I didn't know much about this case until this thread. You made me look into it:). I did notice that the rape charges were actually dropped before trial, and the young man was tried (and convicted) of 2 assaults and attempted rape.

I think these are reasonable questions. I tell my sons that if you like a woman enough to have sex with her, you tell her. Over lunch. In the light of day. And give her time to think about it and choose. But in this case, there was no question. The woman was completely unconscious when police arrived shortly after the assault was interrupted. That was around 1 a.m. she remained unconscious until after 4 a.m.

The drinking and party happened at a frat house and the frat was serving alcohol to minors. So I guess that's why frats get mentioned. But wait? She wasn't a student at Stanford? Well, now I seriously don't care as much what happened.

We insure against things we can not afford. I can afford funerals. I can not afford to support my family if DH dies. Not the way we live now. He can not afford to replace my (small) income and my (huge) unpaid contributions to our household. So yes, we have insurance on him, and a bit less on me. Privately purchased.

I think there are two different things that need to be addressed: 1. Criminal responsibility. Rapists are responsible for rape. 2. Personal Safety: I think somehow people are afraid that if they tell their daughters some ways to protect themselves, they will either be sending the message that she is responsible if she is victimized or that they will be confining and limiting their daughters. I get it. I was resentful (still am) at advice that suggests I should deny myself adventure, solace, joy. I have traveled alone, camped alone, hiked alone. I like walking at night. I have done it in big town, small towns. Sure, that might increase risk, but to me, it's worth it. I can't eliminate all risk. If I take every possible precaution, I am not going to enjoy my life. But I am not afraid to tell my sons, "You are traveling to a place where people are poor,"(or crime is high, or there is little police protections) "Leave your jewelry at home. Don't flash your wad of cash. Keep your valuables close to your body." That doesn't mean they share responsibility legally if robbed. Thief is fully responsible. The victim is not to blame. I was pick pocketed out of a good deal of money once (on a subway, traveling). I did not take the precautions I should have. That didn't make me legally responsible for the crime. The thief was 100% legally responsible. However, it wasn't a great deal of comfort to know that. I wanted my money back! So yes, I did recognize my own mistakes (I knew better, I just got sloppy). But that had no significance legally. I don't think it is wrong to talk about the risks of heavy drinking at frat houses. I don't think it is wrong to talk about keeping watch so nothing is slipped in that drink. I think we can teach our kids about reducing the risks of being raped, robbed, assaulted, or scammed without implying that if those things happen, they are to blame. I think we have to talk very honestly with our sons too about reducing the risk of accusations by making sure a woman who seems willing is actually clear headed, willing, and not feeling pressured or under the influence. However, It seems like bad timing to discuss personal safety precautions after a terrible crime is committed. The instinct to want to lecture a victim on what she could have done to prevent it is appalling. I don't understand why anyone thinks a woman making a statement (whether to the court, her rapist, the police, her parents, or anyone else) SHOULD acknowledge ways she could have been more cautious. It's not her job to do that. Its not what she should be focused on in the aftermath of a horrible event. I don't understand why anyone reading this victim's statement thinks she owes us that, or why they think that if she doesn't share her regrets, she doesn't have them. It's none of our business what kinds of things she is thinking about or feelings, apart from those she chooses to share.

Zoos have a responsibility to protect the animals they keep. If having a different type of enclosure would have protected the Gorilla from the harm caused by a child entering his enclosure, the zoo is probably wishing he had that enclosure. We don't need styrofoam boxes to protect ourselves from every little thing. But from the gorilla's point of view, this was a pretty big thing.

