1. Great multipurpose 2. Only in summer and if you've got nice toes 3. Too dressy for jeans

I think it can be hard on people to lose not just the gf/bf but the whole extended family; I can understand, esp. as a young person, his wanting to keep in some contact with you, even if it's awkward, if you two got along. Talking to you about his sadness about your daughter, or about your daughter at all, is a little off, though.

It wasn't teens owning pickups and driving other teens when I was a kid, it was adults owning pickups and piling 5 kids in the back to go over to the pool or out for ice cream. I can't imagine seeing that today but I absolutely ride in pickup beds as a 5 year old.

It's something to do with separating the humanity/daily life of the actual person from the symbolic embodiment of the role. I think maybe something similar happens with the Pope (although I've never been religious, so this is only a guess); in his role as Pope, he's different conceptually from his individual self, he's the embodiment of something else - divine religious authority, or whatever. In the US you can get sort of a vague sense of it with a briefly popular wartime president - Bush right after 9/11, say. For a short time he had approval ratings in the 90s; this wasn't necessarily people approving of him personally or even politically, but responding to the thing he represented, the symbolic authority/representation of the state. I don't think the Kardashians are a terrible example of this phenomenon, actually - although they do it deliberately, consciously, instead of it being a thing that happens to them by circumstance - but there is a similar operation wherein they are the embodiment of a symbol, or an image.

I think I read Jon Stewart (but maybe it was someone else) say something like: As an American, I don't necessarily understand the British monarchy, and I think the whole thing can seem a little silly. But: imagine if once a week, the president had to tromp on over to the Lincoln Memorial and meet with an embodied metaphor of Uncle Sam - a living, breathing, representation of the founding power of the state, sort of. Like a symbol but also alive. And to Uncle Sam, every week, the president had to give a little status report, sort of defend in broad terms how well he was leading the country. That quote (and I mangled it ofc) is the only thing that's gotten me close to understanding the British monarchy.

Like if you're gonna claim technological supremacy in bathroom scales, personally I'd name it something like AccuRite 5000 or Technolux. But no, it's just the smartest scale on Earth, named Ted.

"Track your training and weigh your wellness with precise measurements that automatically sync to the Vont Home app. Ted is the smartest scale we have ever made."

I clicked; it's just an ad for a scale whose name is Ted.

Is he watching DD all day while you are working during your weeks in the summer too? From his perspective, I cann see how he might feel like the divorce resulted in a lot more responsibility and unpaid work for him, even though that wasn't the cause (things that happen in sequence can seem causally related to kids even if they're not). It's just a lot! I think he's actually holding up pretty well with that level of additional responsibility, my 14 year old would be a basket case and would be Done With Adults.

I wonder if he's feeling a lot of extra responsibility and is a little resentful and stressed as a result - since he's now providing significant babysitting (is it all day during the summer?) while his dad is at work. That's a lot for a 14 year old, and I know mine get snippier when there's some underlying stress. I imagine he's taking over a lot of parental responsibilities that he used to not, from childcare to emotional support (given that his dad seems to talk to him about adult things sometimes), so he's sort of caught between being a kid who is cared for and a young adult who through no fault of his own is somewhat parentified.

You might look around, especially with the availability of zoom therapy, and see if you qualify for anyone's sliding scale. I doubt you would need to pay full price anywhere that has a sliding scale with your income so low. That's a pretty weird cost-sharing agreement, and it's too bad you didn't understand it fully before signing (or weren't carefully informed). No therapist can ethically treat someone they don't think needs the help, so it's not like you could just rack up big therapy bills willy-nilly. Is your DS insured by his father? Could he at least get individual therapy under that insurance?

I think it's actually a pretty good development - he feels safe enough to start talking with you directly about how he feels about the divorce! I think maybe the family therapy helped after all. It might be useful to have a store of neutral but loving things you can say when he questions your actions in the divorce. I tend to try for things like, I'm sorry honey, I know this has been really hard for you. sometimes grownups just can't live together anymore, but we both still love you. Families do divorces all different kinds of ways, and we're both trying our best, even though parts of it are hard for all of us. But it's more cultivating an attitude of saying something like that and less memorizing a script. What you do is get clear in your head what the essential framework is (these are adult decisions, we love you, I miss seeing you every day, I'm glad you're here now, Absolutely No Defensiveness about your decision to get divorced or actions during the divorce, segue to asking about something he's interested in or that's been going on in his non-family life recently). Then you can make up the response within that framework on the fly.

Yep that's the line, fraidycat. I find it so much easier to advocate for myself on the basis of a more fundamental obligation (my kids vs other people) than just for myself. But. You can also one hundred percent say I don't want to do this thing. Even if I had no kids to save myself for, i wouldn't want to do it. And not wanting to do it, because the extended family is not your responsibility, is enough. Just not wanting to is enough. You don't need an excuse or a reason. But the excuse helps, at first, when you've gotten really enmeshed.

Yeah ann, but then you have to do that every time (make plans). I'm trying to imagine, as a similarly not very confrontational person who mostly replies on other people to not intrude impolitely, what I would say. I think I'd rip off the band-aid by text, and do it now. To both: "hey guys, I won't be available to cover your volunteer hours like I did last year. I wish I'd thought to mention that sooner! Also, we love having (nieces) over but I definitely need you guys to clear it with me first going forward." If you got a text like this from a relative, having assumed they'd do your volunteer hours and watch your kids without asking, you'd (I assume) think "oh! Shoulda asked. Gotta sign up for those hours" and would be unoffended. This, you know that there's no reason for a decently rational adult to be offended at this text and you can send it knowing if they take offense, it's not because you did anything wrong. Good luck! Rip off that band-aid, it's good for your character development.

