Saturday, October 31, 2009

Dan DeLong, Animal Sexuality and High School English

Mike Dunford has drawn my attention to a situation in Piasa, Illinois where high school English teacher Dan DeLong assigned extra-credit reading about gay animals. The situation seems to be a bit complicated. The assigned article discusses how homosexuality is common in the animal kingdom. DeLong has been suspended from his job and faces a disciplinary hearing.

If a teacher simply assigned reading from areas of study outside the teacher's area that would be a legitimate concern. However, it appears that the assignment was to read the essay and examine the essay's structure and argumentative form. Therefore, this is simply a normal high school assignment. Teachers assign all sorts of different reading about different subjects. That's part of the normal school curriculum. One might be able to describe a problem if one had evidence that DeLong had assigned the essay to make some sort of political, moral, theological or other point. However, I haven't seen any claim that that was the case. The objection simply seems to be that some parents were uncomfortable with the reading.

Unless the school had some sort of blanket policy about the teaching sexual material requiring parental permission I don't see anything that DeLong has done. While news reports are still sparse with details it seems like this is more about fear of gays and homosexuality extended to such a point that even discussing gay sex in animals triggers a backlash. That's stupid. There's simply no other way to describe it. DeLong should be restored to his position as soon as possible.

Update: DeLong has been reinstated.

21 comments:

Shalmo said...

Um no. Teachers have to be held responsible for the kind of literature they give to their students. You pay for their salaries to begin with so you have every right to be weary of what is given to your children.

Perhaps teachers should give the parents an outline of what they will be teaching the whole year before classes begin.

"The Animal Homosexuality Myth"
by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo:

http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html

Joshua said...

Shalmo,

So should parents complain if they don't want their students to learn about the history of minorities? I'm curious how you would respond for example if a math teacher had students read an essay that talked about how Greek mathematics was preserved primarily in the Muslim world. Would that situation be any different? If not, why not?

Incidentally the article you link to is incoherent. They agree that bonobos and many other species engage in homosexual activity but try to display it as an isolated issue. That displays a stunning lack of understanding about bonobos and other species. And the attempted dismissal of much of animal homosexuality as dominance or agression related is utterly besides the point that they are engaging in quite natural gay behavior. The only point that the article makes which has any validity is that animal homosexuality has little to do with whether human homosexuality is moral. But that takes about one paragraph to say. The rest is just nonsense or outright wrong. You should read the article that DeLong assigned.

Shalmo said...

Whether minorities or the greek sciences, clearly in both those cases I believe parents have no right to complain. But that is because neither history nor the color of one's skin are matters of choice.

Who you have sex with on the other hand is very much a choice.

I sincerely hope you are not going to use the "born that way" card as well. The millions who have suffered, and are suffering as a result of the AIDS epidemic that this community played the largest role in incubating and launching through their pathological sexual behavior might tend to disagree.

For example, even if the following is a minority, what kind of mentality is going on in a community to bring about this sort of behavior?

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939950/bug_chasers

Shalmo said...

sorry, here's the full url for the above link: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939950/bug_chasers

you will recognize that this grows out of something tangible within the gay community. It doesn't come out of left field, totally unrelated to key values widespread in that community. You ask a young gay man what he enjoys doing the most, invariably, the most common answers will be, "I like to party and f---," and, what is more, you will find that for many, this is not a recreational activity, but is considered by them as a key part of their personality and identity. You have massive promiscuity, and this is openly embraced as a key virtue in this community. (Exceptions of more monogamous, or at least serial monogamous exist, and I have met some of them, but it's an exception that kind of prooves the rule)

This includes lots of anal sex, the sexual activity most likely to encourage HIV infection. Even with condom use at 100%, this is a situation guaranteed to promote HIV spread; condoms only work 95-99% at best, and condoms don't perform (no pun intended) as well in this use. So is hardcore drug use and hard living. Booze, coke, ecstasy, crystal meth, amyls, GHB, ketamine - sometimes several of these at the same time, and hedonistic sex, often with several different people, a week, often under the influence of these drugs. Gay men are the leading vector of HIV spread in America. It is an epidemiologists nightmare.

The rampant existence of drug-fueled hedonism in the gay community isn't exactly a secret.

