Thank you for articulating this. I was too overwhelmed and distraught to even find the words! I knew this situation was bad, but this video painted a more vivid and horrifying picture of the situation for me. My 18 yo dd just told me last week that she is interested in dating now. Not that she has someone in particular in mind, but she's hoping the right person will come into her life. She simply hasn't had any interest up to this point. How do I protect her??? The thought of her dating someone whose perception of sexuality has been warped by porn absolutely terrifies me. She is modest and shy by nature. She's never even been kissed. And the dating world that she's about to enter is . . . well, this hell that we've created. It truly makes me want to weep. Other mothers of daughters*, please tell me, how can we help our daughters protect themselves? * and please know I'm not ignoring or denying the very real need to protect sons too. It's just that I only have a daughter, so that's my focus right now.

I've found that ones with tea tree oil in them work better for me, but I don't know if tea tree oil might be irritating to the skin for some people. I only recently made the switch from anti-perspirant, though, so I haven't done a lot of experimenting yet. I'm going to try some of the ones that were mentioned here, so thanks everyone!

I have to gently correct your thread title, because I promise you, that is something I would do too! (((hugs))) I haven't mastered that skill. For me the panic goes on and on, and the anguish lasts even longer!

I also meant to mention that I thought this was an interesting example. Many religions have dietary restrictions: certain foods must be avoided, foods must be prepared in a certain way, there are periods of fasting, etc. That is not entirely but largely absent now in the US. Also in times past people were far more in touch with their food, growing/raising/preparing it themselves far more than we do now. And I suspect that fostered a much greater sense of gratitude and appreciation. Maybe these self-imposed dietary limits are a actually an attempt to regain some of that? I radically changed my diet several months ago, and went vegan. What I was shocked to discover was that the limits I had imposed on my diet, deemed largely unbearable by most people, actually dramatically increased the sense of satisfaction and appreciation that I derived from each meal. I sat down to my meals with far more joy than I had ever experienced before. Rather unexpected, though, isn't it? I can't say how much of that was because the change brought my actions more in line with my ideals, and therefore gave me peace, and how much of it was that I derive satisfaction from knowing that I am following a philosophy or a set of guidelines/rules/limits, because I feel that both were definitely at play.

Oh, yes, there is definitely a down side to the prospect of being born to a more homogenous society, particularly if it is also a strict one. No disagreement there at all, but I do wonder sometimes if the freedom and individualism that mark modern American society isn't its own kind of oppression. This isn't something well thought-out on my part, and so it's going to be almost impossible for me to articulate it. So I ask your forgiveness in advance for this clumsy attempt. I'm just thinking aloud here... about both biology and religion. Biologically, we evolved to be a highly social species. Being accepted by the group was vital for our survival. So psychologically, we've been built with that need. And religiously, from what I know of the world's religions and wisdom traditions, however the doctrines may differ, they often share a message about self-sacrifice, or basically, just the message that I am not the center of the universe (in Eastern Orthodox Christianity there's "dying to the self" and in Buddhism and Taoism there is the philosophy of detachment or renunciation, and so on.) I think that our (modern western, US in particular) culture emphasizes personal growth and individualism and being your authentic self and being your best you and so on. But what if my best me is actually less "me"? There seems to be a whole lot of loneliness and dissatisfaction and depression in this culture that is so focused on individual freedoms and self-fulfillment. Were we actually happier when we had less freedom? Were people more content when life was less about "the pursuit of happiness" and more about the individual's obligations to the community? I've read about studies showing that people were less happy when they had the freedom to make a decision. When circumstances make decisions for us, we're more likely to just accept it and feel content about it and move on. When we make the decision ourselves, we're more likely to doubt that our decision was the right one, and wonder if things would have been better if we'd decided differently. So what if psychologically we are not actually well-equipped to deal with the freedom to make all our own choices about our lives? Would we be more content in a culture with a greater common purpose and less personal freedom? Well, as I said, I'm just musing. I'm sure there's a happy balance somewhere between expectations placed on us (rules, limits, however it's best to articulate that) and personal freedom. And I don't claim to know where it lies!

