fbpx

July 17, 2013

Do men and women matter?

Most Americans do not realize that, as large as the issue of same-sex marriage is (and it is very large), there is an even larger issue at stake in the same-sex marriage debate.

That issue is whether gender matters: Do male and female, man and woman, matter?

In the brief span of about 40 years, a war against the male-female distinction has been waged. And it has been largely successful. 

This was unforeseen and unforeseeable. Had anyone living in 1975 (or, for that matter, anywhere in the Western world for the previous 2,000 years) been told that Western societies would one day seek to erase the most basic and important innate distinction between human beings — the man-woman distinction; that the best educated would deny that men and women were different in any meaningful way; and that the two sexes would be regarded as completely interchangeable — that person would have thought he or she was talking to a madman.

Yet, that is what has happened at the social equivalent of the speed of light.

It began with modern feminism, a movement that has influenced vast numbers of men and women born after World War II. It was the movement’s goal of women’s equality that led to its denial of innate male-female differences. First, feminists feared than any acknowledgement of male-female differences would lead back to male-female roles. Second, they increasingly tended to equate “equal” with “same.”

Feminism convinced a generation of men and women, especially those attending college and graduate school, that (to cite one well-known example) the only reason boys play with trucks and girls play with dolls and tea sets is due to a sexist upbringing. Without sexist assumptions about boys’ and girls’ alleged differences, boys would just as happily play with dolls and tea sets and girls would just as happily play with trucks. 

That this was nonsense didn’t matter. When that is all you hear from your teachers and read in your textbooks, you begin to believe it. It was believed, for example, by a major intellect, Lawrence Summers, former president of Harvard University and Secretary of the Treasury under President Bill Clinton. He told a story about “giving his daughter two trucks as an effort at gender-neutral parenting. The girl soon began referring to one of the trucks as ‘daddy truck’ and the other as ‘baby truck.’ ”

The next societal force working to erase the significance of the sexes was the gay rights movement. The very premise of the movement is that the only thing that matters in sexual relations is that consenting adults engage in it. Whether men and women make love to one another or to members of their own sex makes no difference. Gender doesn’t matter.

And if gender doesn’t matter, then it doesn’t matter with regard to parents: It makes no difference whether children have two mothers, two fathers or a mother and a father. Schools such as New York’s progressive Rodeph Sholom Day School, in 2001, even banned any celebration of Mother’s Day or Father’s Day among its elementary school students.

Catholic Charities, the nation’s oldest ongoing adoption services, were forced out of the adoption business in states like Massachusetts and Illinois — because they placed children for adoption only with a married man and woman. Progressives consider such a sentiment — that, all things being equal, it is better for a child to have a mother and a father — as bigoted and absurd. Since the sexes aren’t different, a mother provides nothing that two fathers can’t provide, and a father provides nothing that two mothers can’t provide. 

Young people in America and elsewhere are increasingly experiencing the results of this denial of male-female significance. 

• Harvard University appointed its first permanent director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender and queer student life. The individual, Vanidy Bailey, has asked that he/she never be referred to as he or she, or as male or female. Harvard has agreed.

• Each year, more and more American high schools elect girls as homecoming kings and boys as homecoming queens. Students have been taught to regard restricting kings to males or queens to females as discrimination.

• When you sign up for the new social networking site, Google Plus, you are asked to identify your gender. Three choices are offered: Male, Female, Other. The same holds true on applications to American universities such as New York University.

• The left-wing French government announced that in the future no government-issued document will be allowed to use the words “mother” or “father.” Only “parent” will be allowed.

• In Rhode Island, at least one school district canceled its father-daughter dance after the ACLU threatened to sue the district for gender discrimination. Only parent-child events, not father-daughter dances or mother-son ballgames, will be allowed.

• More and more schools now feature cross-dressing days for all their students.

• In Sweden, some parents now send their children to at least one school that does not refer to children as either a boy or a girl. 

Same-sex marriage is both the culmination of this erasing of male-female significance and its most powerful expression: Society has declared that marrying someone of the same sex is no different from marrying someone of the other sex.

