travling all over for the new sales rep job, and chris and i's relationship going good. finally got my health insurance, dr's appt next wed. :( ugh!
  • Current Mood
    content content

Fundamental Philosophical Issues

Fundamental Philosophical Issues

Lecture Outline

I. Introduction
II. Mind-Body relationship
III.Determinism vs indeterminism
IV. Value-free science
V. Mental health and morality
VI. Autonomy vs conformity


I. Introduction:
Adherents to the different theoretical orientations take sides on
numerous philosophical issues concerning the nature of humanity. These
issues lie at the heart of some theoretical controversies and the
conflicts between professionals. These controversies and conflicts
reflect implicit, unexamined, gut-felt metaphysical beliefs, in addition
to scientific knowledge. To understand the various theoretical
paradigms and why there are different paradigms, we must understand
these beliefs. As we progress in this course, these issues will arise
again and again in our discussions. By way of introduction, we will
make them explicit now. (This discussion is based in part on Weckowicz,

II. Mind - Body Relationship

A. Overview: Philosophy of Mind

Numerous positions have historically been held and perhaps
just as many positions are currently held, regarding the
relationship of the mind to the body. These include dualism,
materialism, identity theory, and others (Churchland, 1984).

1. Dualism (eg: Descartes): The mental and the physical are
two distinct realities, composed of fundamentally different
"stuffs" - irreducibility. The real you is not your
physical/material body, but a nonspatial, ghostly, perhaps
spiritual thinking substance: "mind stuff" (Churchland, 1984).
(Descartes: "I think, therefore I am"). This does not
necessarily mean that the physical world and the mental world
do not interact. But it does commit you to the position that
the mental can not be explained or understood by reference to
the physical. This position is certainly consistent with
various religious beliefs regarding the existence of a soul.
There is no way to understand the soul by looking at nerve
cells and the organs of the body. Cells and organs are
something utterly different from a soul - as such, they
certainly can't explain how the soul works or even what a soul

2. Materialism (eg: Paul and Pat Churchland): In contrast to
dualism, this approach states that there is only one reality:
the physical. No matter how much we believe there is a soul
or an otherwise nonphysical-something-about-us, there is not.
This position sees the only reality as that of the nerve cell,
the organ, and other physical (ie: "material") things. There
are variations on this idea (eg: Classical (Skinnerian)
behaviorism, where all that is actually real is the
observable/physical behaviors of an organism); but they all
argue that there is no purely mental, mystical or spiritual
reality existing alongside the physical world. Thus,
psychological theories that talk about mental-type things
(like beliefs, desires, love, unconscious conflicts, etc) are
wrong - these things (beliefs, desires, etc) do not actually
exist! Some of the evidence for this position comes from the
fact that theories that attempt to explain human behavior
using these mental concepts often do a really poor job of
predicting, let alone explaining, that behavior. Materialists
argue that this poor showing is because these theories are
using concepts that have nothing to do with the real world.

3. Identity Theory (eg: J.J.C. Smart): Each and every type of
mental state is identical with some type of physical/
neurochemical state. Eg: Just like "light" is identical to
electromagnetic waves, "pain" (a mental state) is identical to
stimulation of nociceptive fibers of the hippocampus (physical
state). NB: This is claiming more than mere correlation of
states; there is an identity. The identity theory is similar
to eliminative materialism in its emphasis on the physical
side of things, but here there is no need to throw out all our
mental terms and theories that refer to them. These theories
and concepts can still be scientifically very useful. In
other words, mental terms can be "translated" into physical
phenomena ("love" is actually the firing of these neurons).

B. Abnormal Psychology

1. Basic Question: Is the cause of mental illness in the mind
or in the body?

2. The Body: Medical Models of psychopathology.
a) disease models - an altered state of the organism, a break
with its natural state caused by some etiological agent.

b) constitutional models - inherited disorder, an inborn

c) diathesis-stress models - a constitutional/inborn
vulnerability plus environmental factors (ie: general or
specific stress) (Meehl, 1962).

d) combination - some combination of (a), (b) and (c).

