This. Special needs are just that: special. Advice for the average kid won't always apply to them. That being said, I'm of the unpopular opinion that not every subject is going to be fun and entertainment is not the main goal of my parenting or teaching relationship with my child. Sometimes there will be things that need to be covered that will not be fun, try as you might to do crafts, switch curriculum, follow rabbit trails, what have you. Sometimes the lesson is perseverance, not simply what's on the page.

I second what Ellie said.

Is it not an option for you to explain to your dc not to open correspondence from this person?

I have all of Saxon math up to Algebra 1, R&S English 1-8, at least 3 Latin curricula of varying levels, an entire shelf two deep of French textbooks and readers, and about 4 History/Science kids level encyclopedias. I rationalize it because I really need to work through it all myself before I can teach it, right?

I feel your pain about the second guessing. I very rarely work math problems the textbook way myself so the thought of teaching them makes me want to run and hide some days.

If you want a very broad overview, I think the wikipedia article here is an ok place to start, provided you don't marry yourself to it being absolutely correct and imprimatur. I like the overview and the sources cited can be perused at your leisure if you want to go in more depth to how the authors got there. ETA: For Christianity, this is also a good quick comparison of many denominations but with some sects even churches with similar names can have very different leanings and some have no "official" stance and leave a lot open to personal revelation.

TWTM is the book that made me fall in love with homeschooling way back before Ds was even born. I remember at least two places where SWB and her mother say that almost no one will follow the book exactly and we're not expected to, substitutions are allowed and encouraged, there's even a chapter on kids who don't want to continue a lofty, classical education for high school (I believe it's the "Some kids hate Homer" chapter) that encourages parents to look into apprenticeships and such if Aristotle really is more than their dc wants to have in their life. That being said, I think the general attitude in ps about what is appropriate difficulty for high school books is very lowest common denominator. Homeschool gives the flexibility for kids who have the skills to progress faster than their peers without being held down or labelled as nerds, and slower or less mature kids get the time they need to work at their own pace.

Using 15 for the GCF of 30 and 45 makes sure you have the completely reduced fraction to compare with the second one. Dividing again by 15 gets you back to the original fraction, I don't feel like he explained that part very well. Personally I would have used 3 too because it goes into both fractions, but it doesn't get you the most simplified fractions (it gives you 10/15 and 18/27) so you have to reduce further to be able to see if they're equivalent.

:grouphug: Sounds like the teenage angst most kids grow out of it upon encountering the real world. Deep cleansing breaths.

Thanks everyone, I feel a bit less crazy now. I feel like a little old lady when my peers insist that dating and teA parties are just part of growing up for teenagers and young adults. I like the test driving cars analogy: people are definitely not cars.

At that age plus the huddled in the corner I'd say dragging her there would do more harm than good. For slightly older kids I'm very anti-quitting before the end of the session because the discipline lesson of finishing what you started and taking commitment seriously is important to me, but I don't expect a 4 year old to understand that lofty of a concept.

The textbook definition has been said already, and I second it: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. The problem is that equality is hard to enforce without taking away the freedom to choose what is seen as the less equal option. I dislike identifying with feminists is the double standard many of them have. I'm such a 1950's style cis-female (heterosexual, loves cooking and dresses, aspiring SAHM, liking the idea of the husband being head of household) that I have encountered so much negativity from the feminists saying I'm wasting my liberation and making them look bad by not having a high power career. There's so much in-fighting that we don't need the patriarchy to keep us down, we do it for them The message was "Women can and should do what men do" rather than "Women can do what they want even if it is/is not what men do."

I think people misunderstand what counseling is for and why it's helpful. As for why we can't just use common sense? I can't begin to list all the things I think would be common sense that people do the exact opposite and wonder why it doesn't work out for them. If everyone in the situation were using it, they wouldn't be having that problem, KWIM? Counseling is for when the common sense has failed, something I suggest when another ear might be needed, maybe a different perspective or source might be more helpful than one of the people involved in the conflict. Mediators and counselors are neutral parties and having that external source can make a difference. True, there are bunk therapists, ones who drag it out for cash, people who don't believe anyone outside the family should be privy to family affairs, etc but that doesn't mean it isn't an option for people who want to use it. Some honestly don't know clergy offer that kind of advice or that there are other options besides the expensive laying on the couch type of therapy.