The Torah went out of its way to assert the monumental importance of gender distinctions. When God created the first human beings, the Torah tells us, “Male and female He created them.” Only of humans does the creation story make this statement; gender distinctions don’t matter among animals except with regard to procreation. And the Torah prohibits men from wearing women’s clothing and women from wearing that which represents manhood. But how many Jews really care what the Torah says? Like the American Constitution, the progressive regards it as a deeply flawed text written by deeply flawed sexist, homophobic and racist men. 

In negating the man-woman distinction, we are bequeathing to our children a Brave New World. Time will tell whether they will thank us. I don’t think they will.

Do men and women matter? Read More »

House Cleaning: Tisha B’Av, Dermer, Caricature

1.

Tisha B'Av is over, but we still have two related items to share. One is the weekly Torah-Talk. Our guest this week is Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, and our conversation – it will only be available on Friday – focuses on the Parsha and Tisha B'av.

There's also the article I wrote for the IHT-NYT this week, from which you get a paragraph. While we constantly talk about “sinat chinam” as the common theme for Tisha B'Av…

the holiday is intrinsically divisive. On the occasion of Tisha B’av three years ago, a pollster asked a sample of 500 Jewish Israelis, “What, in your opinion, is the worst source of tension in Israeli society?” Forty-one percent answered the “Jewish-Arab issue,” and 42 percent said the “religious-secular issue” — two great problems symbolized by the site honored on Tisha B’av.:

The rest of it is here.

2.

Laura Rozen is trying to understand why Ron Dermer might not be such bad idea for the peace process – here's part of the answer I gave her:

“It is customary to say in Israel that it is easier for left-wing governments to make war, and right-wing governments to make peace,” Rosner said. “If you think about the Israeli ambassador to the US, and …the case in which the Obama administration attempts to advance some sort of peace process or any other controversial policy with the right wing, if Dermer stands behind the policy and endorses it, it will be much easier both for the government of Israel and for the [U.S.] administration to let this policy pass in the Congress.”… “For the Obama administration, this makes Dermer  more important,” Rosner said. “It also makes him a tool with which to devise a policy that Congress and the opposition cannot truly oppose.”

3.

I should thank Gil Troy, both for some questionable compliments ('thoughtful', 'subtle') and, more importantly, for defending me from an attack by two Open Zion writers.

More outrageous was the article accusing the thoughtful, subtle writer Shmuel Rosner of “Justifying Segregation in the New York Times?” That headline caricatured Rosner’s analysis of the Superland amusement park, whose policies of separating Jewish and Arab student groups on trips was widely denounced in Israel, including by Dermer’s boss Netanyahu. Rosner ended his article, which acknowledged the problem of occasional violent clashes between Arab and Jewish groups on outings by saying the policy “had to be condemned. That official Israel did just that is the single bit of solace to be found in this depressing situation.” Actions that a writer deems “depressing” and contemptible have not been “justified” by him or his publication.

 

House Cleaning: Tisha B’Av, Dermer, Caricature Read More »

Fight bigotry at ballot box

The Trayvon Martin case has once again reminded us that racial divisiveness isn’t going away any time soon in America. The verdict is being debated all over. There are protests in numerous cities. But the Martin verdict and the ensuing protests will nevertheless not have as enduring an impact on how our government works at all levels as the simple act of voting. The surest tool to guarantee that racial discrimination does not occur is the ballot box, to ensure that all Americans eligible to vote have full opportunity to do so.  

The Supreme Court’s ruling on the Voting Rights Act, revealed in late June, along with recent actions by a number of states to make it harder for people to vote, are likely to have major consequences for the politics of race. 

The Constitution generally leaves voting rules to the states, except where Congress, the courts or constitutional amendments have acted to protect groups from discrimination in voting — including women, racial minorities and the young. The 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) was intended to rectify decades of discriminatory practices, especially in the South, and, as recently as 2006, was extended as amended with overwhelming bipartisan support and the signature of President George W. Bush. 

The VRA imposed national rules on all the states and managed to discomfort both political parties.  Southern Democrats, after all, were the main targets of the 1965 Act.  Democratic California could not allocate black and Hispanic populations to keep Democratic incumbents in power. Minority voting rights groups used to regularly sue California and Los Angeles about district lines. It also prevented Republicans in Texas from drawing lines to disadvantage minorities.

Lawsuits from minority groups often drew support from Republicans, who did not mind the breakup of “safe” Democratic districts in order to create more minority districts.  It was recognized in both parties that attempts to limit voting would violate the VRA.

