Why is it important that it be done? I can't see the importance of it in itself, and I double that feeling if it's going to cost me nearly a week (as you say, days preparing and days decompressing). Why not just have a potluck at a venue or everyone go to a restaurant?

I literally don't know anyone with a 3000sqft house. That is MORE than double the size of my house.

Our 18ds is cross country in school with no car. When he starts driving (this summer) he will have to pay his portion of the car insurance. He is on our insurance, but we would expect him to pay the co-pay. He pays for his travel back and forth to school and for anything else that he asks to have sent to him. We all have Republic Wireless phones, so it's only $10/mth per line, which we are currently paying for, but he's going to start paying his own when he gets home this summer. Basically, we expect him to pay for everything that he can. And we expect that he does not live a lifestyle which he has not actually attained. That means that entertainment spending is expected to be minimal. DH and I will be talking before DS comes home for the summer about whether he should pay rent this summer or not. It will depend on how much money we can expect him to make and what he will need for school. Either we'll skip the rent, or he'll pay something as a percentage of income (which we'll use to pay his student loans, or just set aside for further school expenses). We believe in HELPING young adults, but we also believe that every unnecessary help is a hindrance, and don't want him to ever feel like he is richer than he actually is because we are paying his living expenses (I'm sure you've seen what I'm talking about, young people living at home blowing all of their money on video games and fast food, because they don't actually have to support themselves).

Because some people ignore laws, we should do a cost-benefit analysis to make sure that the laws will both work, and that it won't do more harm than good. I believe that regulating homeschoolers: 1. Will do nothing to solve the problem. The people who regulations are attempting to catch will just go underground, as they have in the past, and continue to not be caught. 2. A. It will harm the people that it's intended to help. At least with the lame homeschoolers out in the open, we have the opportunity to speak with them and convince them. Not that they will all be convinced, but some of them may. B. It will harm those that don't need the help. The history of government is clear that every regulation is the foot in the door for more regulations. We will all soon find ourselves living under more and more hoops and burdens, and fighting fights that we thought were won. Every, single new year will bring a new fight. Many will choose to live underground with their homeschooling, rather than submit to the regulation, which will hurt their children's ability to live openly and freely, as we do now. We will be back to the days of "don't go outside, don't go to the store, don't....".

It's not about "allowed", it's about reality. There are always going to be people who get crappy educations. Putting everyone else through hoops isn't going to change that, ever.

Kids coming from public schools (and I think I can safely assume some private schools as well) have the same issue, though. I have a friend on the local school board where kids are now required to pass algebra to graduate. Well, guess what, for a certain tier of students, it ain't algebra. It's what we used to call middle school math, and some business math labeled algebra. An entry exam for everyone at the local CC would solve this problem (from the CC's POV, not the larger problem of grade/course inflation).

Walking is definitely a positive. You will feel better because you will actually BE better. Fake it till you make it, is not actually bad advice. I would say the first step to "how" is to decide that you will, even though you don't yet know how. I know that sounds non-specific, but often we don't know how a problem will be solved until we start trying things and eventually find the thing that works.

You could take the "home" out of homeschoolers and the above statement would be just as true. Not everyone is going to get a good, or even adequate, education. That will never change regardless of what system is put in place. It's another argument for freedom, IMO.

Only if that's the choice you make. Or you could decide to make that a project for yourself, "Get comfortable in my own skin."

Both are objectively judgements. I think the issue comes in when you either take a judgement of a specific instance and globalize it (I looked like crap in that picture, therefore, I look like crap in general, or I just plain am crap) or you attach too much importance to it (I looked good in that picture, therefore I am good, or I am happy only when I look good like I did in the picture and unhappy when I don't).

How about doing something that would change the way you view your body? Many women experience a complete shift in perspective when they take up running, including those who are by any definition "slow" runners. It can be amazing to start at "30 seconds of slow running is going kill me" and go to "I'm going out for an easy 3 miles". It does not, of course, have to be running. But look around and see what you could do with your body, that you previously thought you couldn't and ask yourself if you REALLY can't, or is that just an unexamined assumption?

I don't know. I've always preferred to encourage my kids not to think all that much about their appearance beyond "am I neat and clean?". If they're lovely kids, it's just dumb luck and no credit to them, and if they're ugly it's no fault of theirs, so I can't see the upside in thinking about it in either case.

I think that is caused by the feeling that we should prevent all bad things from happening to our kids. If we believe that, we will tend to over supervise most of the time, and then feel that we under supervised when something happens. I tend to believe that most situations like the one that you described are mostly harmless. Not to say that the kids shouldn't be disciplined appropriately based on their behavior, they absolutely should, but I don't think it's a big whooping deal and wouldn't cause me to change my general supervision policy or even make me think badly of the aggressor (she's a kid who behaved badly, no big shock, as long as it doesn't become a pattern).

