Quin

2 people + 1 marriage certificate = playin with the kids, of course!
Runners up are
- Horses
- Water Sports
- Snow Sports
- Circus Sports. errrr... "Arts" (dude. I have never worked so hard. Ever. I blame proto-feminists. How can we have fun and still be allowed to do it? I know. Make it sound fluffy. I have come to learn that anything with "arts" attaches to it means "try not to bleed too much on the satin". And that's glitter, not oceans of sweat, but sparkles!)
- Dance
Every once in awhile I realize I need a better job.
This is one of those times.
Why can't I love sit-ups or something?
Note to self : sit ups rule.
Q

Is changing wards &/or moving a possibility?
No calling doesn't mean you cannot participate in service activities... And if there is an absolute dirth of service activities... Put something together, send out announcements, and get something going. Might not be a calling, but that doesn't mean it's not needed: hospital, foster kid school supplies, food bank, disaster relief, battered women's shelters, LDS fam services, cookouts, monthly meal cook aheads (hundreds of tamales, etc.), modest dress sewing, playing ball with single parent kids, tutoring, auto repair classes, etc. Just use your imagination. What do you enjoy doing/what are you good at?
Q

Please go get a STD test.
The complete one (ask for herpes, if you don't ask they often skip it, and make sure your throat is swabbed for warts, as they grow there as well), and if you test HIV-, make sure you test again in 6 months.. As HIV has a window where the virus hasn't built up enough to test positive for.
If you do test positive, I'm sorry to say that you'll need to also get your babies tested, as it's fairly easy to transfer most STDs via accidental body fluid contact when you're living unaware of an infection. The good news, though, is that except for warts, herpes, and HIV, all the rest are treatable. But you HAVE to catch them early on, before they do life long damage to your reproductive & nervous system.
And STOP having (unprotected) sex with this man!!!
Been there, done that, and I'm sorry.
Doctors appt.
Don't put it off.
Q

Yep! There's a lot of difference in them.
The "holy grail" of gun safes/ gun vaults are
- Easily accessible to the owner
- Almost impossible for anyone BUT the owner
- Fireproof / Heatproof
- Waterproof / Flood proof
- Able to be gotten in your front door/ into the room you want to keep it.
Having all 5 requirements = a durn expensive safe.
Most people relax on a couple of those reqs, to save in price.
I personally don't care about easy access for me... Because if Im planning on going shooting, I can plan in a few minutes to do the combo & schlep about. And if I'm NOT planning on shooting, that means a personal protection piece which doesn't live in the vault, anyway (on me, on my nightstand, or bolted to my bed frame).
The 2 areas I personally require are
- Theft Prevention (after being so considerate to would be thieves as to gather several thousand dollars in high value/easy sell merchandise in one area, I like to then annoy them, by their not being able to just pick the thing up and walk out, nor being able to drill through thin metal in a jiffy. I have friends who hillbilly-up (aka brilliant cheap fix) by purchasing a cheap wall safe with a stout door, and then sink the thing in concrete. I usually end up selling everything I own once a decade or so (and move more frequently) so I prefer to have the prettier "bought it this heavy and pain in the neck to drill" so I can resell it.
- Fire protection. I've never been in a house fire, although I've been in MANY floods. So flood/waterproof might be more pragmatic... But I just can't get over the idea of a) not only being in a fire, but a firefight as all my ammo combusted, b) that I can durn well food saver vacuum pack in plastic anything I actually cared about not getting wet, c) that I usually have a lot of both warning AND cleanup windows on floods, but house fires one has moments. So, really, is is just me being paranoid. But I don't want to be either getting shot, or worrying about it, when trying to get loved ones out of a burning building. Insult to injury.
Here are some great sites to read up on:
Best Gun Safes at Every Price Point - Guns & Ammo
Gun Safe Reviews | Best Buying Guides of 2013
Q

Ahem. That. Right there.
Some people can have sex wih people they don\'t like or are angry with.
Most can\'t.
At least, not past a certain point.
Step ONE would be to get back to where you enjoy each other\'s company as friends.
Otherwise, she\'s just going to feel like a toilet. No one likes to feel used.
So... Platonic intimacy, then physical intimacy.
The other way around is putting the cart before the horse.
Okay... That\'s actually good news. That means that she\'s ticked at you (which dovetails right into that she doesn\'t want to spend even platonic, much less romantic time with you).
Which is something you can FIX.
So often in life we don\'t want things to be our fault.
But in cases like this, you get that it\'s AWESOME when it\'s our fault... Because we CAN FIX IT if it\'s our fault.
If it\'s no ones fault, but is depression, hormonal imbalance, trauma response, etc....
Then there\\\'s jack squat that can be done ... by us.
Instead it\'s a wait and hope game while they & their doctors work on the problem.
But if it\'s OUR fault? Yeehah! Awesome! A problem to solve! Work to be done! Stellar! We can DO something! Sweet!
LOL... So I think you just might have your attitude on backwards, here.
It\'s GREAT news when we\\\'re the ones who have the problem to sort.
Time to get crackin.
Q

