Yeah, I was recently prescribed multi-ply socks (pretty embarrassing for lack of mainstream status) and they seriously decimated the amount of wear on my feet. Though it's also entirely possible someone would be wearing shoes too tight and just feels worse from thicker socks.
If these statistics are likewise correct, about half of child molestations involve a direct family relationship. "Stop adding children to your family" seems like a pretty unrealistic method of preventing child molestations from occurring. Then again, a pretty substantial chunk of child molestors are trusted non-relatives, so I see how the baugruppe would disproportionately enable that demographic.
"Do not let parents be alone with their own children" likewise seems pretty unrealistic. Would you want to suggest that a non-parent should be limited in their time alone with a child?
Furthermore, there will only be one baugruppe. Perhaps two. Aren't the participants in such an enterprise disproportionately likely to be economically advantaged with consistently present parents, and therefore less appealing targets for child molestors?
Grownup sexual issues in the sense of acquainting one's genitalia with someone else's body parts are (mostly) theoretical for (not too precocious) children! Issues of one's sex are decidedly NOT. From a very, very young age - maybe for boys it doesn't become non-theoretical until middle school, but I'd laugh at the idea that girls aren't hyperconscious of gender expectations after the age of about five. MOR!Hermione is constantly comparing her relationship with Harry to "Romances" she has read, expecting herself to fill such a role under constant societal encouragement and reinforcement of how girls just act that way and melt in a variety of creative manners whenever they so much as think momentarily of love. That's something she never ever would have been exposed to and acting upon if she hadn't needed to visit McGonagall in December.
I didn't read Harry's statements as stereotypically male-child-stupid or even stereotypically male-stupid, but stereotypically hyperintellectualist-male-stupid - as in specifically similar to behavior like Luke's, not that of any non-Internet non-rationalist man I've actually met. A male child of ordinary intellectual background, no matter how stupid, could not have made the specific mistakes Harry made here, because he drew his deemed-inappropriate ideas from "enlightened" papers.
A good example of stereotypically male-child-stupid is Ron's lines you quote here (and many of Ron's actions in general). These are stupid comments Ron was able to make in spite of not having read any papers.
Hermione's reactions are stereotypically female-child-stupid. She reacted the way she did precisely because of not reading these particular enlightened papers. This is the exact opposite of Harry's stupidity! I think I understand why you wrote the scene with these results - Harry has read lots of rationalist papers you think more people should read, while Hermione in spite of her intelligence does not have the exact same background. However, because Hermione's actions fit with "stupid female child" - not alleviated by her intelligence - and Harry's with "stupid-though-very-intelligent male adult" (Harry's reading on these specific psychological ideas is very incongruent with that of even most well-educated 11-year-old boys), we get subtext like Alicorn points out about female infantilism and so on.
As for some anecdata, last month when I was explaining to a progressing-to-ex-boyfriend that he did not meet my paramour standards, he said I should consider lowering my standards, and I said he was proof that strategy could not possibly work for me.
Probably? Definitely - the whole idea is her Get Rich Quick scheme to repay Harry.
I also really like the sound of that alternative. It's very powerful and personal, and the traditional hemming|hawing about active-not-passive voice actually is a rare case here of genuinely adding emotional voice.
At the very least "aerosol", "uncertainty", and "positive" have the "public" connotations even in well-educated humanities circles. There are some terms of science that simply are used differently, positive probably the most obvious.
I happen to like writing in cursive. I acknowledge potential bias based on socialization blah blah blah I was raised that way blah blah blah, but I genuinely find cursive more pleasant to write than print due to the lack of having to torturously pick up my pencil for every single new letter.
Furthermore, your proposal contains no consideration whatsoever on the effect of backlit screens on eye function.
My gut reactions are actually more like (1) uneducated radical who really should be trying harder to get a job, (2) drunk, (3) well-intentioned nice guy, (4) a pretty big jerk withoneinthreeormorechanceofapoint I MEAN A JERK (I don't want to signal supporting the privileged rich, sigh).
I know I'm rather insensitive for thinking (1), but the fact that he's clearly decided to drown his problems in alcohol that bugs me. It implies to me he's the type of poor who thinks it appropriate to blow his money on alcohol, lottery tickets, and cigarettes. I have a visceral negative reaction to this variety of poor people. Yes, I'm privileged. Bite me. The beardedness and grizzliness and ripped jeans are justified by his income but to me, alcoholism is not. Explained, perhaps, justified, no.
(2) just seems to me like a part of "one of these things is not like the others". I can trace logical paths for (1), (3), and (4), respectively circumstance (I'm poor, I want money) plus logic (if this happened I would get money), learned belief (caring for the poor is good) plus logic (if this happened it would be good for the poor which would be good), and circumstance (I'm rich, being rich is good) plus learned belief (so there are good reasons why keeping my money is good) . But... where is the logical path from which (2) can be deduced?