Research funding into therapies for homosexuality is virtually non-existent since the APA, caving to pressure from gay activist groups, took homosexuality off the books of mental illnesses, 34 years ago. Without funding, breakthroughs don't happen. I'm pretty sure if we judged schizophrenia and depression treatment from its techniques of 34 years ago, we'd find it pretty primitive too.

With regards to those who say it's all biological, hence natural, hence not something religion should condemn, a few questions: How do they explain bi-sexuality? pederasty? bestiality? necrophilia? deviant fetishes? Are these all biologically based as well? If not, why the distinction between them and homosexuality? If they are biologically based, then would you still condemn them? How do they explain the fact that people's sexual tastes (even in terms of who they're willing/interested in copulating with gender wise) appears so malleable? whether it's an otherwise heterosexual prisoner getting his b**** or the plethora of young girls who've suddenly decided they're bisexual now that the L word is chic? How do they explain the widespread historic existence of pederasty in the older male (who may have been married to a woman and having a family already) to younger male tutorship relationship, such as amongst the ancient greeks, and in feudal Japan ("shudo"), along with host of other cultures. Aren't these clear examples of how cultural norms (and people's choices in those norms) very much are a major factor in one's sexuality?

Shalmo said...

Did you know that today pedophile activists are arguing for their "rights" in the same manner that the rest of the gay community is; that they are "born" that way? What's scary is that their advocacy is gaining ground.

The medical field accepts gender tranformation as a legitimate procedure. We don't see these hypocritical psychologists up in arms about the unethicality of tampering with what nature has given the person in that case. If it is legitimate to respect the desires of those who believe their bodies are inconsistent with their desires, why is it considered illegitimate to provide therapy to those who are concerned about desires that they feel are inconsistent with their bodies? I think its far less invasive amd medieval to give such a willing patient some psychotherapy or drug therapy than it is to hack off someone's testicles, slice open their penis, trim it and push and prod and mold it into a fake vagina, and give them hormone shots to grow breasts.

A truthful therapist would also mention, that those happy, well-adjusted people are greatly in the minority within the gay community, especially amongst those who have aged beyond the shiny happy party years and discovered that the gay subculture is largely a Dionysiac cult of youth, and has little use and respect for the aged.

http://www.trueorigin.org/gaygene01.asp (True science vs. the falsehood of the so-called "gay gene").

In a word, "sigh"

Lautreamont said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lautreamont said...

Dear Shalmo,

I think I speak for virtually every person on this blog--not only those who have had the bad luck of reading your ludicrous, hateful, and painfully inaccurate tirade, but even those who are more casual perusers of Josh's site--when I say you have managed to choke out any trust or respect a person even of mild intelligence might have bestowed upon you. Indeed, up until now I have listened closely to what you wrote on this blog, Shalmo, and though your religious views reek of indecision and thinly veiled protectionist vitriol, I have taken what you said as a view coming from a person with a good heart and a vigrous mind at the forefront.

Sadly, in this last set of messages you have shown yourself to be a plainly ignorant person whose trust in hateful and (as anyone who read your linked essay can tell)just plain shitty scholarship is unsettling. That essay, as Josh rightly suggested, actually made a better case FOR homosexuality being gene-based! I will not even give your rant the dignity of my parsing or addressing its many incoherent suggestions since nearly every sentence is either straight up factually wrong or of a barbaric and vicious quality Saint Paul would have smiled upon a few thousand years ago. Comparing homosexuality to child molesting, for instance, is always a clear litmus test for people so stupid they should not be allowed to drive. Jesus man, heterosexuals are arrested for molestation nearly 5 times more often than homosexuals and I don't even think people have used amyls since the late 1970s.

Look, in the end a gay person is his or her own best legitimization of a homosexual gene/naturalist theory. If you have ever spoken to a homosexual (which by your writings I strongly doubt) you would see that they very clearly display attributes of the opposite sex. I do not mean an effeminate manner or masculine clothing, I mean clear physiological differences that even a four year old could see. And even without this fact, with all the horrible hate and intolerance that people like you pour upon the gay community,why would anyone CHOOSE this very difficult lifestyle if it were not an inherent part of them? Believe me, being gay is not just "Shiny" as you say but often very hard on both the partners and their children. Coming out of the closet is a product of astonishing bravery, not of hedonistic or base desires.