Aussie influence (great grandfather served with an Australian regiment... We also sing Christmas carols in the summertime as an unrelated quirk).
Early onset Alzeheimers runs in my family. Typically age 30-60 if its going to hit.
ANYHOW... About 200 years ago one of my ancestors decided that what Alzheimer's was was his wife's spirit trying to take care of things in this world before she passed, because she didn't have enough time to take care of those things in her lifetime. God being generous allowed her spirit to do the things it needed to do, but also come back for a time, and from time to time to be with the people she loved, instead of simply dying.
The concept has just stuck.
Watching my grandmother, and now my mother, it's simply one of those things which may not be right... But FEELS right.
No idea whether things are temporal or spirit world, and quite frankly, I'd prefer not to find out. It usually only hits one or two a generation, and that's not the grenade I'd prefer to jump on.
It just got the name in WWI (WWII? Tripoli.).
The phrase has been catching on, lately. My great grandfather picked it up from an Aussie family familiar with early onset, we've used it for a few generations, and the ward my grandmother was in, rather a lot of the staff and other families adopted it. So it's not just "ours". Or even originally ours.
Similarly (family beliefs)... The fluidity and grace of childhood comes from he spirit being new to its body, the pain of old age the spirit preparing to leave its body. Also meaning that the natural consequence of Spirit Gone Walkabout are physical consequences. That there is no, lubrication?/ vivacity/ fluidity, with the spirit gone... So things go a bit pear shaped on the home front. Plaques, sclerosis, calcifications, atrophy. The idea being that when the spirit isn't home to mind the shop, things aren't taken care of as they ought to be.
Also my family has gallows humor. Anything possible to smile at, we do.
I should mention, my family isn't LDS.
Mostly totally secular research scientists, military, medical types.
Q

Sliding into the conversation fashionably late...
1) I have known a few people become wealthy on accident. Most people go broke employing the same methodology.
2) Deciding to become wealthy is something most new-money people do at some point; but English implies the inverse is true (even though reverse logic is faulty / doesn't work)... And it's not true in reverse. Poor people are not poor because they didn't decide to become wealthy.
3) Wealth is relative. Even in the states... 50k is upper middle class in some parts of the country, and below the poverty line / qualifies for food stamps in others. Meanwhile you take that 50k overseas and it translates to 5 million in some countries and 10k in others. Money is only valued by what you can buy with it. 50 million can be a lot. If it's not Vietnamese Dong (about 2k)i or Columbian Pesos (26k).
4) I don't understand why some people feel they have the right to direct how others spend their money. Whether your net worth is 200 million,or -40k in debt... It seems like there is a subsection of the population who feels they have the "right" to direct how other people manage their money. Heaven forbid your girlfriends buy you a manicure if you're broke, or your neighbor lends you his BMW to run errands out of the kindness of his heart if you're too poor to fix your car. And don't you dare buy anything that costs more that 1/1,000,000th of your savings if you're wealthy. Because if you do either, the vultures will descend upon you screaming judgement and how obscene and terrible you are for not doing things the way they want you to do them. Justify yourself to me! Let me decide if your reasons are "good enough". I shall sit in judgement over you. Pfui. The automatic assumption of incompetence -in either direction- is not only disrespectful, it's rude, unkind, and unchristian. Its not envy, it's pride. How about instead of deciding how wrong someone is for having more or less than we do, we try having some compassion for them, if not some actual respect & love thy neighbor-ness? Especially, since it's none of our business in the first place?