After Barack Obama won the White House in 2008 with a new coalition of younger whites and racial minorities, Democrats believed they were on the winning side of history. Only two years later, Republicans swept to victories in midterm elections — nationally and statewide —- not just in the south but also in such industrial states as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin and Michigan. 

Among the main legislative priorities of these newly elected Republican state governments was the enactment of voter ID laws and other limitations (such as on early voting) that disadvantaged minority groups who were less likely to have the IDs and who tended to heavily utilize early voting. (In Florida, state Republicans also passed the “Stand Your Ground” law that played a role in the Martin trial.)

The VRA provided some protection against these laws. But now the Supreme Court has voided the long-standing “pre-clearance” requirement for those states (mainly in the South) that have had a history of discrimination in voting laws. Within a day of the court’s decision, southern states began imposing new restrictive voting laws and redistricting plans (as in Texas) intended to weaken minority representation.

Thomas Edsall recently predicted in The New York Times that the court’s VRA decision will give Republicans a lock on 11 southern states for years to come, by restricting opportunities for Democrats to win elections — through redistricting — and by limiting the ability of blacks to vote through voter ID and other laws. 

We will soon have two voting regimes in the United States, one of states like California trying to expand voting and another of states trying to restrict it. But this leads to the following question: What happens if those wanting to restrict minority voters win control of both houses of Congress and the White House and pass national voting laws similar to those that emerged after the 2010 midterm elections?  Will the Supreme Court allow the dual regimes to continue?

This reality casts a sharp light on the debate about whether Republicans, in weighing immigration reform, can remain a largely white party or must become more diverse.  Without the core of the VRA, Republicans will not have to look over their shoulders in the South, and they can build a base of states entirely without minority voters. With control of many states, a lock on the House of Representatives and a sympathetic Supreme Court majority, Republicans might be tempted to go on as they have.  But another block of Republicans that long supported the VRA does not want to commit the party to a whites-only strategy built on low levels of minority participation.  Hopefully, there will be bipartisan support to rebuild the crippled VRA.  That would be good for both parties and certainly good for the nation. In the absence of a bipartisan solution, much will depend on the outcome of midterm elections in 2014.

 The effort to protect and expand the right to vote is entering a new phase, not unlike the early days of the civil rights movement. The lesson of that era is that voting is precious and must be defended in the courtroom, in the political arena and in the neighborhoods where people live and vote, even if it means personally helping a voter in another state to meet excessively difficult requirements intended to discourage voting. 

While it may be a while before voting rights regain their recently lost bipartisan umbrella, and while that would be an outcome to be greatly welcomed, it remains urgently important now to nurture and protect the franchise.


Raphael J. Sonenshein is executive director of the Edmund G. “Pat” Brown Institute of Public Affairs at California State University, Los Angeles.

Fight bigotry at ballot box Read More »

Letters to the Editor: Gay marriage

Decision to Perform Gay Marriages Sparks Much Conversation

Susan Freudenheim’s coverage of Rabbi David Wolpe’s decision to marry gay couples described a fascinating evolution in the Sinai Temple community (“The Gay Marriage Debate,” July 5). I want to clarify that my office at Sinai Akiba Academy has not received any threats of families leaving the school in light of the temple’s new policy. I have spoken with several families who expressed concern and wanted to better understand if the policy would change the curriculum at Sinai Akiba Academy (it will not). Although both the Jewish Journal and The New York Times have pointed out that much of the opposition comes from Sinai’s Iranian population, I would note that I have received positive and negative feedback from a culturally diverse cross section of school families, including a warm reception from many Iranian families as well as concern from families of Ashkenazic descent. I am deeply honored to lead Sinai Akiba Academy — which has retained every one of its 480 students over the course of this change — whose families daily demonstrate adaptability, curiosity and a desire to learn and understand how our rabbis believe gay marriage fits within the framework of the teachings and commandments of the Torah.

Sarah Shulkind
Head of School, Sinai Akiba Academy

We need more rabbis like David Wolpe, who will make sure that no Jew will be left behind in his or her search for gladness, joy and happiness.

Ken Lautman
Los Angeles

More Support for Gay Marriage Stand

Thank you once again, Gina Nahai, for an insightful and honest assessment of a situation (“We Have No Homosexuals Here,” July 12). I stand with my colleague Rabbi David Wolpe and ask all of us to remember when being a Jew was an “odorous” thing to many people. Gina, your courage, your spirit and your brilliance shine through.