Sum: Psychopathology is caused by physiological and biochemical
activities of the body and especially the brain. Mental
phenomena are a) symptoms, and b) epiphenomenal (for the
most part).

3. The Mind:
The causal factors are in the mind: desires, conflicts,
motives, attributions, delusions, dreams, plans, implicit
theories; whether conscious or unconscious. Thus,
psychological phenomena are meaningful (causal) in their
own right. These inner experiences are necessary to
explain psychopathology.

There are various theoretical orientations that see the
mind as important: eg - psychodynamic theories (Freud and
others), where it is argued that unconscious psychological
conflicts and the various psychological processes we engage
in to deal with these conflicts accounts for who we are and
what we do.

Note: There are also theories that focus on neither the mindnor
the body:

4. The Environment: Behavioral models.
The cause of psychopathology is unique sequences of
environmental events: contingencies and conditioning.

5. The Social: Interpersonal approaches.
The roots of this orientation are with the school of
Symbolic Interactionism (eg: G.H. Mead, Cooley). The
emphasis was on reflected appraisals and the "looking glass
self" - we come to see ourselves as others see us. Thus,
the Interpersonal approaches today perceive the cause of
psychopathology to be in our interpersonal communications.

III. Determinism vs Indeterminism
A. Basic Question: Do humans have free will? Is there such thing
as free will, or is it a myth?

B. Determinism: Medical models, Behavioral approaches.
Events have causes, and by altering the things that caused the
events you can influence the course of future events. Behavior is
predictable and controllable. Typically, this position is
expressed thusly: A combination of heredity and environment causes
human behavior. (ie: Nature and nurture make us do what we do).
Therapy is therefore directed at discovering the underlying causes
and changing them: through drugs, surgery, or behavioral

C. Indeterminism: Humanistic and Existential approaches.
Human beings possess the capacity for free will and they are
responsible for their acts - this is the essence of our humanness
and dignity. (Sartre: "I am my choices". Weckowicz (1984): "We are
the architects of our own lives"). This emphasis on freedom and
choice means people are unpredictable, and therefore
uncontrollable. Indeed, to control someone is to deny them what is
essential to their humanness - their free will.

D. Intermediate positions: Psychodynamic, Cognitive, Interpersonal.
Behavior is caused by various events, but also their is to
some extent a degree of indeterminism.

eg: Freud: On the one hand, there is determinism:
psychological determinism (unconscious drives, motives,
conflicts). We experience this when we feel compelled by our
compulsions and fears - our free will feels restricted. On
the other hand, psychoanalysis allows more conscious control
and the ability to make free(er) choices. The patient moves
from being a slave to his/her passions to being a rational
free individual. However, Freud does admit that we are rarely
completely free of the unconscious forces.

IV. Value-Free Science
Abnormal psychology is a branch of Scientific psychology. A
science strives to be value-free so as to provide veridical accounts and
explanations of reality. However, it is increasingly recognized that
values do influence the scientific process (Howard, 1985; Kuhn, 19 ;
Weckowicz, 1984). Different values are espoused by the various theories
of psychopathology, either explicitly or implicitly. This is especially
important when the science is an applied one, such as Abnormal
Psychology (Weckowicz, 1984).

The role of values in the science of psychology George Howard, in
American Psychologist, 1985:

A. Making value judgments is an essential part of the work of
science. The question is not whether but how values are embedded
in and shape science, and what that means in fields like Psychology
where the subject matter is human beings. Current beliefs,
assumptions and values influence what you choose to study, the
findings you expect, the results you actually obtain, and how you
interpret the results. For example: Shields (1975) reviewed sex
difference research of the past century and found that instead of
correcting society's misperceptions, the research findings
reflected the dominant values of the period. Howard is not arguing
that science is actually just values in disguise. But he is
arguing that values play a part in the scientific process, even
though scientist rightly control them as much as possible.