Sliding into the conversation fashionably late...
1) I have known a few people become wealthy on accident. Most people go broke employing the same methodology.
2) Deciding to become wealthy is something most new-money people do at some point; but English implies the inverse is true (even though reverse logic is faulty / doesn't work)... And it's not true in reverse. Poor people are not poor because they didn't decide to become wealthy.
3) Wealth is relative. Even in the states... 50k is upper middle class in some parts of the country, and below the poverty line / qualifies for food stamps in others. Meanwhile you take that 50k overseas and it translates to 5 million in some countries and 10k in others. Money is only valued by what you can buy with it. 50 million can be a lot. If it's not Vietnamese Dong (about 2k)i or Columbian Pesos (26k).
4) I don't understand why some people feel they have the right to direct how others spend their money. Whether your net worth is 200 million,or -40k in debt... It seems like there is a subsection of the population who feels they have the "right" to direct how other people manage their money. Heaven forbid your girlfriends buy you a manicure if you're broke, or your neighbor lends you his BMW to run errands out of the kindness of his heart if you're too poor to fix your car. And don't you dare buy anything that costs more that 1/1,000,000th of your savings if you're wealthy. Because if you do either, the vultures will descend upon you screaming judgement and how obscene and terrible you are for not doing things the way they want you to do them. Justify yourself to me! Let me decide if your reasons are "good enough". I shall sit in judgement over you. Pfui. The automatic assumption of incompetence -in either direction- is not only disrespectful, it's rude, unkind, and unchristian. Its not envy, it's pride. How about instead of deciding how wrong someone is for having more or less than we do, we try having some compassion for them, if not some actual respect & love thy neighbor-ness? Especially, since it's none of our business in the first place?

Uh... True.
 
 
That has nothing to do with it.
 
 
I'm not down on his wealth. I'm all for wealth.
 
 
Once again, nothing to do with it.

"Good" reasons? I think you better keep trying.

Wrong.  The reasons for buying a $50K watch are the same as for buying a $50 dollar watch.  Just different hierarchy of needs.  The guy who buys the $50K watch needs it for more than telling time.  

Envy is also a sin
 
Do you really think he does not give generously to charity and to the church?
 
His wealth has put him in a position in which he can serve full time without outside worldly concerns.
 
Perspective needs to be taken into account in all things. My mission president was not a bragger, he was not flashy, he was/is the most humble person I have ever had the pleasure of working with.

I do not think it's "safe" nor appropriate to assume this.
We don't know what his income was. It's none of our business. Board presidencies and directorships don't necessarily come with a salary.
I have known wealthy people in my lifetime. A (very) few lived what many would consider ostentatiously. Most have lived a very modest lifestyle. You would never know by their home, car, wardrobe, etc. that they were millionaires. Their wealth went to (quietly, usually anonymously) helping others.
I think some people are too preoccupied with what OTHER people do with the money that THEY earned.

Not necessarily an opinion to the original post, but just an interesting anecdote from my past career.  In my training while working for the airline industry, we were told not to have "our pocketbook" in our mind while pricing what the customer asked for.  I had to remind myself of this on numerous occasions.  For example, a customer calls in and wants to buy airline tickets from LAX to JFK.  To me, a reasonable price for a ticket would be around $400 to $650 RT.  And if a sale was going on in that particular market, then that would even be lower.  I would ask the customer what time they wanted to fly and the dates.  I would price what they asked for.  As a reservations agent, I would have enough experience to know if the price could be brought down for that particular market.  If I told them the price was $900 RT, and they said "book it", I would do so.  If they asked me if the price could be lowered, then I would start to search different flights, days, etc. for them to get a lower price.  As an agent I could usually "read" people and tell if the price was too high for them.  That's when I would tell them they could lower the price by traveling different days, or just switch to different flights for the days they wanted to travel.   It was often amazing to me that people would still purchase the higher priced tickets.  I had to learn to not put my pocketbook in their pockets. I learned to take credit card information for tickets that were over $20,000 on some international markets without batting-an-eye.

I do understand your point - to us it is excessive and unneccesary, but I do think that we need to look at it as a matter of degree.
 
I took my family to Disneyland last year, I did the cheapest trip I could, using airmiles and travelling in the off season, but I still spent $2500. Thats money that I could have given to the poor and needy, and I'm sure there are many who have less than me, who only camp or don't vacation at all that would be disgusted at my action. My family has two vehicles, could we make do with one, possible, but extremely inconvenient, but thats $450 extra in gas and insurance that I could give the poor and needy.
 
I guess the point I am trying to make is if someone is tithing, and presumably supporting charity, most likely in excess of what my family even earns total in a year, are they obliged to forgo a more comfortable lifestyle as well, and donate everything in excess of what I deem lifestyle needs? Should I be reducing my expenses to the bare minimum, and forgo living in a comfortable house, and driving cars so that I can give more, because there are those that live with less than me?
 