Yes, that tendency we have to join groups where people are of like mind and/or are pursuing a shared interest definitely speaks to an innate need within us, I believe! I imagine that the sense of community and belonging is all the richer when it's the same people in all of those aspects of your life.

One interesting aspect of this to me is how much a shared set of limitations and rules binds people together as a community, gives them a shared sense of purpose, a feeling that we are all working together cooperatively toward the same goal. I suspect this is something missing from (or at least, significantly reduced in) modern life compared to most of human history where people lived in smaller groups with shared religious beliefs, and where they depended much more directly on one another. The psychology of being a member of a tribe (with a set of rules that everyone lives by) must be very different from the psychology of being a member of a family in a sea of disconnected families (all making their own rules beyond the basic ones that are put into law). Not that I have any particular insights to share on that! Just that I wonder about it.

I would tend to agree. It's not a topic I'm well-educated on, but based on the chapter on aging in the book Spark! by John Ratey, and the fact that I've read elsewhere that the brain actually physically atrophies as we age (as in, some brain tissue dies off), I would guess that it is due in no small part to brain degeneration. Even by the age of 40, my brain MRI showed that I had "areas of hypodensity", or put more bluntly, tiny holes in my brain. A pleasant thought, isn't it? ?

This one is a feather-light liquid that soaks right in and disappears, and doesn't smell. If you want it to be moisturizing too, then I recommend this one. But I will warn you, these are a little pricey - at least within the parameters of my budget. But I use them anyway (CLEAR in the summer and Moisture Boost in the winter) because I can put them on under my makeup and they don't feel heavy or greasy or sticky -- put another way, they don't feel/smell like sunscreen at all.

I will admit I was skeptical when my husband proposed that explanation - and I told him as much. I mentioned your first point to him, in fact, but never having lived anywhere but the US, wasn't equipped with the knowledge in your second point. But then when I saw the same points he'd made proposed here I thought perhaps I'd dismissed the idea too easily. The biologist part of my brain always thinks that if there is a biological explanation, then that is the simplest and most likely explanation. The feminist part of my brain thinks that sexism, both subtle and overt, is very real, and could be at play in this dynamic too. But overall, I suspect that biological differences in interests and personal strengths is probably playing the largest role here. What do you think?

I enjoyed that documentary. Thanks for posting it. I thought the study about in utero testosterone levels and their effect on the development of empathy and language ability was really fascinating. As to the part I bolded - I was just thinking this morning about how my daughter plans to get a STEM degree (geology/paleontology) but what she plans to do with it is more people- and relational-oriented. Her hope is to work in a natural history museum in a capacity which would allow her to share her love of paleontology with the public. She has specifically said that her dream job would be "talking about dinosaurs all day" ? I was chatting with my husband about this thread last night. He has several decades of experience in the engineering and physics world, both in private industry and in a national laboratory. He was saying that he believes the reason there are fewer women in STEM is that smart women can see that the crap you have to put up with in STEM (the long hours of demanding work, the pay being low relative to the amount of work you have to put in, the massive layoffs, the problems created by H-1B visas, etc.), just isn't worth it, and they wisely go into business instead (which is what he wishes he had done in some ways). So it was interesting for me to read your post today, saying basically the same thing!

Yeah, that is a good point.

And "relative" abilities (if that's the right way to word it) like the second article pointed out. What I mean is, as I've been thinking more and more about this topic today, I've started to wonder if the teachers who encouraged me in English were on the right track all along! Because while I did fine in math, and I loved science and did very well in it, the truth is that English and reading just came more naturally and easily to me. So perhaps my teachers could see what I wasn't seeing: that's really where my personal strength was.

Interesting - I wasn't aware of this dynamic. Thanks for posting this.