Shalmo, in the end, even if you were a cogent person who believed these things, you never would have written them in the first place. And if you were goodhearted and just wanted to share these thoughts to somehow better us and the world, they would have been written in a kinder and more factually correct fashion. Thus, either way you cut it you have shown yourself to be a backward, atavistic troglodyte ass. Please don't bother responding to this as I doubt anyone will take it seriously...

Shalmo said...

Ad hominems aside, your response lacks any thought-provoking content, and reeks of post-modernist effeminate emotionalism; a political "correctness" I don't really adhere to. And btw if you have a problem with my posts then kindly don't read them.

Can anyone else here reply to the following argument:

With regards to those who say it's all biological, hence natural, hence not something religion should condemn, a few questions: How do they explain bi-sexuality? pederasty? bestiality? necrophilia? deviant fetishes? Are these all biologically based as well? If not, why the distinction between them and homosexuality? If they are biologically based, then would you still condemn them? How do they explain the fact that people's sexual tastes (even in terms of who they're willing/interested in copulating with gender wise) appears so malleable? whether it's an otherwise heterosexual prisoner getting his b**** or the plethora of young girls who've suddenly decided they're bisexual now that the L word is chic? How do they explain the widespread historic existence of pederasty in the older male (who may have been married to a woman and having a family already) to younger male tutorship relationship, such as amongst the ancient greeks, and in feudal Japan ("shudo"), along with host of other cultures. Aren't these clear examples of how cultural norms (and people's choices in those norms) very much are a major factor in one's sexuality?

Joshua said...

Shalmo,

I'm deeply confused by some of your statements. To start off, you claim in response to my question about history of minorities that "neither history nor the color of one's skin are matters of choice." I fail to see what that has to do at all with the issue at hand, which was about homosexual behavior among animals. What does whether or not humans have choice in their behavior have at all to do with the appropriateness of an article about animal sexuality?

I fail incidentally to see your point about the use of drugs and various unhealthy fetishes in the gay community. In regard to drug use, once a given community has been told in no uncertain terms by society that their behavior is unacceptable, it shouldn't be terribly surprising that they will be less inclined to obey other societal norms.

Regarding so-called bug chasers, similar remarks apply. Also, it is quite standard to fetishize things which are feared or which have unresolved emotional issues connected to them. See for example cuckold fetishes.

The point you bring up regarding other forms of non-standard sexuality is I think more valid than Lautremont gives you credit for. Yes, most of those have deep biological bases. However, that's not all that is relevant. In the case of bisexual or homosexual activity, one has consenting behavior between adults. That's pretty obviously not the case for pedophilia for example. (Tcases of bestiality and necrophilia are precisely more complicated because their can be complicated issues of consent).

And yes, cultural norms do have some impact on sexuality and sexual behavior. That's completely consistent with their being a large amount not having a choice. The most relevant issue there is the Kinsey scale: People are more or less naturally on some point on the Kinsey scale. However, cultural and other factors can easily push them to act like they are elsewhere on the scale.

The example of prison behavior is particularly interesting in that it actually undermines your claim. 1) These are universally people who aren't getting any opportunities for sex with their desired gender and so are trying to get it elsewhere 2) despite that, they repeatedly use language that labels the receiver as feminine.

I simply fail to see the relevance of your rant about transexual and transgendered individuals. So you are going to need to explain that in more detail.

Both you and Paul seem to also misunderstand the underlying issues in regard to a biological basis. Claims that their is a specific gay gene are difficult. However, one doesn't need a specific gene to have a biological basis. Indeed, one can have no genetic basis and still have a strong biological basis. Sexuality, like most complicated human characteristics is likely a product of genetic, environmental and stochastic effects.

(Incidentally, what does "post-modernist effeminate emotionalism" even mean? I've spent a few hours trying to parse that and other than as a list of things that Shalmo finds bad I can't quite get a meaning out of it).


And none of this has any relevance to the basic issue: Regardless of what one thinks about human homosexuality, is there a problem with Dan DeLong's actions? Even if one bought into everything that Shalmo has said, I have trouble seeing how that creates any problem with DeLong's actions.

Shalmo said...

Joshua:

"I'm deeply confused by some of your statements. To start off, you claim in response to my question about history of minorities that "neither history nor the color of one's skin are matters of choice." I fail to see what that has to do at all with the issue at hand, which was about homosexual behavior among animals. What does whether or not humans have choice in their behavior have at all to do with the appropriateness of an article about animal sexuality?"