 
 
I wasn't trying to imply that he was called because he was perfect, but that he wouldn't have been called if he had not been, mostly at least, stewarding what he had been blessed with wisely.
 
 
 
All of us who are blessed with some excess use some of what we recieve for personal recreation and wants, where do we draw the line at what is reasonable and what is not? Just by virture of living where I do I am blessed with more luxurious lifestyle than many people in the world will ever have, I don't consider myself wealthy, but I can be comfortable if I manage carefully. I need to be grateful for that, but do I need to forsake it all to better build the Kingdom?
 
 
 
 

Watch or membership? based on the information provided the watch could have cost anywhere from 5 to 50K. I personally usually buy used vehicles that cost around 15K, so yes a 15K watch would be extremely excessive for me, but for someone that likely earns million(s) a year it could just be a small luxury (like designer shoes, although I personally find that excessive as well, I will spend on quality but not a designer name, quality is not that expensive). Its all a matter of degree, we don't expect middle class families to live on the bare minimum and donate the rest, the wealthy just have a lot more excess, and since they have worked for it I think they are justified in using some of it to reward themselves.
 
The golf membership is big dollars, but we are talking about a business owner - lots of business gets done in these private clubs, if that is the cost of entry into the circle where he networks and cultivates influence to continue to provide jobs for others, is it really that excessive? I have had lots of experience working for people who are extremely wealthy, most of them have been extremely philanthropic, I don't think I should judge what they spend based on my lifestyle, we all have weaknesses (I buy too many books) but in general wealthy people do a great deal of good in the world, I expect the unnamed 70 does, and has been using his wealth wisely, otherwise the Lord would not have called him to his current role.

I will be formally staging a walk out at the one hour mark this Sunday. 

I am SPITTING mad right now.
"A great lesson in civics"?!?!?!
If that had been my son and his troop, I would probably be excommunicated, and the lesson in civics would be a felony murder trial. I hope someone is staying with that boy's parents, right now.
First rule of firearms handling; never point your weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.

- Yep. Not usually lightly, but I have in the past, so I have to consider that I would do so in the future.
 
Why or why not?
- it's a series of ratios between
- sentiment : monetary value. I tend to keep things that are cheap and sentimental long after I sell things that are expensive and of no sentiment.
- portability : monetary value. Size enters into it in a huge way. Small things like jewelry, letters, etc. I'll hold onto long after I sell furniture. Regardless of value. I'm also constitutionally incapable of disposing of photographs. Even my own (pushing 100k), much less from a century ago when photos were once or twice in a lifetime. I've uploaded over 1000 photos into Ancestry dot com. Front and back, since (can you tell) my family tends to blather on... Not just names of who is in it, but details of other kinds, as well.
- beauty : ugliness. I'm sorry. But if I personally find it ugly, draining, or depressing (and unable to be reupholstered or similar)... It's gone.
- General Usefulness : General Decoration. I both own and use my great grandfather's hammer & metal measuring tape from WWI. As well as a 200 year old toy box (whose lid will smash fingers, and I'm not altering that), and a whole bunch of other things. Especially prepowertool tools. They're practically indestructible, easy to mend, and wicked accurate. They also tend to be pretty. But even if uglier than sin, if they're useful, I hang onto them. I've had people horrified that I'm actually using museum quality pieces in my everyday endeavors. Man. They were made to be used every day. They are only museum quality because they ARE used (and therefore maintained). I'll also keep things that are of no use to me whatsoever, purely because they are decorative. While that goes into beauty:ugly, like many of these which have multiple checks... it's a different ratio.
- money : family. I have a tendency to offer (free) any item I own before I sell it. This is actually a family rule, but I periodically break it. Hence the "tendendency". If I need $200 for my son's medicine I'll offer if people want to buy XYZ before I sell it, but I need the money. One way or another. Half of my family is quite wealthy, so they get furious with me over this... Because they honestly cannot understand a world in which I've already had the utilities off for several months, much less not being able to afford necessary medicine. They see my asking for even token payment on an item as an insult of the worst kind (even worse than letting something go outside of the family). I understand where they are coming from, but I've also got a kid who needs to breathe. If they'd like to buy his medicine and have the item gratis, they're welcome, but this kind of polite fiction is not allowed. A few (especially of the older members ) completely understand this, and will slip me cash, with the tacit understanding that I neither sell the object nor give it away. I'll do that. I won't sell it and therefore have 400 instead of 200. The only pieces that don't fall under this umbrella are items that have been offered and turned down. Once everyone has a chance to say "That's special to me! Mine!" and doesn't... It can be sold at will by the possessor, no hard feelings. Ah. Family politics.
 

