren't nearly as many of them, for one thing. And people who can afford a 2BR will be more likely to try to reach higher for a 3, which means actually fewer people for us. Plus, this second wind may all be moot. Frankly, the 3BRs move off the NYTimes website much faster than any of the others. True, their apt. isn't up-to-date renovated, but it's fine. I think they'll get a sale much faster than WE would, even w/ a lower asking price.

Did I suggest OP do the same as SD's BM? No, what I am saying is that it is sometimes pointless to get into fights or arguments over what is done in each other's homes... when there are different rules or values. It is not up to BM (in this OP) to decide what her son can watch at dad's house, but dad should not just allow it because he's watched worse at BM's. Dad should do what he feels is best for his son, both parents should. But, ultimately neither can control what the other does. We can tell BM until we are blue in the face that it's not good for SD to gain 20+ lbs every summer at her house. It is not healthy, it lowers her self esteem/self image, and as she gets older, it gets harder for her to lose it. But, it is not within our control and to fight about it would get us nowhere. If OP's BM does not want him watching the movie at her house (even if she does let him watch worse or play age inappropriate games at her house) then that is her choice. She does not have to let that movie into her house. If OP's DH does not agree with BM allowing their son to do those things at her house, why would he then think it's okay to let him watch the movie at his? However, if he has watched the movie and thinks it is okay for his son to see, then he should not be precluded from watching it.. just because BM said so. It's dad's call but it should not be because "he's seen worse at mom's"... it should be because dad thinks it is okay for his son and has nothing to do with what mom does in her house. I agree if dad or mom (stepparents included) insist on inappropriate things for kids, the kids will suffer. But, you cannot control what the other does in their home... even with a court order, you would have to prove it and the only remedy would be to limit contact or make it supervised.

Well, this discussion got too interesting for me, and I guess I have too much time on my hands today. So I decided to do a little research and write this long-winded article for your reading enjoyment. ;o) There is a franchise of this business in the north Georgia area (close enough to me to make it a local phone call). So I called to ask their prices. This was for the sake of investigation and discussion, I don't plan to go. Like I said above, it's just not our cup of tea, my DD would only go kicking and screaming. It's all I can do to get her to brush her hair. ;o) This package for one girl is $49.95, and takes 90 minutes. I'd guess you'd need to tip, too. Pampered Princess: Shampoo, haircut, style out, mini-mani, mini-pedi, 2 nail arts, ring, toe ring. There are smaller packages, and a bigger one that includes make-up. So I also asked about a party, just one party package that seemed about middle of the road. A Perfect Princess Party is $259 for the birthday girl plus 8 guests, and includes: "We'll be getting you and your princess friends ready for the ball with beautiful gowns, fairy-tale up-dos, sparkling Make-up and the perfect nail polish. Then it's on to your crowning, where each princess is regally announced and receives her very own tiara and a sprinkling of fairy dust. The Princess Ball concludes with a group photo and each new princess receiving a certificate proclaiming her royal status, and fun and feasting in party place. 'Happily ever after' starts here. Party take-homes for each girl include the princess makeover, tiara, princess certificate and photo folio." Their website also says they do workshops for girls, including one that's just for fun, one about manners, and one about operating a beauty business. The workshops run $20-25/girl. So, IMHO, they actually seem to offer diverse services for girls. Just to compare to another affluent birthday experience, I also checked an American Girl party at one of their locations. That runs $450 for 8 girls, and it does include a meal as well as activity and game. An American Girl doll starts at $90, outfits are of course more. You can take your AG doll to a location and have her hair done for $10-20, depending on style. You won't see me having one of those parties, either, but I did just spend $150 on DD's American Girl doll to look like her, a gymnastics outfit and doll hair brush, that's her Christmas gift from us. A ticket for one day in Disney's Magic Kingdom, Orlando, is $63/child and $75/adult. Of course, travel expenses would vary. For me, it would cost a tank of gas there, and another back. We could stay with family near-by, but we'd still spend money on food in the park. So if I only took DD for one day, it would run 138 admission, 120 gas (this week), 50 food, there is parking, too, right? So just over $300, no souvenirs. The way I see, one of those experiences is no more of a crime against society, or no more morally corrupt, than another. It's OK to do something extravagant just to make your child feel special a few times in their life, so long as you can still pay your bills. Should a person feel guilty taking their kids on a vacation to Disney just because not everyone can afford to go? Should I skip an expensive anniversary dinner at a nice restaurant b/c some people won't have dinner? Or is it OK as long one also makes a generous contribution to a charity to compensate? If a person works hard for what they have, is it not OK for them to just enjoy a luxury once in a while? Does their experience have to meet some ethically acceptable standards to be justified? I agree it is frivolous. So is a Disney vacation, a $90 doll and sets of dishes we use once a year. Does that make it a bad thing? I don't think so. We all justify a splurge once in a while with the thought it will make a loved one feel special. It's more affordable to make your daughter a princess for the day at this spa than to take her to see a princess at Disney. If a little girl with luekemia makes a wish to have a beauty treatment at this spa, who would deny her than wish b/c it is too vain? So then why is it wrong for any other little girl to want that treatment for a day? The world is full of excessively vain people who have their priorities screwed up, I don't deny that. But pleasure in life's luxuries and compassion for others are not mutually exclusive.