I'm so proud of him. How did the team do overall? What was their time?

I remain conflicted. Dylan appears to be as hot as, or slightly more sizzling, than "big" brother Zac.

As someone who has long advocated the perpetuation of the Efron DNA in humanity's gene pool, maybe I should start rooting for Dylan to do the job. He's got the same DNA mix, he's equally attractive to breeding females, and he looks like he can handle the chore.

Go, Dylan! Make your dad a granddad. We're all counting on you.

Edited at 2016-09-23 02:49 pm (UTC)

Dylan is a cutie-patootie fo sho, darlin face, but he's too tall for me. Nothing personal; I just prefer short and cute to tall, dark and handsome. Also, Dylan is normal and stable and I prefer wild and crazy. (-:

Dylan's definitely the breeder, though, and should have lots of babies, but I don't know about Zac. It has nothing to do with his genetic make-up and more to do with the essence of parenthood. A good parent gives themselves up for the sake of the child; they consider every word and deed in light of its effect on their son or daughter. It requires utter selflessness, and I'm not sure Zac is there yet. If he hopes to be a good parent, he can't roam the world at every available opportunity, or be a ho, lol. A child needs a stable environment, regular wake up and bedtime, regular meals, regular access to friends and peers. A schedule. Dylan can easily provide that; Zac has a real challenge (due to fame/career) to overcome.

In general, the movie-actor life is too chaotic for traditional parenthood roles. I didn't think Zac should get a dog, to say nothing of becoming a father.

However, other alternatives are possible. A full-time nanny, for example, who will stay home with the child and provide stability. I have been reading a lot recently about the Victorian Era, and I noted many examples of children who were sent off to boarding school as young as seven or eight, and some did not even go home for major holiday breaks like Christmas, they remained at the school with most of their friends gone. Parents would visit for a day every few months, or arrange to take the child somewhere during the long summer break.

The higher up the social ladder you were, the less you saw of your parents. Yet many of these "abandoned" children grew up to be major figures of government, the military, and commerce, including Prime Ministers. And they then did the same thing with their children (it's hard to be a Major General or a Cabinet Secretary and also an attentive father). You just aren't home that much or that often.

That's why I said "traditional" parenthood roles" up at the top. The things you mention are our current societal values. They were not necessarily valued at other times or places.

Still, I agree, Zac should not get married and have children with his current life. Why would he be any more successful at these endeavors than most of the other Hollywood biggies?

That’s because interpenetration between social classes did not exist until the rise of the industrial revolution and the advent of capitalism (American Dream). Social mobility was not available. In other words, rich children got access to rich opportunities and became rich adults.

Slave families were also regularly torn apart when children were young. If you read the slave narratives, you will find that –aside from the obvious horrors –that children being ripped from their parents caused trauma, even if they saw their parents regularly (they worked down the street). In fact, the lack of a nuclear family (due to slavery) has had long term consequences and is a primary cause for the absence/lack of in-tact AA families today.

"a primary cause for the absence/lack of in-tact AA families today."

I'm not so sure. Black families were torn apart during slavery, but then they solidified after the Civil War - guess the first generation in freedom appreciated the chance to maintain a stable nuclear family. This remained the situation for decades, maybe until the Depression or WW II. It was during that time that the mass migration to northern cities occurred. Crowded slums and drugs and unemployment may have played a part, and when Welfare was introduced, men could abandon their wives and kids without the same degree of guilt because the State would maintain them.

But we were talking about Victorian times. Yes, the boarding schools were only available to the Upper Class, but they took advantage of them. It may be that all social classes would warehouse their kids if they had the opportunity.

My point was that our contemporary social values didn't always apply, here or elsewhere. Before birth control, people who got married simply expected a continuous series of pregnancies until menopause, whether they wanted kids or not. It was something that happened, and you had to deal with it as best you could. So in the Upper Class, parents were seen as distant authority figures who occasionally allowed the kids at the dinner table or visited them in boarding school. God created governesses and tutors for a reason, so put them to use.

That may be true, but I'm old school/conservative it comes to child rearing. The bond between mother/child is very important in the early years, and I believe while a mother can work, she needs to be available in the morning and at dinner.

I turned out a nice, upstanding young man, so I have a basis for my belief. (-:

"I turned out a nice, upstanding young man, so I have a basis for my belief."

Not quite. Convincing proof would be to raise the same boy by sending him off to daycare, then military school, with parental contact only on occasional visits and holidays. I would not be surprised if he turned out pretty much the same. Maybe today's parents have an inflated sense of their own importance. Some kids are screwed up by their parents and would be better off in someone else's care.

I basically love all of this: the people involved, that it is charity but esp that he keeps pursuing the triathlon thing even if it's just baby steps right now.