B. Traditionally, the scientist is supposed to just observe nature.
Nature is not supposed to react to being observed. However, as
quantum physics has taught us, it isn't always so: the nature of
what the physicist observes depends on being observed and how it is
observed - depending on the physicist's assumptions and methods of
observation, he/she will either see a particle atomic phenomenon or
a wave atomic phenomenon. Or let's look at an example of this in
the field of psychology: Why do psychologists like to observe
people through one-way mirrors? Obviously it's because if the
person being observed is aware of the observer, his/her behavior is
likely to be altered. [Of course, it's not so certain that the
presence of the mirror and the person's knowledge that someone is
behind it watching them doesn't also effect the person's
behavior!]. So, when the "things" being observed are people, it is
very possible that the mere act of observing them will influence
The role of values becomes particularly salient given the
unique nature of psychology's subject matter - human beings.
Humans, argues Howard, are active agents in the world; as we watch
them, they are watching, deciding and acting based on their own
models, scripts, and implicit theories which they construct. Given
this unique nature of the human being (the watcher/actor/theory-
maker), an interesting thing may be happening in our science:
There is a reciprocal relationship or interaction between the
scientist-observer and the individual-object.
Analogous to the observations the physicist made of atomic
phenomena, the observations psychologists make of humans and the
theories psychologists construct will affect humans. For example,
humans may come to believe the results, the models and the theories
and act accordingly. If I'm observing you, and you are aware of
that, and if you also know that I believe you are mentally ill or
that I think being emotionally expressive is the best way to be,
then after awhile you may come to act accordingly, especially if
you believe me to be an Expert a scientist, psychologist, etc). My
beliefs and values can influence you.

C. The issue is this: If human nature is influenced by how science
views it, not only should we consider whether values can be removed
from psychological research (which is unlikely), but we must also
consider if they should be removed. There are many who argue that
"yes, we must remove values from any science". However, to do away
with values (what's good/bad, the shoulds/oughts, ideals) we may
run the risk, argues Howard, of constructing an impoverished,
overly rigid vision of humanity, ignoring what humanity could

D. Howard's solution: Because values and thus theoretical
orientations inevitably influence our findings, psychological
research findings should be looked at not as demonstrating what
necessarily occurs in the world (some objective reality), but what
is possible if human beings are considered from a particular
perspective. Each perspective has something to offer; no one is
the correct perspective.

E. The theoretical controversies we will confront in this course
arise largely because each perspective is claiming itself to be the
model of objective reality. The controversies and debates are seen
in a different light, perhaps less hot, when viewed from Howard's

V. Mental Health and Morality
A. The terms "mental health" and "mental illness" are entangled in
moral and legal issues. Can mental illness/abnormality be
distinguished from sin, crime, and immorality? "Mad or Bad?" Here
is the dark side of the humanist's coin: if people have free will
and are responsible agents, then are they not accountable for all
their actions?

B. The Insanity Defense: Freedom of choice/free will is
constrained and distorted by mental illness - the person acts under
duress and is therefore not responsible. With most crimes,
conviction requires proof of the particular act (actus reus) plus
proof of a particular mental state (mens rea = culpable mind)
(Ennis, 1982). In other words, in addition to showing that the
person did the crime, it must also be shown that the person had a
conscious objective to commit the act. This is the heart of the
Insanity Defense used with people like John Hinckley, Jr. (Hinckley
tried to assassinate President Reagan on March 30, 1981 - he
succeeded in wounding both Reagan and an aide. He was tried and
found not guilty by reason of insanity. He was confined to a
mental hospital).
The controversy is concerned with how you tell whether an
adult has free will? It is a highly subjective judgement - there
is no clear criterion. Expert witnesses contradict each other.
"One person's delusion may be another's religion" (Cohen, 1982); or
in the words of Lily Tomlin: "If you speak to God, it's a prayer,
if God speaks to you it's schizophrenia". The question is: does
mental illness impair free will? This is an unresolved, inherently
philosophical question.

VI. Autonomy vs Conformity
A. The basic question: What is the basis of mental health?
Autonomy of the individual or conformity to society?

B. Conformity: A model of humankind and society which argues that
the best world is one in which there are few disruptions, where
conflict is rare or even nonexistent. The best way to achieve this
is for people to conform to particular ideals or ways of acting,
etc. The goal is for smooth, undisrupted functioning.

