I like Cary's answer, but "I Liked You Better When You Were Happier and Sluttier" is some seriously good advice.

Adapting to a new person and growing as you learn more about yourself and that person through your relationship are good things. Changing your entire personality and, especially, your view of yourself are bad things and, huge, HUGE red flags for any relationship.

I was in a similar situation to you. My ex constantly criticized me, pointing out my deficiencies and inadequacies on a daily (if not hourly) basis. After a year of living together and another year of off & on agony, I finally ended it. However, that train wreck of a relationship has had lasting scars. I internalized his definition of me as broken and in need of repair.

Many other letter writters have said "dump him now" and I agree. But, I also understand it's not so easy, especially when your self-esteem has been so eroded by him. You may feel, as I did, that no one else will ever accept your "impure" self and that he is doing you some sort of favor by putting up with your past. That's what he wants you to think because it gives him all the power. But, you know what? It's bullshit. He's just a scared little boy who is intimidated by your strong inner self.

And, it's time to unleash that inner self that has been hiding before it's too late. It's hard, but you need to dump him now. The longer you let this go on, the harder it will be to get back to where you were before you met him. Good luck.

Yes, there is violence associated with the illicit drug trade. However, this association does not make the act of possessing, purchasing or distributing an illicit drug an inherently violent act. When drug users and providers commit a violent act in furtherance of their habit or occupation, they should be punished. But, the act of merely selling drugs, even such a harmful one as methamphetamine, cannot be said to be violent. By that logic, a purveyor of alcohol whose customer then proceeds to commit partner member-family assault (a fairly common by-product of alcohol) would be commiting a violent act.

Methampetamine is a huge problem. I live in an area where its abuse is common and I have lost several friends to this horrificly powerful and addictive drug. But, I don't believe that it is in any way productive to lock up everyone associated with the meth industry. Locking up meth users only makes sense in that they will not be able to use, produce or distribute meth while they are behind bars. Due to the lack of any rehabilitation programs, meth users will return to their habit once they are released. Can we justify locking up these human beings and throwing away the key? Without any sort of rehabilitation program, that is the only way to stop users from using.

Meanwhile, our jails are bursting at the seams. Throughout my state, jails are so full that human rights are violated on a daily basis. However, judges continue to sentence every meth offender that walks into their courtroom to jail time. At the same time, those who abuse their family members and commit other violent acts are frequently given suspended or other minimal sentences.

Drug laws don't make sense. Yes, there is a problem, but not one that can be solved within the halls of justice. In fact, the violence associated with the meth and other illicit drug trades is a product of its very illegality. If drug use were legalized, there would be no need for the secrecy and violence that frequently accompanies drug traffic. For comparison, consider the bootlegging industry and the eventual demise of that violent culture after the end of prohibition.

Exactly, Pyrian. The judge in this case obviously had very little idea of what was really going on.

It is unfortunate that this woman's mental issues are being widely reported throughout the media today. Clearly, she is suffering from delusions. However, what should be newsworthy about this restraining order is that the judge never should have granted it.

Temporary restraining orders such as this one are given out rather freely, because they only last until a hearing is held to determine if there is any actual threat. If the judge finds that such a real threat exists, she will then extend the order. This serves the public policy of allowing victims, such as battered spouses, to obtain a protective order as quickly as possible when it is really necessary. Therefore, there is a low standard for getting a temporary order against someone. However, that low standard is still a standard which obviously could not be met in this case.

The reviewing judge should have taken a look at her allegations and denied the temporary order because it is clear that David Letterman poses no real threat to this woman. By granting this baseless motion for an order of protection, the judge has 1) exposed this woman to ridicule and 2) weakened the entire system set up to protect real victims. While the system necessitates that some bogus temporary orders are granted, this is a necessary effect of providing protection to victims expediently. However, when a judge grants a motion that has no merit, such as this one, she makes a mockery of the judicial process.