Adventures in Motherhood: Eating out with my son

Joel is an active little boy. Unless he is unconscious, he is constantly exploring, babbling, and getting into things. While this sometimes can be exhausting, for the most part, it is a trait that I adore.

Over the past couple of weeks, I've had what I would call an adventure in motherhood. Another way to phrase it might be "experiences you didn't know you'd be having until you became a parent."

Last week, James and I went to Oteo in Lindon for dinner. It's a little family-owned Mexican place right next to our taekwondo studio; we've eaten there once before, and both times, I've been impressed by the unique qualities of their food. It's a pretty small place, probably a dozen or so tables all told, and fairly quiet.

James and I got seated, and Joel settled in a high chair. Needless to say, Joel is not really a quiet diner. He babbles, and his current form of asking for more food is to shriek. (We sometimes refer to him as "Veloci-baby.") He enjoyed sharing my empanada, even the peppers!

Still, I could not help but notice the looks garnered by our vocal baby. There was a woman seated behind James (so, directly in front of me) that craned her neck around a couple of times to glance at Joel. Kitty-corner from them, there was a young couple that outright stared at Joel multiple times, and "whispered" behind their hands afterward--loud enough that I could catch at least a few of the words, including "baby" and something that sounded a lot like "I would never."

Yesterday, James and I went out to lunch for Valentine's Day to our new favorite sushi place, Sakura in Orem. I have been sick, so this was about all we did to celebrate Valentine's Day. Again, we had Joel. (Actually, I'd been looking forward to letting him try sushi...he wasn't a fan!) And, of course, he was his usual self. While the reaction wasn't as bad as when we were at Oteo's, he still got a number of sideways glances and clearly some comments from the couple across the way.

I'll admit, I was embarrassed, both times. I would hate to sour anyone else's dining experiences, especially if, as it was for us yesterday, they were celebrating a special occasion.

That said, I was also a little upset to be at the brunt end of such rudeness, especially at Oteo. James and I love to eat out; it's one of our favorite ways to spend date night. We love to enjoy different foods, different atmospheres, and each other's company and conversation. Even if we ate out less (and we don't eat out an unreasonable amount as it is), I still don't think it would be reasonable to ask us to leave our son behind every time. We simply cannot afford, in either money or favors, to get a babysitter every time we want to go out.

If your suggestion would be, "just don't eat out," I have one thing to say to you: Get. Real. I am not going to spend the next X years stuck inside because I am a parent. Besides, adults can be just as obnoxious as kids. Have you ever met my brother? He's louder than any 10 babies. (Love you, Kyle!) 

Babies are not like adults. They don't have social skills yet. Joel doesn't understand that he shouldn't shriek or throw food on the ground, much as we try to prevent him doing so. I may know that he is annoying you, but that won't stop him from doing his thing. Giving me the stinkeye and whispering behind your hand about how you would never be "that parent" does nothing except sour the experience for me AND for you.

So, for future reference, if you're at a restaurant and there's a shrieking baby, how about instead of acting annoyed, you instead give those parents an encouraging smile, letting them know, "you got this!" You'll probably feel better about the experience than you would otherwise, and I know that I, as the parent, certainly would as well.

A Sensitive Topic: Birth Control

I read something last night that deeply bothered me. Truth be told, this one thing, in combination with a handful of other things, sent my emotions and my thoughts cartwheeling out of control for several hours last night. Fortunately, I have both a loving husband and a loving Heavenly Father, both of whom helped me overcome the confounding of my mind. Some of the insight I gained is much too personal to share. But this one thing, I feel compelled to address.

It was while reading the blog of someone close to me, someone whose writing and whose conversation I generally enjoy (if not always agree with). In one of her posts, while talking about the evils of the modern world that must be avoided, and which we must teach our children to abhor, she included birth control. She in fact listed it among the greatest evils of the world today, citing birth control as the devil's method of swaying men and women to disobey God's commandment to multiply and replenish the earth.

I was stung. I was offended. I was angry. But once most of the negative emotions had passed by, the strongest emotion I was left feeling was pity.

Pity, you say? I don't quite get that one. Why would you feel pity for someone who thinks birth control is evil?

It comes down to the nature of sex. If one believed that sex was entirely for the purpose of procreation, I could understand viewing birth control as evil--or at least misguided. But sex, in its proper time and place, is so much more. 

According to the LDS Church Handbook 2: Administering the Church(2010), "Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife."

Someone who believes birth control is evil does not have a clear understanding of this principle. I'm not referring to any one form of birth control--I'm referring to any method that lets a couple take control of timing, with regards to the conception of their children.

Not all couples are intended to have large amounts of children. Not all couples are cut out to have large amounts of children! Quoting the Handbook again, "The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord."

One of my best friends, before she married, intended to have a dozen children or so. Five years later, she has two daughters, and she may not have any more. And that is right.

I really liked this quote: "The decision of how many children to have and when is between the couple and the Lord and should be done prayerfully.  The health of the mother can certainly be considered as well as her mental health."

With regards to my best friend, I really believe that her mental health would be at terrible risk if she had many more children. I'm not part of their family, so I can't say for sure. But I do know this: She and her husband are being guided by the Lord as to what is right for them, and their family.

Here's my question: if they receive revelation that they are to have no more children, does that mean their intimate relations are at an end? With no more babies coming to them, does that mean they should never have sex again? It's absurd to consider! The previous quote continues:

"Contrary to popular belief, we are not taught to have as many babies as humanly possible or to never use birth control... Furthermore, we should avoid judging those who have no children or put it off for a while as we have no idea what their struggles may be, and vice versa." (emphasis added)

The long and the short of it is this: Be careful before passing judgment, on people or on concepts. Do your research, and try to be empathetic toward others. Understand that everyone has different circumstances, and just because someone does not subscribe to your way of doing things, does not mean they are wrong, misguided, or evil.

Quit your naysaying!

I can't tell you how many times lately that, upon expressing joy and happiness with regards to my marriage, I get told something like, "Oh, just wait." For instance, upon telling someone that James does all the dishes at our house, I received this response: "You're still in newlywed phase, that will change."

My question is, does newlywed phase have to end?

I understand that parts of this bliss may change, may fade or die down somewhat. Especially when the children come, life and relationships do change. I get it.

But I like feeling dewy-eyed. I like experiencing all my husband's quirks. I like spending this much time with him. I like marriage.

Furthermore, I don't see why things like James doing the dishes should have to change. We have a great deal worked out. He does the dishes, and I keep the rest of the house clean. I hate hate hate doing dishes. The fact that James does them makes me very happy. He knows it makes me happy, and has told me, on multiple occasions, that he's content with our arrangement. Is it some fact of life that men become less considerate, less helpful, less loving, six or so months after getting married? Or is it simply that these particular men were less considerate to begin with, and put on a show during a period in which they felt they had to be most impressive, and upon feeling secure in their marriage, revert to their old ways? Well, if that's the case, I'm feeling pretty safe with regards to my dishes getting done, and I'd appreciate it if everybody would quit raining on my parade.

I could go on, but I think I'll cut things short before I get entirely out of hand. Basically, my thought is this: Marriage is not perfect. But it can be pretty darn great, if both partners are willing to work at it, and keep the other person's happiness before their own. That's been working pretty well for us so far, and I see no reason to put an expiration date on this state of bliss. Thank you very much.