C. Autonomy: An "open system model", with a goal of growth,
development and change. (eg: humanistic psychology's emphasis on
self-actualization; conformity leads to mental illness).

D. A Combination: Some people claim (C) is the "best" - especially
in the U.S. where so much value is placed on individualism. But
imagine what life would be like if there was no conformity?
Imagine what your life would be like if you never attempted to
conform. Most theories of mental health (explicitly) take the
position that a combination of conformity and autonomy is important
for mental health. However in practice (ie: implicitly) there is
still much debate whether the various theoretical orientations are
taking a combination approach (Rappaport, 1977).

This leads us to the issue of the rights of individuals (especially
mental patients) vs the rights of society. Sometimes these may be
incompatible. What choice the clinician makes is crucial for defining
his/her role as clinician.

VII. Conclusions
We have discussed 5 philosophical issues that are fundamentally
intertwined in the topic of Abnormal Psychology: The relationship
between the mind and body, determinism vs indeterminism, the place of
values in psychology, mental health and morality, and autonomy vs
conformity. These issues will arise repeatedly throughout this course
and it will be important to explore them as they do. Such explorations
may help us clarify some of the confusion across the different
theoretical orientations.
  • Current Mood
    amused amused
welcome to my life

abnormal psych- lecture 1

Lecture 1


Lecture outline

I. Introduction
II. Definitions of abnormality
A. Statistical deviation
B. Social norm violation
C. Maladaptive behavior
D. Personal distress
E. Deviation from an ideal
F. Medical disorder
III.Problems with the definitions
IV. Conclusions

I. Introduction
What do we mean when we talk about abnormal behavior? The
definition of abnormality has gone through many dramatic changes through
history: Demons, gods, and magic; bodily fluids and wandering uteruses;
astral influences; physical illness; etc. (Chapter 2 of your book looks
at many of these early theories).
How we conceptualize the nature and cause of abnormal behavior has
important implications for 1) how we conceptualize treatment, the
clinician's role, and the client's role; and 2) what we see in research
and treatment, and perhaps more importantly what we don't see.
eg: "possession" definition logically leads to trephining.
"Bodily fluids" definition logically leads to bleeding.
If you see witches, you won't see social causes such as

II. Definitions of Abnormality
Today there are various definitions that are used by psychologists
and people in general for defining abnormal behavior (Bootzin &
Acocella, 1984; Carson, Butcher & Coleman, 1988; Sarason & Sarason,
1984; Weckowicz, 1984). These definitions are not necessarily mutually

A. Statistical deviation: The defining characteristic is uncommon
behavior - a significant deviation from the average/majority. Many
human characteristics are normally distributed. Handout 1-1
illustrates a normal distribution. Basically, we're talking about
a nice symmetrical bell-shaped curve along which we can rank
people: more people fall around the average; the farther away you
get from the average, the fewer the people. Example: Height is a
human characteristic. Most people fall around the average height
of 5'8" (I just made this value up, I don't know if it is in fact
the average human height). In this example, height can be said to
be normally distributed.
Characteristics falling beyond a particular distance from the
average values are sometimes seen as abnormal. This distance is
defined in terms of "standard deviation units" - these are values
that tell the scientist how many people fall beyond the average.
For example: The percentage of people 1 standard deviation greater
than the average is about 34% (see Handout 1-1). A convention
selected (arbitrarily) by scientists is to see people falling
beyond 2 standard deviations as abnormal (95.4% falls within the 2
sd boundaries). This is perhaps the most straight forward
definition: collect data, calculate averages and sd's.

Eg: Intelligence - there is a normal distribution of IQ
scores. Those whose scores are 2 sd's below the mean of 100 are,
by this definition mentally retarded (ie: abnormal). See Handout

B. Social norm violation: Breaking social "rules". Most of our
behavior is shaped by norms - cultural expectations about the right
and wrong way to do things.

Examples of norms: proper dress, how/what to eat, behavior on the
first date, eye contact with strangers, student/instructor
behavior, in fact, all aspects of our lives.