I was making a point that parents do not have a right to complain about their children being taught history of minorities because something like the slave-trade, or other paradigms of history are things that happened. So if you are a racist, well then that's too bad. You should not send your kids to a public school then.

With homosexuality things are different. An article on animal homosexuality is just parcel of the slow introduction of the topic of homosexuality into schools by liberals. The greater agenda is to create an atmosphere of the "born that way" canard we seeing going on all around us. Children who being taught that homosexual intercourse exists in animals (a claim I have shown is questionable) are obviously being paraded into greater acceptance of the gay community.

And that right there is the problem. A secular system does not impose any ideologies, whether its myths like creationism or myths on homosexuality being natural and this something you don't have a choice on.

"I fail incidentally to see your point about the use of drugs and various unhealthy fetishes in the gay community......Also, it is quite standard to fetishize things which are feared or which have unresolved emotional issues connected to them. See for example cuckold fetishes."

That such behaviour exists in such abundance in the gay community seriously undermines any case of wider society approving of that lifestyle. The hedonistic sex that the homosexual lifestyle promotes is a very good argument for why the Abrahamic faiths are correct in their condemnation of it. You are wrong about about the abundance of substance abuse among them being a consequence of persecution, in countries like Canada or the Netherlands where that does not happen, you do not see any significant decrease in the amount of substance abuse this community and its lifestyle promotes.

This magical fairytale that liberals are promoting of homosexuals being a persecuted little minority who are like everybody else just does not relate to reality at all.

I am not saying exceptions not exist, I am sure they do. However the overwhelming majority of the gay community being a dionysiac cult of youth is not a hidden fact at all. Go pick up any gay/lesbian publication or newspaper, the content in it should speak clearly on what behaviour this community promotes.

Shalmo said...

"The point you bring up regarding other forms of non-standard sexuality is I think more valid than Lautremont gives you credit for.....In the case of bisexual or homosexual activity, one has consenting behavior between adults. That's pretty obviously not the case for pedophilia for example....However, cultural and other factors can easily push them to act like they are elsewhere on the scale."

So consenting behaviour among adults makes it ok?

At a certain level I would agree, however, that does not mean the rest of us who disapprove of this lifestyle have to approve of it.

Incidently you are right we cannot chose our culture. However that does not abrogate that sexuality is primarily influenced by culture. And cultural values can indeed be wrong, as were the white supremist attitudes of the slave trading culture. And that is precisely the point, that sexuality is not something you are born with but something your surroundings shape, hence you cannot use the "born that way" card. And you very much can reject the bad aspects of your culture.

"The example of prison behavior is particularly interesting in that it actually undermines your claim. 1) These are universally people who aren't getting any opportunities for sex with their desired gender and so are trying to get it elsewhere 2) despite that, they repeatedly use language that labels the receiver as feminine."

Actually it proves my point that sexuality is malleable, hence why heterosexual males can become homosexual or at least bisexual in prison. So this is another shot into the "born that way" argument.

"I simply fail to see the relevance of your rant about transexual and transgendered individuals. So you are going to need to explain that in more detail."

My "rant" is about the double standards of the APA, allowing transexuals and transgendered to have sex changes (which I approve of), while at the same time disapproving of attempts by willing participents to change their homosexual inclinations as is advocated by NARTH.

"Both you and Paul seem to also misunderstand the underlying issues in regard to a biological basis. Claims that their is a specific gay gene are difficult. However, one doesn't need a specific gene to have a biological basis. Indeed, one can have no genetic basis and still have a strong biological basis. Sexuality, like most complicated human characteristics is likely a product of genetic, environmental and stochastic effects."

And this is where I demand evidence. There is no gay gene. The liberals have sought it and not found it. So where does the "born that way" argument stand.

I agree with transexuals and trangsgendered people being born without the proper gender, whether mentally or physically. And I support them receiving the medical treatment they deserve. Its the homosexuals that are under debate however.

"Incidentally, what does "post-modernist effeminate emotionalism" even mean? I've spent a few hours trying to parse that and other than as a list of things that Shalmo finds bad I can't quite get a meaning out of it."

http://www2.insidenova.com/isn/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/article/the_symptoms_of_the_liberal_mental_disorder/5487/


"And none of this has any relevance to the basic issue: Regardless of what one thinks about human homosexuality, is there a problem with Dan DeLong's actions? Even if one bought into everything that Shalmo has said, I have trouble seeing how that creates any problem with DeLong's actions."