Rabbi Mark Borovitz
Beit T’Shuvah
via jewishjournal.com

Thank you for Gina Nahai’s article regarding the bigotry of some members of Sinai Temple, members who themselves faced bigotry when they were new to the temple.  Ms. Nahai wrote beautifully. She was concise, specific, angry, knowledgeable — in short, perfect!

Ann Bourman
Los Angeles

Bravo to Gina Nahai!  Thank you for reminding all of us of what Jews have dealt with through the ages — Iranian and non-Iranian alike.

Ruth Merritt
Beverly Hills

Misuse of Torah’s Words

Sometimes the truth hurts, David Suissa (“A Real Gay Marriage Debate,” July 12). If you study our ancient prophets, you will find that most were either ignored or had their lives threatened by the community for rebuking them for their sins and trying to convince them to repent. That came to mind when I read your reaction to the Sinai member who used the Scripture as an argument against institutionalizing a clear violation of the Torah.

Bringing up the death sentence for a Sabbath violator, which ceased to apply after the destruction of the Temple, was not a proper comparison to a law that is still applicable. You should know better than that.

Yes, having an attraction to someone of the same sex may not be a choice. But acting upon it definitely is. The Torah prohibition is against the action. People have all sorts of tendencies. Many of them may not be healthy, for them or society. But we are taught, or should be taught, to control them or channel them in a healthier way.

Referring to a clear Torah prohibition, which applies to non-Jews as well as Jews, as a “tradition” appears to have been used by Wolpe to diminish its importance. And asking where [acceptance of homosexuality] is going seems obvious to any student of history: the same direction as ancient Rome and other civilizations that indulged in excesses and immorality.

You make the claim that there is nothing wrong with uniting two loving souls. Well, that sounds beautiful. But what if those two souls were brother and sister? What if these adult siblings wanted to live as man and wife? Where do we draw the line? Obviously, we can’t count on the ever-changing morals of society to guide us. Fortunately, we were given a guide: the Torah. We just need to have the strength not to be persuaded by the cause du jour and follow the laws that have allowed us to survive for thousands of years.

Daniel de Porto
via jewishjournal.com

David Suissa responds:

Yes, I agree, sometimes the truth hurts. In Mr. de Porto’s case, the truth that obviously hurts is the fact that the homosexuality he abhors has now entered the American mainstream. 

He concedes that homosexuality “may not be a choice,” but he has a solution. His solution is that gays should be “taught” to “control” their urges and tendencies because these are prohibited in the Torah. Well, I guess that settles it.

Mr. de Porto brandishes his point of view and his beloved Torah in such a hurtful and patronizing way as to make any Torah follower look like an intolerant bigot. In the process, he ends up undermining his own case.

As I wrote in my column, if there was ever an issue in our community that called for diplomacy and sensitivity, this one is it. This subject is sensitive and divisive enough as it is. 

Letters to the Editor: Gay marriage Read More »

Israel’s hidden underclass

Our daughter Chaya just turned 18. We didn’t celebrate. And, sadly, she didn’t protest. Chaya is blind, epileptic, wheelchair-bound and profoundly disabled, both cognitively and physically. Her birthdays are not happy milestones. With each one, the gap between her chronological and functional ages grows. Raising a child like Chaya is never easy or joyful wherever you live, but in Israel it is especially challenging.

Two Israeli organizations working with people suffering from disabilities recently marked milestones, too. Together they paint an accurate portrait of Israel’s special-needs population.

In December 2012, Bizchut-The Israel Human Rights Center for People With Disabilities celebrated its 20th anniversary. A few weeks later, Aleh, self-described as the “largest network of residential facilities for children with severe physical and cognitive disabilities,” marked 30 years of operations.

Bizchut has advocated, among other initiatives, shutting down institutions for the disabled and replacing them with in-community residences. It laid out that vision in a 2008 Hebrew-language book, “The Land of Limited Possibilities: The Right of People With Mental Disabilities to Live Within the Community.”

Aleh, on the other hand, runs four institutions housing more than 600 physically and mentally disabled children. 

Some think this is a fine strategy. They may be unaware of how far removed from community life those residences are. 