Someone who frequently violates these unwritten rules is seen as
abnormal. This is a very powerful and persuasive definition. It
is seemingly common-sense. Norms are so deeply ingrained they seem

C. Maladaptive behavior: Two aspects to this: 1) Maladaptive to
one's self - inability to reach goals, to adapt to the demands of
life, and 2) maladaptive to society - interferes, disrupts social
group functioning.

Eg: John, a 38 male, drinks every day to the point of losing
consciousness. He is argumentative with his family and friends,
and has gotten into frequent fights at work. Last week he swore at
his boss, and as a result has been fired. John does not seem to
have any motivation to find further employment. Nevertheless, he
spends what little money he has in savings on alcohol and
unnecessary items such as candy, video tapes, and what ever else he
might want at the moment. John often dwells on how worthless he
thinks he is, but also on how others do not treat him properly.
When not aggressive, he is frequently depressed.

This is a "practical" definition: it identifies those unable to
cope. It is also a "flexible" definition: it takes into account an
individual's context, recognizing that maladaptive is a relative
term - it depends on the person's life circumstances (Sarason and
Sarason, 1984).

D. Personal distress: Put simply, if the person is content with
his/her life, then s/he is of no concern to the mental health
field. If, on the other hand, the person is distressed (depressed,
anxious, etc), then those behaviors and thoughts that the person is
unhappy about are abnormal behaviors and thoughts.

E. Deviation from an ideal: This perspective requires
specification of what the "ideal" personality is. Falling short of
this specified ideal is an indication of mental illness. (Certain
Psychological theories attempt this specification, especially the
humanistic and existential orientations). Thus a person may be
seen as "abnormal" even if they seem to be functioning alright.
Indeed, from this perspective, we are all striving for some ideal
(personal or cultural), and many of us will never reach it. We all
at some point deviate from or fall short of the ideal. So, in this
sense, we are all abnormal to a certain degree, at least until we
reach (if ever) the ideal (whatever that may be).

F. Medical disorder: Abnormality exists when there is a physical
disease. Abnormal behavior is a symptom of a physical disorder.
This is a biogenic definition. The person is qualitatively
different from the unafflicted (Weckowicz, 1984). For example:
Alzheimer's Disease - The major cause is atrophy of certain regions
of the brain, typically occurring during the forties or fifties.
The individual suffers from difficulties in concentration, leading
to absent-mindedness, irritability and even delusions. Memory
continues to deteriorate; and death usually occurs 10-12 years
after onset of symptoms.

No one definition is the "correct" or the "best" definition. To a
certain extent each one captures a different aspect of the meaning of
abnormality. When we talk about Abnormality, or when we study it, or
treat those suffering from it, we inevitably invoke one or more of these
definitions, either explicitly of implicitly -either we're aware of the
definition(s) we're using or we're not. But we do use some definition.
All of you have some definition in your heads about what psychological
abnormality is, whether or not you could clearly state it. In any
event, it is important, especially as scientists, that we make as
explicit as possible the definition(s) we use, and acknowledge any
limitations. To operate implicitly hinders our ability to develop as a
science - our awareness is limited because as long as our definitions
are implicit, they remain unchallengeable, we ignore alternatives, we
don't "stretch" ourselves. And each definitional stance can certainly be

III. Problems with the definitions of abnormality
There are exceptions with each stance, or in other words "counter-
examples". Identifying counter-examples is a useful exercise: it allows
you to uncover a definition's logical flaws.

A. Statistical deviation: This definition would mean a genius
should be termed abnormal. Reliance on means and deviations
implicitly sets up the identity "average person" = "ideal person".
Is the average the ideal? Are deviations from the average a sign
of abnormality? In many respects, think how boring life would be
if we were all "average" - all basically the same - no dramatic
differences. Indeed, many of the wonderful advances made in our
history (be it in art, science, culture...) resulted from people
who took chances and tried new ways of doing things - people who
deviated from what was the average way of doing things. Deviations
can lead to flexibility and progress (cf. Dobzansky, 1962 for a
discussion of genetic theory and the importance of variability for