My father told me never to make a big decision based only on money. There are other factors that drive our decision where to live. For DH and I, we can't put a price tag on living near our parents - we live less than two miles from each. I am happy to spend more for that privilege, especially as they age. I don't need world class arts, but I did want to live in a city where my sons could study music with first rate instructors and play in a good youth orchestra. I like taking my mother to the opera. I like good restaurants. I have lived in two towns that were low COL but ugly. I hated that. I don't need paradise, but I care about my surroundings. I am fond of lushness. I like living near an airport and close enough to the beach and mountains to easily go for a weekend. We live in an expensive part of our city. At times I regret that. We are paying too much mortgage and could have a better house if we lived outside the city. But we highly prioritized proximity. For years my husband had a five minute drive to work. He could come home for lunch with the kids. We spent a lot for that location, but those things matter to us MORE than material things.

My son was 10 when my twins were born, and I could not agree more. He has been like a sheep dog .... watchful, protective, energetic, playful and adoring. He was the all time most vigilant safety officer. Now that they are older, he is a great friend to them.

No one is without some bias. I don't think membership in a racial group itself is raises a sufficient appearance of impartiality to force a disqualification. I will be interested to see if any litigants (who we are not actually discussing specifically) file an actual motion to disqualify any (hypothetical) judges any time soon, and what grounds that motion might state. It's easy to spout off to the press. One might try to antagonize an inexperienced judge into commenting defensively and bolster one's case. But actually filing a motion takes a little more commitment.

People get divorced. They split assets and debts either by agreement or a judge orders it. Sometimes all they have is debt. Sometimes the property division is equitable, sometimes one or the other maybe gets a better deal. They almost always both feel screwed. Maybe one is required to pay alimony. Generally the payer complains it is too much, and the recipient believes he or she got ripped off. Child support is support for the child - it's not a way to continue to pay alimony or split assts - at least it isn't supposed to be. Sometimes cooperative parties negotiate a way to balance these things in a way that they can agree, sometimes because their overall tax burden is reduced by increasing alimony, decreasing child support - or the other way around. But generally, it's child support - not spousal support. Child support is not meant to compensate women for lost social security benefits or the damage having babies did to their careers. Often being home more gives mothers a small advantage in custody decisions. You almost never hear them complain about that. If Scarlett's husband had paid whatever he is required pay by agreement or court order, he had no reason to feel bad about this. If the child wants to live with him, and the court modifies the custody arrangement and the support as well, he hasn't done anything wrong. One child aged out - not a surprise to Mom. The other wants to live with Dad and yes, she will have income reduced. But her water, grocery, and other expenses may also be reduced with a 15 year old living elsewhere.

It's pretty hard to stop someone from taking off with kids. Even with a court order, some people don't care about the court order and mental instability does not help much. It's like saying, "How do I keep my child from running away?" You child already can't run away, legally. Doesn't mean he won't do it anyway. Does your nephew plan to continue to live with his wife when she comes home? If so, he may not be able to file an action for custody, but he needs to talk to an attorney about the laws in the state where he lives. If not, does he have a plan? Is he planning to move out? Force her out? Again, he needs an attorney. It's a difficult situation. Having suicidal thoughts is unlikely to prevent her from being able to have custody/visitation with her children, especially if she has not acted on those thoughts or harmed herself or the children. It sounds like she voluntarily went to the hospital rather than being involuntarily admitted. Is that right? People tell each other all the time that they are going to leave and take the children. You didn't really describe her mental health issues, but you didn't describe anything that, in my state, would necessarily trigger an emergency custody order. In my state, he probably would have to separate from her, file a complaint for custody, and take the time it takes to reach an agreement or get a court date. Her failure to care for the kids will be relevant then, of course. However, the fact that he has to work and then come home and care for the house, the food and the kids - well, that's going to be a permanent state if he wants custody of them, so I sure would think about how to express that without sounding like it's a burden he can't handle. He needs to figure out what he wants. Does he want to be married (even if it's just for now, just for the kids, etc) or does he want to separate? Until he has a course set, the rest of you probably need to support both of them, love on both of them, take care of the kids as much as you can if asked, etc. If he plans to continue to live with her and thinks he temporarily needs someone there to care for the children with her while he is at work, he probably will need her to agree with who the helper is going to be. If I were his family member, I would want it to be me, and would want to do nothing to make her distrust me. If he needs to hire someone, he needs to do that, and maybe you all can help with the expense. After all, if he wants custody, he will have to pay for care for the children during the day while he is at work. Talking to an attorney might help him make decisions. It might help him clarify what he wants, how to proceed best whether he decides to leave the marriage or stay in it, how to best protect the children etc.