Its a case of naughty science. Let me elaborate:

Shalmo said...

In first year in Kineasiology they taught us about how human biases plague science, a field incorrectly advocated by the Richard-Dawkinites as infallible.

In the 19th century it was common for texts books to say things like the sperm penetrates the egg cell. When patriarchy started being questioned, so did the claim that there is any penetration going on. In fact it seems the egg devours the sperm cell at a certain.

David Suzuki did a good documentary on this in the animal kingdom. He talks about how before when scientists looked into the animal kingdom they are patriarchal structures, such as lion having the lionesses do all the hunting while he enjoyed their spoils. This led them to conclude that patriarchy was "natural" because we see it in the animal kingdom. Does this sound familiar?

The article you pointed to is arguably just a similar case of preconceptions of homosexuality being inferred onto the findings we produce on it.

And as I have shown in the previous article, whether or not homosexuality is even taking place in the animal kingdom is still under debate.

And even if it can be proven to take place in the animal kingdom, that still is not a good enough reason for approving this lifestyle among sane, rational human beings.

Shalmo said...

However DeLong's actions are not something I think he should be suspended for. I don't think he did it out of malice.

Joshua said...

A variety of remarks.

First, I need to clarify my remark about prison rape behavior. While it is true that prison rape seems to be in part about lack of sexual opportunities there are likely other issues going on there. While prison rape is less common in prisons that allow for liberal conjugal visits, there is a serious correlation v. causation issue with using that.

Lautremont, "they very clearly display attributes of the opposite sex. I do not mean an effeminate manner or masculine clothing, I mean clear physiological differences that even a four year old could see." while this is true for some gay people it is by no means universal. Moreover, many of the traits you see (such as muscle level and distribution, movement types etc.) have largely cultural elements. While it is true that we've all met people who were in the closet and yet obviously gay, that's a very different claim.

Shalmo,

You write "With homosexuality things are different. An article on animal homosexuality is just parcel of the slow introduction of the topic of homosexuality into schools by liberals." I'm curious what evidence you have that says anything about DeLong's personal political beliefs or motivations.

I'm not going to respond to your next set of remarks since I think that Lautremont and I both did a decent enough job showing that in fact that the biological basis for homosexuality is really quite strong.

Much of what else you say is simply ranting and has little to do with anything. I find it interesting that you feel a need to bring up Richard Dawkins in a completely unrelated context (incidentally, I doubt Dawkins would claim that science is infallible and that scientists are immune to biases. Moreover, I doubt anyone who has read anything that Dawkins has wrote would would seriously try to make that claim)

I'm not sure what you are talking about about sperm devouring egg cells, given that the sperm is much smaller than the egg. Some form of citation here would be nice.

And there's really no debate about homosexuality in the animal kingdom. That a theologian and philosopher isn't happy about it and seems highly confused about the matter is really besides the point. Even the article you cite agrees that their are animals having sex with animals of the same gender. And that in some species this is common. If that's not gay animal sex I don't know what is.

Also, regarding a gay gene: you may want to reread what I wrote. It is unlikely that there is a single allele that codes for homosexuality although we do know of alleles that make homosexuality more likely. It is, moreover, quite clear that homosexuality has a genetic component. But that's really besides the point in question. A trait doesn't need to be purely genetic to be biologically controlled. Sexuality like most complicated traits is a product of a variety of different inputs, genetic, environmental and stochastic. Just because something isn't purely genetic doesn't mean someone has any choice.

Incidentally, I've interacted with sincere very religious individuals both Christians and Jews who have been extremely religious and had terrible problems because they were gay. In some cases they left the fold. In at least one case, the individual is still struggling with it. You wouldn't think they had much choice after dealing with such people.

I'm also puzzled by your last remark about malice. Humans very rarely do something out of malice. If someone taught YECism in an American public school, they should probably get fired. Whether they had malice or not has very little to do with anything.

Joshua said...

Also, Shalmo, I have to say that the linked letter to the editor about "liberalism" really didn't help explain anything at all.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Shalmo said...

The sperm/egg example I brought is an example of 19th century scientists who believed that because patriarchy exists in nature (questionable) therefore patriarchy is natural. Today we have change that dogma because many in fact are now seeing egalitarianism in nature. Such as how grandmother elephants, and not the male head, are the ones who lead elephant heards. So now we no longer believe patriarchy is natural. The same can be concluded about homosexuality and whether or not it being natural is something liberals are juxtaposing onto the findings.