I can't fault you for what you believe is inappropriate for you, I just didn't like the implication that it's a universal rule and people who behave differently are in denial that they're doing something dangerous to their marriage. Public is another word that is hard to define. Since marathon running is an outdoor activity and cinemas are full of other people seeing the same film I'd classify both of those as public places where just because I didn't bring more than one friend I was "alone" KWIM? As for other people visiting my intentions and being suspicious of why I'm out with any particular friend alone, it's not my job to care if their minds are in the gutter. I can understand wanting to avoid anything that would cause someone else to gossip, i wouldn't want to deal with that drama either and it has been known to put doubt into the minds of spouses and family, but if someone talks about another behind their back to me I tend to think it's the talker who needs to change *their* behavior, not the person they're talking about.

The deserving part was from your quoted agreement with Quill, who did say explicitly that men did not deserve the kind of attention that friendship requires from her. Apologies if that's not what you meant for yourself. It may be a semantics thing, but I don't understand how a friendship is automatically an unacceptably "intimate" relationship by virtue of having spent time alone together.

Nowhere did I say anything about being too young for marriage. Regardless, the advice was not "you're getting too close to this person and at your age you're not ready" it was "married people need to have their own friends too, make sure you're not spending all of your time with your intended and that you have hobbies that are not shared." Being told that it's essential to have outside friendships and activities and that your relationship with that person is not the most important thing in your life is the exact opposite of what you've been saying; that no one, especially men, "deserve" your attention because you have a husband.

Subsidized loans don't accrue interest until after graduation, unsubsidized loans start compounding immediately. Paying student loan interest on unsub loans is tax-deductible and you're sent a statement with how much has been paid for your tax records.

Yup I'm lost again. So even when nothing could happen and you have oodles of time to nurture your spouse, marathon training or seeing a movie with your BIL "screams inappropriate" and isn't an ordinary family interaction? Definitely going to have to be an agree to disagree thing between you and I because that makes zero sense to me. As far as the admonition, I think it's very confusing to people to be told that one can be too close with a partner when one happens to be at the young end of marriageable age and then told that nothing should be more important than their partner once they've signed a piece of paper.

Someday I'll have to explain the purpose and philosophy of meeting people and dating to ds. I'm interested in the perspective of the board, which seems to have a much more diverse leaning than the people I know IRL with regards to relationships. I grew up with a strong sentiment from friends and family that one should NEVER date one's friends because of the danger of it not working out and not being able to recover the friendship after a breakup, and casual dating of multiple people at once with no commitment to any was leading guys on. Encountering the adage that one's spouse should be one's best friend seems good in theory, however at odds with the issue of how to get to know someone well enough without committing yourself too early or having been friends "too long" to have the proposal of a dating relationship received well. How do you explain these kinds of conflicting information and/or rules for dating, especially if it conflicts with popular culture?

We are! I like the About Three series, mostly that they're not so busy and distracting as more secular preschool books. Ds is easily waylayed by pictures.

Um, OP :grouphug: from the bottom of my heart. Volatile relationships are difficult to watch and can be horrible to try to mediate. I'm sorry you are feeling caught in the middle. Counseling is not for "patterns" of behavior that are dangerous. It is also to help people not get to that point. This is harsh, but true. Name calling is verbal abuse, even one time. Pushing a child around is bullying and not acceptable parental behavior. Whatever your DH "knows deep down" is not preventing him from acting in a way that is not right. No child's behavior makes abusive treatment acceptable.

Here is where I think we were starting to talk around each other. I completely understand being so busy that wanting to reserve any time to nurture your relationship with your DH is a major priority and spending "borrowed" time with another person would look strange and possibly damage the relationship, I was just really confused about why it was emphasized that the risk was having an opposite sex friend, rather than just any friend who was taking you away from time you would rather be spending on your family. ETA: I think it's interesting that when I was first looking into marriage (LTR at the end of high school, FWIW) people were constantly telling me that my relationship was "too close" with my SO and we needed to make time for hobbies specifically to be away from each other and nurture friendships with non-mutual friends.

Was this what OP meant? If so, I think I was thrown off by the "opposite sex" part of the title. If you don't have time for your most intimate emotional relationship as it is, of course there's nothing wrong with pruning and not looking for other people to spend time with, but the emphasis on these "friendships" leading to teA is not the main issue in that case.

How does your son feel? Does he ask for more fun activities, complain that school is boring? You say he's learning, I wouldn't call that just "going through the motions" which for me would be completing the worksheets with no comprehension on autopilot.

The potential is there, I don't see anyone saying it never happens or couldn't happen. There are multiple outcomes to any situation and I don't think it's a bad thing to know one's own boundaries, however it's good to draw the line at "I'm not comfortable" before (general) you get into "bad idea for everyone" territory, KWIM? Not everyone is susceptible to the same degree to every behavior.