B. Social norm violation:
a) Social reformers, protestors, etc. This definition would
require that we label all social reformers as abnormal, people like
Susan B. Anthony, a feminist leader. She wanted social rules
changed - she rejected the norms of society.
b) Cultural relativism. As natural and absolute the norms of
our society seem to us, Sociology and Anthropology have taught us
that there is in fact nothing absolute about them. What's abnormal
(read "norm violating") in one society may be perfectly normal
("norm consistent") in another. The raw behavior hasn't changed,
but the society has.
eg: Sex and Temperament in New Guinea tribes - research by
Margaret Mead (1963): Three tribes, each with very different
1. Arapesh: Both males and females are mild, parental, and
2. Mundugumar: Males and females are fierce, oppressive
and cannibalistic.
3. Tchumbuli: Males are catty, wear curls and pretty
clothes, love to go shopping. Females are energetic,
managerial, unadorned.

Each of these culture is different from the other. By which
culture's standards do we judge a behavior to be abnormal?

In addition, even in a single society such as the U.S., there are a
myriad of subcultures. Add to this the fact that norms change
through the years so that what's normative in one generation, may
not be in another. We are left with a single society where there
are no clear norms that apply across all individuals. This
definitional stance implies that normality is the same as
conformity to the mainstream, when in fact there are many streams.
The term abnormality thus loses any firm referent.

C. Maladaptive behavior: This position ignores the possibility
that there may be abnormal situations. That is, perhaps there are
situations in which it would be abnormal to adapt. Eg: Germans who
were unable to adapt to Nazi Germany (Bootzin & Acocella, 1984); A
woman unable to cope with a husband who abuses her. The risk here
is that we will end up "blaming the victim" (Ryan, 1976).

D. Personal distress: To say that abnormal behavior is behavior
that causes a person distress/discomfort is to say that it is
normal if there is no discomfort. Thus, it logically follows that
someone like Charles Manson, a mass murderer, is normal: he feels
no guilt or discomfort about the killings he is responsible for.
Similarly, a psychotic patient who hears voices from his dead
mother that make him happy.

Conversely, distress may not always be a bad thing. Indeed,
perhaps people who can easily express their fear, depression, or
other forms of distress end up better dealing with their problems.
Or some types of distress may actually be very useful: anxiety,
for example, can signal you that danger is afoot and that you
better prepare for it!

It seems clear that the definition of abnormality must go beyond
the limited confines of "distress" and "discomfort", at least in
certain situations.

E. Deviation from an ideal: Whose ideal? The ideal for the
individual? the species? the culture? god? (Weckowicz, 1984). What
if the ideal is unrealistic or unobtainable?

Ideals, like social norms, are relative across groups and across
time, so all the problems discussed above apply here as well.
Here's an extreme example of the time-relative nature of ideals:
Pythagoras founded a religion with its own clearly defined ideals,
which included: don't pick up what has fallen, don't break bread,
don't walk on highways, and abstain from beans (Russell, 1945)!

F. Medical disorder:
a) Historically, some hoped that biological causes would be
found for all psychological problems. But as we will see, there is
a growing body of evidence that certain abnormal behaviors cannot
be fully explained without looking at the psychology of the
problem. Eg: Conversion hysteria (symptoms such as paralysis,
blindness, deafness, which have no physical causes) results from a
person's attempt to unconsciously cope with strong unwanted
emotions such as anxiety.
b) Implies "health" = absence of disease. According to the
World Health Organization, "health" = "a state of complete
physical, mental and social well being and not merely the absence
of disease and infirmity" (Zubin, 1961, emphasis added). In other
words: The absence of X doesn't necessarily mean the presence of

IV. Conclusions
Using a definition is unavoidable and it is necessary. But
choosing one is inherently unscientific - a value judgment in the final
moment. When we choose a definition, we do so in part based on feeling,
emotion, convenience, custom, appeal, ethics. There is an inherent
nonscientific arbitrariness in this choice. The potential result is
that psychologist Y and psychologist X could be talking about very
different things when using the word "abnormal" Confusion and
controversy ensues, especially if the definitions remain implicit.
However, as a science, we ideally make our definitions explicit and
then attempt to clarify and modify these definitions through
scientific/methodological rigor, with an eye always open to the
exception and alternative explanations.
It remains a philosophical debate whether the uncertainty of our
definition of "abnormality" is surmountable or is an inherent fuzziness
of the field.
Finally, the definition we use in this course is multifaceted -
using aspects of each definitional stance. Their individual
shortcomings and mutual incompatibilities will create tensions in our
discussions that we can use to explore some of the important issues in
the study of psychopathology.
  • Current Mood
    pleased pleased