Does your answer change depending from whom you received the item?
Yep. Absolutely. It completely changes my ratios.
______
The ones I didn't answer individually are answered in there somewhere. The only one that enters into my "keep/discard" you didn't mention... Is imagination. If I can imagine a thing might be useful, wanted, beautiful to someone, etc... Even if I don't find them to be, and no one else wants them, I generally still keep them. My grandfather kept all the old cameras. For over 50 years. No one in my family in 3 generations -including him- had an interest in photography. Until me. So I got a box of ancient to modern cameras (including a Leica worth more than my car!). Because he had the imagination to think that someone, some day, might love them. So I try to pass that forward. Hence a whole lotta cartography equipment, not to mention all kinds of odds and ends that I personally find quite worthless. But the huge eyes and gasped breath makes 20 years (to date) of storing what I consider junk to turn them into treasures.

I know.
One of the things I miss about living in the Middle East is the abaya / burka.
I don't understand why western women think it's this terrible thing. It's about respecting your body, not being ashamed of it.
Ahem.
I actually DO like wearing an abaya (which is required by law in the KSA)... Becuase I get to become invisable in public (and I can wear a bikini under it if I so choose... Women do wear an exceptionally wide variants of clothes underneath). Bt if you're serious about your Q spiritDragon... All you have to do is
- look for a culture which requires a higher level of modesty than ours. to understand why people feel our own modesty level is repressive.
- blame "The Society for Rational Dress" (late 1800s), which claimed (correctly) that corsets and other exceptionally restrictive clothing made for women was physically damaging... Which kicked off the rational,dress movement in western society.
- a smidge of blame goes to WWI... Which created both fabric shortages, and jobs for women (factory workers in the US, Ambulamce drivers in the UK, resistance fighters in the EU)... And an entire generation of PTSD that fell into the roaring 20s.

While most people are going to feel attractions to people throughout their lifetimes, even if it's just to recognize the beauty in those around them, there's a pretty consistent danger for bi-folk in thinking that they're "missing something".
Because they are.
Everyone is.
No matter who we marry, there will be someone else who is different or "better" (more to our liking) in certain areas than our spouse. Physically (nicer legs, shorter, taller, stronger, more delicate, etc.), mentally (smarter, wittier, dry humor, kinder, sweeter, sassier, whatever), emotionally, spiritually, morally, occupationlly... Whatever the area... We will run into people on a regular basis who have something that our spouse doesn't. And a handful of times in most of our lives? We'll run into someone we "could" have fallen in love with/married.
And most people, regardless of sexual orientation, still have the ability to appreciate an attractive man/woman.
The special problem with bisexual folk is that half the world has something our spouse will never have....AND the ability to appreciate beauty is still there, along with most people... So it's VERY easy to conflate that into "I made a mistake". Instead of seeing it the same durn way as we do when we look at our all thumbs husband and appreciate Sally's brother's handiness. Yeah. He's handy. So what? My beaux may put a hammer through a window trying to fix the carpet, but I didn't marry him for his construction skills! And Julie the neighbor down the way may have the best pair of legs I've ever seen, but I didn't marry Elaine for her legs!
We're ALL "missing something" in our spouses.
It's the "forsaking all others" part.
Being bisexual just means that there's an extra billion people in the dating pool to forsake. And a few extra traits added to the list of "I didn't marry ______ for their _______. I married them for ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST (everything wonderful about them as individuals).
OF COIRSE your husband is upset & hurt when you tell him you're attracted to other women.
How would you feel if he came to you telling you he was attracted to other women? That it's a struggle? That they have things you don't? That's all true, but we don't hurt our spouses by telling them that. We may tease, or have rules allowing wandering eyes, or even be very open about various matters... But "We need to talk. I'm _______." Is a terrifying conversation in any marriage. Especially when it's ANYWHERE in the sphere of "I don't want you. I want someone else."