Aleh’s Jerusalem facility is planted in an auto-repair shop precinct. Its Bnei Brak branch evokes a large, crowded self-contained hospital. In Gedera, residents are relegated to a building on the city fringes, encircled by high fences. The newest and largest addition, called Aleh Negev, is located in the desert, far from major population centers and, in most cases, very distant from the children’s parents and siblings. 

Aleh’s success is closely tied to its ability to tap into substantial charitable donations and government grants. Its Aleh Negev facility, a $42 million project, was built on land donated by the government. Aleh’s Web site adds that its operating budget is about $30 million, of which 80 percent is provided by the government; the rest is private contributions. Capital development projects, according to the site, excluded from operating budget numbers, receive 50 percent funding from the government. 

In a promotional video on that Web site, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urges support for Aleh Negev, which, in his words, “is now being studied as a model to be emulated around the world.”

In reality, institutional residences like Aleh Negev are being eliminated from most Western societies. The handful of American states that continue to segregate their disabled in institutional-scale housing are under threat of legal action by the Department of Justice for violation of residents’ civil rights. The New York Times reported in September 2012 that the laggards — Georgia, Mississippi and Virginia — had begun to join the rest of the United States by transferring thousands of their institutionalized disabled to small in-community homes. 

The same has happened in Europe. Norway was the first to close its institutions for the cognitively disabled. By 2005, both Sweden and the United Kingdom had followed suit. Canada and New Zealand completed the process by 2010.

Israeli law has the identical goal. The Equal Rights of Persons With Disabilities Law (1998) guarantees “equality to the disabled and the entitlement to make decisions relating to his life, according to his desires and priorities.” The right to live in the community is specifically dealt with in a 2000 amendment to the Welfare Law for Care of the Retarded, which states that when placing individuals in facilities outside their homes, preference must be given to residences within the community. 

That legislation was bolstered by the Lior Levy case (Lior Levy et al v. State of Israel et al. 2008), wherein Israel’s Supreme Court affirmed the right of even the severely disabled to be housed within the community.

In 2012, Israel ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People With Disabilities, which guarantees their right to live within the community. It adds that individuals with disabilities must be accorded “access to a range of in-home, residential and other community support services … to prevent isolation or segregation from the community.” 

Aleh’s solutions are inconsistent with Israeli law, the U.N. Convention and global best practices.

The fact that Israel trails the rest of the world in this area was evidenced by recent revelations concerning Neve Yaakov, a private institution in Petah Tikvah housing 150 residents. It was shut down in October 2012 after 70 of its employees were arrested on charges over the alleged prolonged abuse of its disabled residents.

At an emergency conference in November 2012, Naama Lerner, Bizchut’s director of community outreach, explained why outside intervention by the authorities is rare: “The police view these institutions as having a separate set of laws. … We have been frustrated for years lodging complaints against institutions like T’lallim, Aleh Negev and others and having the cases dismissed.”

Lerner, the author of the Bizchut book mentioned above, declared: “There is no such thing as a ‘good’ institution.”

Soon after that conference, a similar outrage hit the headlines when four staff members, including a child psychiatrist and senior head nurse working at Eitanim, a mental health center and psychiatric hospital near Jerusalem, were convicted of abusing the residents. 

In the wake of those convictions, Lerner addressed the conundrum of professionals who act in a depraved manner. “I know one of [the defendants] well on a personal basis. He is an exemplary family man.” Yet, in institutions, Lerner explained, some of them function in “parallel universes … [with] separate codes of behavior.”

Accounts of abuse continue to emerge. In May 2013, two caregivers at Ilanit, an institution in Pardes Chana, were sentenced to prison terms for sexual and emotional abuse of residents. The judge ruled that by encouraging their mentally and cognitively disabled charges to undress and sexually interact before them, the defendants took advantage of and humiliated the victims for entertainment.

It is always possible to see such cases as anomalies. But without pointing the finger at any particular organization, every institution can be seen as potentially an invitation to abuse.

Multiple published studies have found that accommodating special-needs people in small residences within the community ensures a significantly higher quality of life: fewer instances of abuse by staff, less self-inflicted injury, improved overall health and fewer behavior problems.

Yet according to the Ministry for Welfare, 12,500 disabled Israelis live in large institutions today.