Other things abused women do: Laugh at funny moments at the trial Freeze at moments at the trial Laugh at their lawyer's jokes Reneg on a protective order (it's only a violation for the person who you're protected from, not for the person who was granted the protective order, and women - not me, lol - reneg on these sometimes, because the cycle of abuse exists) Beg their abuser to come back Fail to get medical treatment Refuse to cooperate with the police Stay Leave Have substance use disorders (not me - I was a very good victim) Have mental illnesses (I only had PTSD) I hate that I felt it necessary to clarify what a good victim I was, to differentiate myself from those crazy drugged-out wh&res who cheat on their husbands. To be clear, I feel the threat of the association, although I personally don't care whether someone in an abusive or nonabusive relationship cheats, does drugs, or is mentally ill in a socially unacceptable way.

I'm fine with disbelieving someone based on evidence - maybe you think the psychologist Depp hired was more credible than their couple's therapist, or you think the doctor who said Depp's finger could have been cut off by the glass bottle made more sense than the one who said it couldn't have. Maybe you just didn't believe Heard, found her less convincing than Depp. There are a lot of reasons people can think one way or another about the evidence and the way it was presented. But claims that she's unbelievable because "no abused woman in fear of her partner would do x" or "abused women don't react in y way" are damaging and incorrect, and not good ways of evaluating claims of abuse. Conflating these two things makes your arguments about the quality of the evidence suspect. If you can't separate her cheating from the reality or unreality of the abuse, I don't trust your opinion on the abuse, because you're wrong about "women who are afraid of their husbands don't do x" - they do these things, and other more dangerous things like leaving.

I was afraid of my husband, and for good reason (as found by a court, no less!). I had no inclination to cheat on him because sex was never pleasant for me, and I'd been raped rather a lot (may not reduce sex drive in other women, but did for me). I did do things I knew would cause him to hurt me, sometimes. I sometimes prevented him from abusing the kids, I once told him I disagreed with him about something, I once pulled his hair when he had me pinned against the wall. It was never a great decision; it was never safe. In a long term abusive relationship, sometimes you do dangerous things even though you know intellectually they are stupid, because it's very hard to keep your eyes (literally) down all the time. It's very difficult to be perfectly behaved, according to whatever control the abuser needs, for years. The most dangerous thing you can do, statistically, is leave. So it doesn't make much sense to say "no abused woman who was scared would cheat" - I promise you, some do. And many, eventually, leave, even though it's more dangerous in the moment than staying. I'm sure some people who say they're afraid of their partner and then cheat weren't afraid, but it's simply innacurate as a blanket statement, like garden mom made. Witness: women who cheat on their husbands and are killed. If they weren't afraid of him, they should have been. Are you really saying no woman can be believed about abuse if she cheated? Because someone who is being abused would never cheat? It's such a broad, wrong, damaging idea, and making it personal ("did you cheat?") is so unkind.

No, I didn't - but he was afraid I had (among other paranoid delusions), and threatened to kill me for it. I just want to be very clear, because I can't continue here: cheating on someone is not illegal. It is irrelevant to whether a woman was abused. Killing someone (or threatening to kill them, or hitting them, etc.) is illegal. I honestly cannot believe you asked me that, and that no one has reacted to it. You sound exactly like my ex-husband. It's quite aggressive and pretty unnecessary.

When you are in an abusive relationship, sometimes you do things you know (or should know) will make the other person angry. Surely you're aware this happens. Whether or not Amber Heard was abused, this is not a good basis on which to disbelieve someone who claims they were abused.

I bought mine a gun. He had been nice for months; there wasn't really an option to refuse without leaving; he already owned another gun anyway.

Well, lots of women do cheat on abusive men. Lots don't. It's a frankly terrible reason to disbelieve someone.

If you say unkind things to someone or cheat on them, and they hit you, they have committed a crime. They are abusive.

If you go to a medical clinic to explain you were raped with a vodka bottle (or hit on the nose, etc.), either you're going to lie (say it was an accident) or you're going to tell someone about the abuse who may report it. If you're not ready to leave, that is dangerous and stupid (that's how it feels). If you are ready to leave, it's still dangerous; leaving is the most dangerous thing you can do in an abusive relationship. I absolutely didn't report concussions, etc. I read online what to look for and took care of it myself. It Was Safer. Plus, afterward he's a lot nicer for a while. Like, this is not a new revelation, that people are injured by domestic violence and don't get medical treatment out of fear and shame. Regardless of Amber Heard, this is not the reason to disbelieve people who claim they were abused.

Like here's a novel idea if anyone is unaware of it: abusers are nice sometimes. When they're nice, you're so desperate for that to continue that you'd do almost anything to keep the nice version going - allow sex you don't want, buy a weapon, forgive him for hitting you last week. Eventually you may even get complacent and let your guard down and insult him, or disobey one of his rules - maybe go to an interview for a job you know he'd prefer you not take. Then he hits you, and the cycle starts again - the violence reaches a new peak, he's sorry, he's nice, you do all the things to keep him nice, you relax, he gets mad again (or falls off the wagon, or has a bad day at work), etc. and infinitum, until you leave (or die).

Yeah, like why did she even stay with him if he's so dangerous? Like abused women are probably all lying because they continue to allow the abuse - at the very least they sort of deserve it, if they cheat on their husbands. /s There may be reasons to doubt Amber Heard, but these aren't the reasons. Women (and men, I'd assume) in abusive relationships stay, and buy their dangerous partners weapons, and text their partners begging to come back. The cycle of abuse is a pretty well-documented phenomenon. Please let's not perpetuate the lie that abused women are responsible for their abuse (or are lying about it) if they cheat, or support the abuser, or say nice or desperate things to him. None of these factors is relevant in deciding whether someone was abused, because they're all quite common in abusive relationships.