Cut to the next scene where MDFXDB is married to a stunningly gorgeous, kind, exciting, amazing deaf Jewish girl with ADHD who was raised in the foster care system, ran away at 14, did what she had to to survive until joining Cirque du Soleil, Now owns/operate a rabidly successful circus arts program for kids that foster kids can attend for free.
Q

For myself:Sin = Fault
...
To use some of the examples already given.
- Abused child. Is it their fault? No. So it is not their sin. UNTIL what they are doing in their lives is no longer a direct result of someone else's sins, but their own choices. It's an unclear line... Because dad hits son, son hits dog. The sin is the father's. The fault is the father's. Until, at a certain point, the sins of the father become the sins of the son. When? When will that line be crossed and the child chooses to become an abuser instead of a victim? God only knows. But at a certain point, it happens. We can try to put artificial boundaries (8, 13, 18, never) on when it "should" happen... But in reality? There simply becomes a time when the "fault" changes hands. When our actions become our own responsibility.
- Tattoos, piercings (seriously cracks me up when "extra" enters the conversation. Um. If a hole in your body placed their for ornament is wrong? Then it's wrong. Or it's not. Star bellied sneeches with stars upon thars. 1? 2? 50? 0?), and other aesthetics. Some people regard these as sins, as desecrating their temples. Others do not. What does God say? Crickets. What do the apostles say? That you will regret them. Regrettable actions are not the same things as sins, in my experience. Squares & rectangles. I think it only becomes a sin if someone does something Permenant to someone else against their wishes . Then there is fault. Otherwise, there is simply responsibility. I am responsible for the tattoos on my body. Because I put them them. (Technically, I paid someone else to do it, but the responsibility is my own). Do I regret them? No. Shall I? Perhaps. Does that make it a sin? No. If, however, I ALREADY regret them... If I'm doing something to myself that I believe is wrong... Then that's sin, because I am faulting myself. I am being untrue. Like gluttony. 2 people joygasmic over cheesecake. One sinning in gluttony, the other revelling in the joy of creation. 2 people put to death. One a victim of murder, the other a righteous kill in self defense (self defense shifts fault). It is not the act ITSELF that is sinful. But the application of it.
Your fault = your sin
Someone else's fault = their sin
Your responsibility = application/intent
Q

Do you know I was declared UA (what AWOL is in the first 3 days) TWICE in one month?

Once, my orders got messed up, so I had (paper) orders sending me from point A to point B.
Point B knew I was coming, Point A didn't know I was leaving.
Took WEEKS to sort out.

The other time, I was snagged for a field assignment (verbal orders).
Came home to being thrown in the brig.
Wheeeeeeee.
Thanks a lot, guys. Bite me.
That was sorted in hours.

There have been other times, but that month was über annoying.

Point is.... Being declared UA happens ALL THE TIME.
I don't know anyone (including my pentagon working GodFather) who hasn't been declared UA at least once.
ESP when you're at a "post" shift... Because if you leave for ANY reason, for ANY period of time (including a bomb going off, and if you don't get down 20 feet to your left, you're pink mist & pudding)...
- you've just disobeyed a direct order (all post positions are direct orders)
- you are UA from your post
If your CO really has it out for you, you can get sent up for living.
Seen that happen more than once.
Which is just gross.


HOWEVER, these situations usually get sorted out fairly quickly.
You present your paper orders, or track down the SOB you gave you the verbal orders.
Of course, if you've been captured by the enemy, that's not going to happen.

I can JUST SEE...
Dude gets captured.
Dude gets sent to Leavenworth for being UA/ AWOL.

Face. Palm.

Q

In the Seattle area, where these kinds of laws have been in place for decades...
It's 2+ people.
Not by law... But it keeps doctors & nurses from being sued / charged with inappropriate behavior.
If you're really concerned about access & strangers... NEVER send your kids to school.
Not 5 minutes with a stranger... But hours.
- Teachers
- Staff
- Volunteers
- Parents
- Older kids
I'm not saying that creeps aren't in the medical profession...
But there's not going to be a sudden influx of creeps migrating to the medical profession because of a 5 minute time period that, if it hasn't already become office & hospital policy... Will become so, so fast your head will spin... That no employee is allowed to be alone with a minor for safety checks. Ever.
Where you WILL find them concentrated is in target rich environments.
- schools
- tutoring programs
- coaching programs
- after school care
- babysitting
Where we aren't LITERALLY 3 feet away separated by 6" of drywall for bare minutes...
But for 6-10 hours a day leave our children in the hands of strangers.
And then, if your child is 17?
Like the person in this article?
Include no jobs in addition to no public schooling.
I think sometimes it's the CHANGE that makes things seem dangerous / more noticeable.
Rather than the actual risk relative to everything else.
Like the parent who drops their kid off at the YMCA for before school care has no issue, but will have an issue when asked to stand 2 feet to their right for 5 minutes.
Q