Also I made it quite clear that whether or not homosexuality does take place in the animal kingdom, does not de facto equate approval of it amongst rational, sane human beings.

I'm not impressed with your replies to my claims that societal factors heavily influence sexuality. The issue I brought up was the malleability of one's sexual tastes. We see that in japanese shudo and we see it in prisons where heterosexual males get it going with other males.

About the people you mentioned who are struggling between their sexuality and religion. I agree that there are such individuals out there who are struggling with it. But there is a reason for that.

Some argue that its a case of once you start you can't stop. That once you experience certain types of sexuality, usually through "experimenting" as so many young people who have devoured Hollywood's hyper-sexuality, are doing. And that is how they become fixed onto those sexuality types, and then later on are unable to let go of it.

My brother-in-law knows one such man. He was babysat by a man as a boy, who later kidnapped him from his parents and raped. For 9 years he lived with him. And then he became gay. Its to the argument that sexuality is malleable to societal factors.

So can we blame this young man I mentioned for him being gay? No its his captor's fault.

But does this mean we approve of the gay community as a whole? No it does not. Because as I said before the hedonistic sex that this community breeds, and especially the older males who have aged beyond the happy party years and lost their sexual standings which usually leads to remaining years of depression, make accepting them impossible.

And again if you don't really believe this a key component of that lifestyle then please go get involved in the gay community. Read their publications. Read their magazines. Find out for yourself what the gay subculture is all about.

Why should we legalize gay marriage? Why not pedastry? Why not pedophilia? Why the special pleadings with homosexuality alone?

Its a disease. And like all diseases it can be cured, but only if funding for it exists.

And if the above scenario does hold true, that people become gay through "experimentation" which is passed on from generation to generation, then one simple way to stop it once and for all would be to stop it from being passed on period.



PS: I cannot believe you made such a big deal of a small sacarstic reference to Dawkins. When I said Dawkins assumes science to be infallible, it is his claim that science is primary avenue, if not the only, of truth. But that discussion is totally off topic.

sniffnoy said...

Shalmo: Shut up regarding the "born that way" argument. You are correct that this does not discriminate between homosexuality and all sorts of terrible things. Which is why it is not really a serious argument! Nobody cares how many holes you can poke in it, because we already know it's a bad argument! Nobody here attempted to use it for anything, and if they had, you really would only need to shoot it down once... finding more reasons that this argument is bad, does not advance your case.

Again, the difference in all these cases is informed consent. Really, the proper generalization from gay marriage, is group marriage. (Or back-generalizations, like interracial marriage.) But there's a very simple reason you don't see lots of support for group marriage, namely, that it's quite difficult implementationally. Whereas we already know how to implement two-person marriage.

So what's the problem with degaying therapy? Ignoring the whole "people being forced into it" problem? Simple: It doesn't work. A person may consent to such, but you have to doubt that they were truly properly informed, if they want to undergo a procedure that has been shown to not work. Anyway, was anybody criticizing people who chose to undergo such? The criticism seems to be directed at the people who are actually, you know, peddling quackery.

But fundamentally, next to none of what you have said is relevant to the original question, i.e., Dan DeLong's teaching. If we were dealing with what was taught in science class, nothing you have said argues for withholding known facts (or best guesses) from the students. But we're not even dealing with that case; we're dealing with a case where an English teacher gave them an assignment to examine the essay's structure and argumentative form. Therefore, whether the article is true, false, misleading, or whatnot, is irrelevant. There certainly *are* a few obvious problems with that article; and hopefully, someone trying to pick apart its argumentative structure would catch them! (Though, maybe not, if they weren't problems with the "structure". This doesn't seem relevant.)

Michal bas Avraham said...

I find this interesting because when I was in high school, I don't think my parents were looking at my homework. They didn't even care what grades I got. I was just expected to try my best. I drove myself more than my parents drove me. I think, I was not the normal case. However, it's still weird to me the way parents baby their nearly adult children. Those kids would never survive if their parents died while they were still young, as mine have both already died.

Michal bas Avraham said...

Oh, I can't resist.. his name was de LONG.... hehehe

My inner child is coming out to make fun.

Dissertation Writing service said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.