"Early in school, teachers’ unconscious biases subtly push girls away from STEM." Yeah, I can believe this. My brother and I both had the same teacher for third grade (four years apart). We both had a hard time with multiplication tables. All I remember getting from that teacher was scolding and disapproval. My brother got extra help and encouragement, and a mini-celebration when he passed the final test. I have always loved science, but also thought of myself as not good enough at math to do most sciences. I got my degree in biology specifically because I felt I couldn't handle the math required for astronomy, which was my first love. I wonder if my math skills might have developed differently if I had ever had one teacher who had said "you're pretty good at this. If you work hard, you could do really well." I almost always managed to make A's in math in primary and secondary school (I think I had a couple of B's in elementary school, but that was it), but despite that, I always felt like I was bad at it. And no one ever told me otherwise. ETA: But it's funny to look back and think of how many teachers encouraged me to become an English teacher, despite the fact that I'd never expressed any particular interest in going that direction. I absolutely loved science, but I had precisely one teacher (my high school biology teacher) who encouraged me to go into science. ETA2: I feel I should clarify that I'm not saying there was anything wrong with my teachers encouraging me in English! The fact is that I did do well in English, so it was natural for them to encourage me. But I also did well in science, and I though I didn't think so at the time, looking back I think I was doing pretty darn well in math too. But I didn't get the same encouragement in those areas.

Oh, another thing I forgot to mention. Initially, I thought that I didn't have food triggers, because I couldn't correlate my migraines to any particular foods other than alcohol. But then I read that food typically triggers a migraine 12-24 hours after you eat it, not immediately. So then I figured out that high-tyramine foods were triggering me. But it seems that everything I do to help reduces the severity of my migraines, which don't get me wrong is great. If they were still as severe as they were initially, I honestly don't know how I'd be able to function. Unfortunately nothing I do seems to reduce the frequency. But they aren't as bad and they don't last as long, so I am profoundly grateful for that!

I haven't read the other replies yet, so forgive me if I'm repeating anything! But I wanted to share my experiences. First of all, (((hugs))) because migraines stink. I've had them since puberty, but mine became chronic when I hit 40. Chronic, by the way, is defined as 15 or more migraine days per month. If you are having chronic migraines now, that's when a doctor will prescribe you preventive medications in addition to treatment ones. I've tried all the standard ones (I think) at this point. The calcium-channel blocker was the worst. I took only two doses of it. It made me feel like I was having a heart attack or something, chest pains, rapid breathing, and just this weird feeling that my heart was really struggling. It was awful, but I assume my reaction is not common! Topomax made me feel really tired, loopy, disoriented, like I was in a brain fog (it also reduced my appetite and made me lose a little weight. I didn't mind that, but if you're underweight it might not be wise.). And it didn't help anyway. Amitriptyline worked for a few months but then stopped, and when we tried increasing the dose, it gave me heart palpitations. It had also made me very sleepy even at the lower dose, and I was sleeping about 9 hours every night and still having a very hard time waking up. Beta blockers did nothing to help. Made me feel a little bit weak, but not too bad (my blood pressure was already on the low side of normal. I've heard that people with high blood pressure have a lot of success with beta blockers, so your experience might be different). I'm currently trying Botox injections, and I can't say there have been any miraculous benefits (I think it's reducing the severity some, but not the frequency, I'm still having them basically every day, just as before. But my neuro says you need at least three treatments to know how well it will work, and I've only had two so far). But I will say that it's had ZERO side effects, so that's nice at least. As far as non-prescription things I've tried: feverfew, butterbur, vitamins B2 and D, and magnesium all did absolutely nothing for me. My migraines became chronic when I was on a low-carb ketogenic diet. Going off of that diet and getting on a high-carb, vegan diet reduced the severity tremendously. That helped more than any other single thing that I've tried, including the prescriptions, but if you're not eating low-carb, this might or might not be relevant for you, I can't say. Regular aerobic exercise reduces the severity a bit. Ginger and turmeric help some. Avoiding alcohol and high-tyramine foods is an absolute necessity for me. This, unfortunately, is a whole lot of foods: anything aged (cheeses), cured (deli meats), pickled (pickles, olives), or fermented (sourdough, miso, soy sauce). And some foods are just naturally high in tyramine such as citrus fruits (which I LOVE and dearly miss), nuts, chocolate, bananas, eggplant, avocado, and many others. (So just a personal whine/vent: being vegan without nuts, avocados, citrus, and miso/soy sauce is not fun. But I am committed to it now for ethical and spiritual reasons in addition to the health reasons that initially set me on that particular path.) About caffeine: withdrawal can trigger a migraine. So if you're having frequent migraines, it's actually recommended that you avoid caffeine. And given the negative effects that it has on you, you might be better off with a preventive prescription rather than relying on caffeine. Yet another thing that I dearly miss: coffee. You also mentioned that not eating enough will trigger a migraine, and it does the same thing to me. I think that the reason the low-carb diet was so bad for me in this regard was that insufficient carbs means insufficient serotonin, and migraines are intimately tied to neurotransmitter levels (though I don't claim to understand the details of how that works, both my GP and my neurologist have told me that's the case). So I recommend eating plenty of complex carbs: potatoes, whole grains, beans and legumes. (And incidentally, I lost weight going from low-carb to high-carb, so I no longer believe the "carbs make you fat" claim. But I do eat moderate/low protein and low fat. I think where many people get into trouble is eating both high-fat and high-carb.) You might want to watch this video about the use of ginger to treat migraines: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/ginger-for-migraines/ I've found that it does help, but the effect doesn't last as long as an NSAID or triptan, so I have to keep taking it pretty frequently. ETA: I forgot to mention that crying triggers a bad migraine or severely worsens an existing migraine for me too. I think it's those neurotransmitters again, but I don't know. In any event, I try very hard to avoid crying! No more sad movies for me. Also, dehydration is a major trigger. But I found that making an effort to drink extra water did nothing. So I just drink to thirst and that works just fine.

