I haven't read all the letters, but no one so far has mentioned that two people consume more resources than one. Presumably the mother is using the shower, toilet, electricity, etc., but the daughter is only paying one portion of the utilities . This is grossly unfair to the LW, especially if this stay seems open ended. Why should the LW subsidize the extra person who has no relation to her? If the mother ends up staying, the utility bills need to be divided by the number of actual people, including mom, and the sublettor pay accordingly.

Basically, the LW needs to suck it up, and confront, in a polite way, using Cary's suggestions or by explaining the above.

Presumably she does this will all her patients - it's a tic of hers. It would be kind to tell her - she could be damaging her career by doing it; losing patients.

So send her an anonymous letter, signed 'A patient'. I'll be it's problem solved.

Otherwise, get a new therapist - it's a relationship that has to work from both sides.

That cliche' has always annoyed me - thank you for making it hilarious.

"But, who are we to say someone isn't allowed to find young girls attractive? If I wanted to I can say I admire Hitler. You can't police someone's brain. You have to wait until they, wait for it..... commit a crime."

You can't police someone's brain. But he has gone further - taking photos of children without their parents' permission (since they can't give consent to be photographed themselves) and posting their images on the internet without their parents' permission. Also, hugging them without their parents' permission is not just 'finding them attractive' - it crosses a line. These are not just 'thought crimes' - he is violating the rights of others. In law, young children cannot give consent, so I assume that extends to receiving non-sexual touching from strange men on the street who are getting off on it. This is not just 'free speech' - he's crossing a line by photographing and touching them.

If his website merely talked about how attractive he found children on the street, as creepy as I would find it, it would be a freedom of speech issue. But when he photographs children without consent, and actually touches children (non-sexual as it may be - HE is getting off on it, even though he is not touching their genitals, nor they his)

Someone from the south of France could make a comic about how stupid Americans are to wear tops.

But the difference is, most American women won't go topless due to cultural custom and the resulting laws, not because they believe they need to wear what their invisible friend in the sky tells them to wear

Next thing you're going to tell me is that the pope is Catholic and that bears use the woods as their lavatories.

Poor condors. That sounds like a terrible way to die.

What if the best thing for my sons turned out to be uprooting them from everything they know?

Um...this whole article is about how moving would be the best thing for YOU, and YOUR needs. Your son's needs don't come into it, except as an afterthought.

Your traveling end up being beneficial for them, but be clear on the motivation. Not once in the article do you mention your sons needing a change of scenery - the whole thing is about how YOU need a change.

yesteray

Sure, but by being at home they lowered their risk of anything going wrong by about a thousand fold

Can you explain this? How does a home birth reduce risk?

You are not married or living together. You're dating, and occasionally spending time at his apartment.

He clearly does not want to live with you or marry you. Maybe he will some day; maybe not. But right now he sees you two as dating. You don't get a key when you're dating. He knows that giving you a key is essentially saying he wants you to live there.

He's not being an jerk. He's dating you, possibly exclusively, possibly not, but he does not want to live with you. It's up to you to decide if that is enough for you.

I thought we were supposed to be encouraging people to drive less, not more, for hte good of the environment. I love how Hillary talks out of both sides of her mouth - she will say supports saving the planet, but also supports measures that will encourage people to drive more. (actually, she will say anything if it will get her votes, it increasingly seems...)

Yeah, the high gas prices suck - I don't like paying them - but is it a really bad thing? If it encourages people to get up off their arses (obesity is another huge problem, as we all know) and use public transport, is it that bad? Maybe increased demand on public transport will encourage better funding of it?

Why do people act like low-priced gas is a right enshrined in the constitution? We don't pay very much for gas, compared with the rest of the world, and, nice as it would be for me to save money on gas, is it really good for my health and the health of the planet? It really is quite selfish of people to want such a small, short term saving than think about the much bigger picture.