Can we talk about what slaves were actually paid and the standard of living slaves enjoyed in return for their efforts? I see comparisons like this, and I question whether one working a low wage job in America is paid worse than a slave. I know conditions of slaves varied widely, but field workers in the Carolina often worked 15 hour days six days a weeks, ate cheap, repetitive food, and lived in cramped quarters with dirt floors. Even apart from the utter abomination that owning a human is, and just looking at working hours and conditions and what one 'earns' for that work, I question your statement.

I would pay. I would figure out the rest later. When someone that young dies unexpectedly, there isn't always going to be a plan in place. There may not even have been a conversation about what the deceased would want. The parents may not know if there is a will. If there is isnt, in most states, the parents will inherit. But often by the time creditors are paid, there isn't a whole lot left. And of course the parents may not know what creditors are there until well after a funeral. Funeral costs may be the least of it - someone will have to move the deceased's belonging out of a home or apartment, arrange for pets, etc. There may well be life insurance - perhaps through work. But again. There parents won't always know that. I would expect to pay for funeral/burial/cremation and then attend to the details later. Eta that if funeral expenses are paid out of the estate (or reimbursed out of it) the travel expenses of family members will not be. So if the parents pay for the funeral and then to find out there is a will leaving his estate to a friend or charity, the parents may be reimbursed for funeral expenses, but they likely won't be reimbursed for cost so of flying other children in for the funeral. Further, if the parents do inherit, creditors have to be paid first, so they may not inherit enough to cover those travel expenses even if they are the heirs.

But grocery baggers and burger flippers are generally hourly wage earners, so this will not affect them, if I understand correctly. And companies try hard not to let such workers work enough hours to earn overtime.

Divorce is hard. It hurts. And it can put one in a financial tailspin. You have been separated for three years, so assuming this is beyond repair, it is probably best to make some breaks. If you can't afford the house, you have to reconcile to that. Many couples have to budget carefully to cover expenses. When they separate and have to pay for an apartment or home for one of them, it's not feasible without increasing income. It's awesome you have a job now and it sounds like you are working hard to figure all of this out. No one gets to tell you how long you are allowed to mourn. We all want the very best for our children and you are entitled to be stressed, sad, angry etc. I work in family law, and we often end up advising people to do what it sounds like your stbx is doing. As long as there is no abuse, communication and collaboration between parties is good. But sometimes one party really needs to create space. Apart from emergencies and communications about exchanging the child and other truly important matters related to the child, limiting conversation can be desirable. The goal ultimately is to settle matters so that the court and the attorneys can get out of your lives and you can get out of each other's lives. Some people remain wonderfully cordial and communicative, but others need firm boundaries, especially as they establish lives with new partners. It's true, but it's not easy, and it's probably not what you thought your life would be like. So grieving is part of it.

I did it by myself in a day. That day included two trips to lowes:). The hardest part was removing the old faucet and all the fittings. Some had currosion so that took some manhandling (but not an actual man). These things always happen when DH is not here.

I used to carry it on my keychain. I don't anymore. I felt the odds of it helping were outweighed by risks. It isn't effective enough to incapacitate, it might just enrage a guy who only wanted my hand bag, it's not likely to help much against someone carrying a gun, it might hurt me more than him. Also, it was embarrassing that one time I left it on the table at the library when I went for a bathroom break and another student picked it up and sprayed it. He was an exchange student who had no idea what it was! They had to clear the area.

I am on "team kids." You made about the same mess and had the same cleanup with four as you would a whole recipe. Why not just make the whole batch. The rest of us want 2 or 3 cupcakes!