Few alternatives exist. For instance, in Jerusalem there are only four residential apartments for those with severe physical and mental disabilities — the same number as in 2007.

With every one of Chaya’s birthdays, our old age creeps closer. The dearth of satisfactory living solutions for her now looms. Understandably, re-educating Israelis is a rising priority for us. Like Europe and North America, Israel can and must acknowledge the entitlements of citizens with special needs and the benefits of abandoning institutional care.

There is no better teacher of inclusion than facts on the ground. We should redirect our charitable donations to support organizations that champion the rights of citizens with disabilities. 

And, of course, nothing can surpass our welcoming people with disabilities into our homes, our businesses and our lives.


Frimet Roth is a freelance writer in Jerusalem. Her daughter Malki was murdered at the age of 15 in the 2001 Sbarro restaurant bombing. With her husband, Arnold, Roth founded The Malki Foundation ( Israel’s hidden underclass Read More »

The transportation of Hens

ten at a time we carried them
by their legs
to cages on the truck

where they grew silent
in the darkness
of an early market

many hens
suffocated
during the collection

as we reached for them
they trampled each other to death
I was one of the collectors
in the morning their deaths
were discovered
and we were called upon

to load them
first in nylon sacks
and then onto a tractor cart

we drove them to a trench
not far from the main road
the transportation of hens

we were told was a normal
part of our work
setting fire to the bags was not

This poem first appeared in Hayotzer in 1987. It was reprinted in the collection “Pointed Sentences” (BlazeVOX, 2012).


Bill Yarrow is professor of English at Joliet Junior College. His work has appeared in many print and online journals, including Poetry International, DIAGRAM, The Del Sol Review and RHINO.

The transportation of Hens Read More »

Twisted Recap: Three For the Road

It's weird how hard it is to work technology into stories. We spend all day texting and tweeting, getting updates, making calls, but for some reason it looks awkward on-screen, both when teens text do u want 2 go out l8er and when adults send the same. It just always feels forced and awkward, like product placement even when it isn't. Apparently this happened when telephones first became common, too. It only took like a hundred years for them to work their way from our homes into our narratives.

There's also the matter of how boring it can make things– think of how many classic plots are obviated by the existence of the cell phone. (Romeo and Juliet, I am looking at you.) I'm pretty sure the Sex and the City movie was one of the first to just take a character's mobile out of the equation (a little girl puts Carrie's in her purse, preventing Big from reaching her for reassurance on their wedding day so that he ends up abandonding her at the altar) but it's now become industry standard: the phone can be stolen or lost or running out of battery just as long as characters can't use them for anything. It's how we're dealing in the mean time.

What was puzzling about last night's Twisted is that no one ever suggested using Google instead of taking a long road trip that all three characters had to lie to their parents about, that took Danny across state lines in violation of his parole, and that had a really extraordinarily scant chance of working in the first place. They trio head to Connecticut, following the trail of a return address on an envelope sent to the murdered Regina just before she died. It contained hundreds of dollars in exchange for a promise that Regina keep her mouth shut about something; it's not a hard leap to take to imagine that the kids are now on the trail of her killer. They seem pretty blithetly unconcerned about that, though, about what they'll say when they meet him, whether he might put them in danger.

Instead the episode is mostly about working out the tensions between Lacey and Jo, whose once-strong friendship fell apart after Danny killed his aunt when they were twelve. On the one hand, of course it's believable that two truamatized middle schoolers wouldn't be able to stick together; on the other, it's a tired version of the same old girlight: one got goth, the other went popular, they stabbed one another in the back. The trailer for next week's episode promises more romantic entanglements, and I'm sure their tentative truce will fall apart again when they realize they're both pining after handsome, mysterious, still-possibly-a-killer Danny. My kingdom for two teenage girls who have real, strong on-screen friendships, who choose one another over boys, who don't even have to make that choice because they have different taste in men– however unimaginable that might seem. 

Of course I'm sure it won't work out that way– they're setting us up for Jo to realize at some point that she's always loved her geeky best-friend-in-the-interim, Rico, who's pretty obviously got a huge thing for her. But I can't help reading it like a consolation prize: just once it would be nice not to tell the dorky, awkward, sullen girl that she just doesn't know what she wants yet, that what she wants is the shy puppy love of someone who's never interested her before.

Twisted Recap: Three For the Road Read More »