.

according to this handy dandy little chart, I am "masculine".


not sure if I appreciate that...

(note: we don't really have a wedding cake flavor per say [cupcakes can be multi-flavor!], but chocolate is my go to cake type.)
(as evidenced by the piece of chocolate cake I am eating right now...)

[via]

.

.
I am liking the wedding dress with bold colored cardigan aesthetic.

what's that you say?

this is just a ploy to justify buying a slightly-more-expensive-than-would-normally-be-considered-a-wise-purchase soft cardigan?

no....no....that's just not true!


[yesitis.]


[images via + via + via]

.

.

I know how you feel little dude.

[via]

.

.
dudes.
remember when I found this?
the first page of the marital rating scale from 1939?
and we were all like, 'whoa, that's so crazy people actually thought like this'?
well this morning I found the whole thing.

obviously I needed to print it out and see how ben and I rated right then and there.
these kinds of things can't wait for opportune times like lunch or after work.
they demand to be taken now.
middle of the morning at work be damned.
reflected ceiling plans can wait.
this could not.

the whole scale has a chart for the husband as well as for the wife.
needless to say, ben fared much better than I, because while reading the paper at the table may count as a demerit for the dude, wearing red nail polish is seen as a demerit for the chick.
and husbands get 20 points for being good in bed, while the wife only gets 10.
equal opportunity was not even on the horizon here.
and I get knocked down a point for wearing pajamas instead of nightgowns.
it's the late 30's. you know how it goes.

in the end ben racked up an impressive 82 points (96 merits and 14 demerits), landing him in the "very superior" category.
(knew I snagged myself a good'un)

I, on the other hand, ended up with a measly 35 points (68 merits and 33 demerits).
categorized as "poor".
my only consolation is this was above the "very poor (failure)" category.

I may make a horrible house-wife, but I am not quite a failure.
it's the small things.

update: ben went through and filled out the 'wife' portion for me. he was much nicer than I was to myself. he gave me a whopping 46 points (75 merits and 25 demerits), which pushes me up to "average". woohoo!

do yourself a favor and go check this thing out.
even if it's thoroughly depressing in it's reflections of how repressed women were back then, it's still pretty darn funny.

.

.

where is this assemblage of yellow shoes, and why can't I find it?

[via]

.

.
I believe my love of thumb print paper goods has already been established.

plus, I'm a sucker for well executed graphic design.

[and london]

[via]

.

.
you know.
if you stop and think about it, affianced is a very strange word...

.

.
hi guys.
so...
remember how I bought this wedding dress?

well.

I changed my mind.

[as I am wont to do.]

I had tried on two dresses at the shop that I couldn't decide between.
my mom, sister and best friend came up to boston to help me pick one.

I ended up buying the first one I posted. but almost immeditaly afterwards started wondering if I had bought the wrong one.
I chalked it up to the second-guessing that usually hits you after a big (both financailly and emotionally) purchase.

but the feeling didn't go away.
in fact, I started to get it more and more often.

cause the thing is, while I really do like the boatneck one, the strapless one was my first instinct.
even from just looking at the website.
and while if I hadn't been able to switch dresses I would have been quite happy with it, I kept thinking it didn't fit my personality as much. wasn't as "me".

my main argument against the strapless dress was that everybody has strapless wedding dresses now-a-days, and I wanted to be different.
to "not conform".
which, when you think about it, is a rather silly sentiment.
(ok, really silly...)

thus the eleventh hour email to the shop.

"ummmm hi. yeah. so I bought that dress? but now I want a different dress? can I just like, switch them mid-production? mkthnxbye."

to aria's complete and utter credit (as well as earning them my everlasting love and respect), they didn't even flinch. the girl at the shop phoned LA (where the company has its headquarters and where they make all the dresses), inquired as to the status of my dress, found out that it was due to be cut for sewing that afternoon, put a halt to it and sent them my new order. (I kept the fabric and skirt type, which is prolly the main reason this was able to go down without a hitch.)

talk about under the wire.

there was no judgement, no "are you kidding me?", no "let me see what I can do" and then not hearing from them for weeks and (to my immense relief) no extra cost.

I love that shop.
couldn't recommend it enough.
wicked awesome people.

so, yeah!
new dress!
ta da!

.

.
so ben and I did the standard wedding registry thing on saturday.

went to crate and barrel, always liked their stuff, it's quality without being overly expensive.

it was surprisingly fun.
(most likely partly due to the laser gun we got to shoot at stuff...)

had a good time running around the store, picking out things that on no plane of existence match or go together (mostly my form of decorating, ben is more put together) and then getting lunch. (registering makes you hungry!)
[and ben surprised me with a balloon from the bunch they keep at the door for kids at the restaurant. a teal one. he's the bestest fiance ever.]

the women who was helping us at c+b was telling us about this contest you can enter by creating a registry, for a $100,000 "dream wedding". and we figured, what the hell, why not? we just had to log into our registry online and fill out the form.
we had to go online anyways, cause we realized we accidentally registered for like 5 pitchers/carfares. so I logged in at lunch today to remove a few (though I ended up adding a couple different ones afterwards, so not sure the ultimate goal was achieved here).
while I was there I clicked on the "enter now!" button for the contest.

this is what I saw:

not cool crate + barrel.

not.

cool.

so I went back and perused that whole damn website [website has more stuff listed than the store did] and added things that we hadn't initially thought of or similar, thinking "now we'll be eligible!"

nope.

bastards.

maybe when we figure out which knives we want and add those.

but prolly not even then.

as we still need a thousand dollars more in merchandise.

as we sure as hell are not registering for a thousand dollars worth of knives.

color me disillusioned.

I like crate + barrel.

and the stuff we registered for is wicked cool.

but $2,000 is a lot of money for a minimum requirement for a contest.

we will be adding stuff as we go along.

they have some events for couples when they bring in new stock.

I believe some sort of food is provided.

(which means we'll go to at least one, as free food = bethany attends)

and it's really fun to point and shoot laser guns at bowls and teapots.

but don't think we'll be doing any more crate and barrel contests.

who wants to spend $100,000 on a wedding anyways?
[I asked. we couldn't use it to pay for grad school or a house. or a boat. or to travel the world. or to feed about 8 starving african nations.  kill joys.]

.

.
more engaged people!

my awesomest friends andrea and tom got engaged this weekend!

the madness is spreading!

WOOHOO!!

in celebration, a wicked cute hedgehog:

[via]


.