To me this is more about home value. The reason you don't want to disclose it is because it affects whether others want to buy it. As a buyer, I also care about resale value. That is the main reason why I would want to know. It's not something an inspector can see or detect, so without the neighbor, people wouldn't know. People may not have a legal right to know in your state, and I would not want to disclose as a seller, but it would not feel right to me to hide the ball.

I would want to know particularly if it were recent. If I were close to buying and heard it from a neighbor, I would lose trust in the seller/sellers agent even if disclosure were not technically required.

Yes. It was a rare day that my DH didn't have half an hour in the evening to manage kids while I took a walk (or got in bed with ear plugs and a book). Even if I didn't get a major break, everyone needs a little time off. Sure, he came home wanting to relax. I also like to relax. I tried to give him time, he tried to give me time. By and large, he found pleasure in the kids so that helped.

No. I eat what I want (tend not to want a lot of junk though) and don't exercise. I don't overeat often, but I am a late night eater. I am 49, so I may hit an age when I have to work harder, but I am at the low end of a normal bmi. I never notice that overweight friends eat more or exercise less than I do. I definitely don't think I 'deserve' to be thin or earned it, and I don't think many heavy women deserve or earned that. And even if they eat more, I don't think anyone calls God and asks to be a craver, asks to be an emotional eater, or asks to be born in a family with an unhealthy lifestyle. I know most people can make a difference with diet and exercise, but it takes effort. I don't like that kind of effort and don't blame people who fail to always manage that. I don't know if it's good genetics, but I don't think we all have a level playing field. I also think there are some things I do struggle with more than many and genetics that are not in my side. But I don't think the good and bad are evenly distributed in the end.

Maybe we should use, "false sense of entitlement." Even though we will end up arguing about which senses of entitlement are 'false,' at least that would signify that we aren't talking about feeling entitled to something you actually are or maybe entitled to.

If what one woman does reflects on women 'as a whole,' we can't win. Women are similar to men in how they are actually individual people who have one major thing in common, but still differ widely.

If the spouse insists on some contact I would have rules. My suggestions might be something like this: 1. Kids generally have no need to know about anything said to parents in texts, emails, over the phone or out of childrens' hearing. No sharing of specifics. It may be necessary for kids to understand that the person (let's say it's a sister) is on limited contact because she loses her temper or says mean things or is not a safe person, but no general need for sharing of details by either parent if Sister is not dangerous to the children. 2. Spouse has contact he chooses with his sister, but can not burden family members with the results. If spouse gets all grumpy and upset after talking to sister, I don't want to hear about it because I think he shouldn't be talking to Sister and don't want to waste my energy either on dealing with her or dealing with his reaction to her. 3. Access to young kids is a two parent decision where both parents have to say 'yes.' Child also has to want to see her. Again, I don't think kid should be privy to every interaction that might make him see her in a bad light. I will say 'yes' if the sister is basically appropriate in front of the kids and visits are planned in advance, short in duration, and in the presence of a parent. If sister can't handle my boundaries, she will have to suck it up without making it a tiresome scene or I will stop saying 'yes.' 4. Spouse has to lower drama as best he can by things like limiting his own contact, not triangulating with other family members, getting counseling, etc. I don't want to deal with stress created in his life by him choosing to engage with sister. 5. Any family member who wants to talk to me about it will be told that I don't want to talk about it. I will not talk to mom if she's trying to talk about spouse and sister, sister and children, etc. Respect it or don't talk to me. 6. Spouse can do as he pleases, in terms of who he talks to but again, I don't want to hear much about it from him either unless it's to make plans or really work on change. He could choose to take a tough stand and not talk to sister. If he chooses to engage, he's an adult and can handle his own choices but does not have the choice of using me as the person who calms him by hashing and rehashing issues. 7. I won't talk/test/ email with sister or mom unless I want to.