  • Current Mood
    gloomy gloomy
the reason


  • Current Mood
    content content
only thing that matters


Are you ugly?
A liar like me?
A user, a lost soul?
Someone you don’t know
Money it’s no cure
A Sickness so pure
Are you like me?
Are you ugly?

We are dirt, we are alone
You know we're far from sober!
We are fake, we are afraid
You know it’s far from over
We are dirt we are alone
You know we're far from sober!
Look closer, are you like me?
Are you ugly?

Turn a blind eye
Why do I deny?
Medicate me
So I die Happy
A strain of cancer
Chokes the answers
Are you like me?
A liar like me?


I don’t care, you don’t care
I’m bitter, you’re angry.
You don’t care, I don’t care
You love you, just like me
I blame you, you blame me
I’m bitter, you’re angry.
You don’t care, I don’t care
You love you, like me


Are you Ugly? [X3]
  • Current Music
    the exies "ugly'
  • Tags
fall in love

long summer nights

well, since my last blog, much has changed. Mike called me that night, and just explained he was workin a lot, and had band practice. All is well. He since then has been coming over almost every night after work, and God i love spending time with him!!!! Yes, I really like him. and so much is different this time.Its fun and flirty, and its everything i have looking for. Its relaxing. I dunno, u all prob thinkin im talkin dumb, but i dunno, i really like this guy!! Much props to jason!! Good choice for me
  • Current Mood
    high high

An ode of best friends~ me and britty song

Current mood: creative
Category: Friends

this is our story, its really rather boring. brain farts and writers block, and lack of guy she has in flocks. sitting with the bestest reminescing bout the good times, thinkinback on all the crazy (crimes). life seeming like one big oxy moron, but we always have something to look back on... taking the good times with the bad, and realizing what alll we really had. heart aches and true love, broken noses come with all the above.. there to share the updates of life, and knowing shes there thru darkness and light. looking for love like the notebook, and working toward a new outlook. . wanting a love like the suns burning desire, but only finding the spark before the fire. . one blue eyed babe, looking for someone to fill her days. one blue eyed babe, waiting to stop the daze.. one with her life planned, while the other is still waiting for her chance...................
  • Current Mood
    creative creative
fall in love

happily wedded.........

yep thats right!!! im getting married in august!!!heather margaret de la cruz....... well soon enough!! he asked me last week!!! and of course britt is my maid of honor........... you kno!!! but the best part is gonna be my bachelorette party she's throwin me!!! yay me! anyways we havent decided if were puttin it in the paper or not, for some family members may not agree with me marrying the puerto rican.....o well i love him and thats all that matters to me, we have our house, thanks to my parents (early wedding present), so im all happy!! plus the money im makin now... lifes good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
  • Current Mood
    anxious anxious
  • Tags
sexy fairy

2 months later....................

well. its def been a long 2 months, i moved into my new house and have almost all the painting and stuff done. i only have to paint my room, but im waitin till peter moves in, so he can help me. Speaking of him....things are going great!!! we have been together for almost 3 months, and a few weekends ago, we spent the weekend in OC. we stayed at the carousel resort hotel, and went ice skating, walked the boardwalk, went to the club, ya kno------the normal OC stuff. we decided about a month ago that he would move in with me, and i couldnt be happier!!! on another note-- my court date was this past wednesday- and all i got was 2 yrs probation, and restitution. DAMN IM GOOD!!!! hahahha Pam wanted me to have jail time, but i represented myslef- and my 3 years of teen court finally paid off- i took a plea bargain- and walked outta there!!!!!hahahahah but anyways- peter and i are going to get some tattoos done and im getting a piercing or 2 done, so ill update when i can!!

with love!