Because she's so much older/bigger, and the aggressor, I would feel that she got what she deserved and she would be getting further punishment at home. As far as parents working it out, I'm not sure what you mean. As her parent, I would apologize to the other parents, and require her to do the same. And I would assure them that nothing like that would happen again...at home I would be having a talk with child about how much she would regret it if something like that ever happened again, and I'd be making sure she was regretting this instance as well.

But you mean in a car, right? Or did you mean a long walk to the far away neighbors?

My 6yo son loves the Tomie de Paola books. And the D'Aulaires books. And Paddington.

Unless there is some chance the kid is going to get frostbite or hypothermia, I don't remind at all once they are old enough that I'm not dressing them to leave anymore, so probably 4 or 5? Are we talking about going to the car? I don't sweat it. Kid isn't going to be injured by going to the car, no matter how cold it is. Are we talking about going outside for some quick chore (take food to the chickens, check the mail), same answer. If they want to go out to play unsupervised, I still don't sweat it, because a kid old enough to be unsupervised will come in when they get too cold. Shoes, on the other hand, I am fierce about. You don't set foot outside without shoes, ever, period.

It's just a slang use that wouldn't go with someone who would wear a jumper. Of course, a person COULD use, but normally they wouldn't. It's just funny is all. In my class, a young man with a very deep southern drawl, started reading his part in Taming of the Shrew. When he began with the line, "How now, Pertuchio?", everyone burst out laughing, because it was so out of place. They weren't laughing at HIM, just at the combination of a Shakespeare line and a deep southern drawl.

I don't think you can wear a jumper if you would say "legit". :laugh:

It's extremely variable. Many HOAs not only care for community items (like the pool) but see it as their job to keep up property values (so restrictions would include: types/quality of landscaping, paint colors, yard ornaments, home maint.outside and sometimes inside, clunker cars, etc) and quality of life (so restrictions might include: quiet hours, outdoor equipment/pools/trampolines, size/type of pets, holiday decoration restrictions/timelines, clothesline restrictions, how many vehicles can be parked at your property for events like a party - sometimes it's ok just for a single event, but regular meetings wouldn't be allowed, age restrictions, overnight guest limitations, 2nd residence restrictions - hence the "illegal" kitchen). An HOA is like a marriage. You want to REALLY know what you're getting into. https://www.amazon.com/Association-Bentley-Little/dp/0451204123/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1484425043&sr=1-2&keywords=the+association

The answer to both of these things is that it depends on local/HOA rules. A municipality determines what is a "legal" kitchen and what is not, and it varies by each place. Whether an HOA allows a home based business depends on the particular HOA. Most seem to only disallow businesses that would bring traffic (customers) to your home, or that would require storing things at the home (such as dump trucks), but some disallow EVERY kind of home based business, probably because they don't want to have to sort it on a case by case basis (like, if customers are dropping off stuff to be quilted, is that annoying to the neighbors? even if customers don't come by, are you getting UPS deliveries every day? etc).

:iagree: So not doing that.

Unit studies. I mean, they look cool and all, but also a ton of work, and I don't see their place in the larger curriculum. And lapbooks. And abacuses. And Life of Fred.

House 1 for sure. It would have a true kitchen and rentable apartment, and no HOA to drive you crazy. And don't be certain that just because you make an illegal kitchen you will be allowed to keep it. One of your neighbors gets wind that your son is living there full time, the HOA asks for an inspection from the fire department, and BAM, you've got a mess. Also don't be sure that living in an HOA means you won't live near deferred maint. houses. Happens in HOAs the same as everywhere. Some are better at keeping it down, some are not. Also, having a separate entrance does not make your son's apartment in the other houses the same as a truly separate apartment. You will hear what he is doing, he will hear what you are doing. If either of you makes choices the other doesn't like, living in the same structure means those choices are a lot closer than they would be if he were in a separate structure. You both lose privacy. I would also consult an attorney about legal issues surrounding having an apartment on your property for a grown child who isn't able to live independently. It could be more complicated than you think. About the stuff in House 1: I would consult a house clearing company (1 800 got junk, or something) and ask how much to empty the house and dispose of the stuff. Take that amount, add 10% and then take that total off of your offer. A house full of stuff is a liability to a buyer (even if you end up selling some of the stuff), not a benefit. Believe me, I've been down this road. It's a nightmare you don't want. Make them pay you for clearing out the house by taking the cost off the price. I also wonder if there isn't a way to keep your current home and make it work, since you say you love it.

I get mine from Lifechecks.com