I was just going to ask about that - if a state doesn't define homeschooling or recognize it as a distinct thing, then how does it distinguish homeschooling from truancy? That seems very problematic.

I've wondered this too, but I have never been able to find any official answer. I suspect not registering could you make you vulnerable to prosecution for truancy, which in my state carries a small fine and community service for a first offense, and a larger fine and jail time for a second offense. But in reality I would guess that rarely/never happens. They probably just tell you "register or you will be prosecuted" and that's the end of it. (I'm guessing!)

I can't believe I didn't think of this with my first reply, but when my daughter was in taekwondo several years ago, there was a gym in the same shopping center where the TKD school was. That was so convenient: one trip, and we'd both get our exercise done.

Can your older kid(s) workout with you? Our gym allowed our daughter to join at 15 on the condition that she always be accompanied by a parent. Then from 16 on, she could workout on her own.

Interesting - I'm in a neighboring state (NM) and it's pretty common here too (though perhaps not that common). Do you think it's something cultural about this region of the country? This is the only place I've ever homeschooled, so I have no basis of comparison.

Thanks for all the replies! I really am enjoying reading everyone's thoughts. I think Jean pretty much summed it up with the point that there is an "everyday" definition that most of us generally use, and a legal definition that's obviously going to be the one used when the government gets involved. I do wish the media would use the legal definition, since the everyday definition is too wishy-washy to be useful when you're reporting about a legal matter (I'm talking about the way they report cases where the government has gotten involved, of course).

That would seem to be the most logical, consistent definition. And it would mean that about half of the homeschoolers I know aren't actually homeschoolers!

Yes, it's that "actually educating" part where it gets tricky, indeed! I knew an unschooling family (and I will be honest that I disagree very strongly with the philosophy of unschooling) where it was obvious how hard the mother worked to encourage her daughter's learning: she was very thorough and deliberate with "strewing", she always asked her daughter if she wanted to attend school or even just individual classes that she thought would be of interest to her, she had a massive library, they were involved in a huge number of activities and groups, and she kept beautiful scrapbooks of all the cool stuff that her daughter did. So even though she wasn't formally educating in the traditional sense, I certainly think of her as a homeschooler. But I've known other families who didn't claim to be unschooling, but called themselves "relaxed" or "child-led" who seemed to be using homeschooling as an excuse for laziness. They were guilty of what I would consider educational neglect, and I know that at least one of these families also did not adhere to the legal requirement to register. But I still thought of them as homeschoolers too (just not very good ones). So, anyway, I guess I'm just pondering my definition of what it means to be a homeschooler, because it seems to be in need of revision. ?