Posted on 04/16/2010 6:06:36 PM PDT by Maelstorm
MIlle, you are mistaken. There’s a good discussion on the site, “Empowering Parents of Gender Discordant and Same-Sex Attracted Children,” with some references and data on the development of homosexuality and reversal of “gays.”
When a child indicates that he thinks he might be a sodomite, the first thing to ask is, “Who has been molesting you?”
That is the point. Friendships are important to life happiness, but our children are being sexualized before they should be. When bikinis for little girls are being made with padded tops, or underwear with sexual messages on it is displayed openly in popular stores, (and little girls do not buy their own clothes), the tendency to protect little girls and boys is practically lost. Too many parents are oblivious to what is happening to their children.
You hit on a very good point here. I am amazed at the clothes mothers buy for their little girls today. And the little cheerleaders and their suggestive cheers as well -- which seems to be the rage these days. I never let my daughter get into cheerleading. I steered her towards sports instead. She played softball and soccer. Today she's a modest, intelligent, self-sufficient 20-year-old. Mothers play an important role here.
marking
Think about this:
Girls are being persuaded to wear next to nothing and in-style clothes are very tight.
Boys love baggy clothes, even on beaches.
This discrepancy in skin ‘exposure’ is not innocent. It tells me that girls feel powerful, invincible, today; and boys are feeling ever more second class.
This has come about largely by the practices in schools for the past generation, supporting girls, and medicating boys.
There is so much that is wrong that is going into the formation of our children’s psyche these days. I pray for parents to open their eyes and use good sense.
You must have missed the pants worn so low that it shows off their underwear or butt crack. As far as skin “exposure” goes, traditionally men have always been able to expose much more of their bodies than women. So I don’t agree with your thesis.
ibtz
I agree. I know of one such case where a boy that grew up to identify as a homosexual was molested repeatedly by his homosexual uncle. I know that before that occured he had shown interest in girls.
Traditionally yes, but not today.
Think about what you said. What part of some boys’ anatomy they choose to expose. Pathological!!!
Here is one other example if you haven’t been in a high school or a to a beach recently.
On TV, consider that men wear suits and ties and women show cleavage and more, when both the men and the women on the show, whether it is news or fiction, are supposed to be equals. It is more of the subtle message that women are “more” equal than men.
Or another example: in order for my nephew to graduate from a Computer Science major at university, he had to take a Women’s Studies course - a requirement!
Women showing cleavage dates back hundreds of years. Still don’t buy your argument.
Is the American College going to be charged with a “hate crime?”
All little boys think girls are yuck. But lowering the age of sexualization has opened the doors for the indoctrinators to use yuck as a sign of homosexuality and they are telling the boys this.
You are wrong about that. I am a woman of the generation that came of age in the 60s. As an artist, I saw scores of friends from art school and our shared workplaces become involved in unrestrained homosexual activity, only to succumb to the AIDS virus and die horrible deaths. By the same token, dozens of other homosexualists who witnessed the destruction of their friends stopped acting stupid, got married to women and fathered children.
And although AIDS was not so much of a threat to the lesbians, I witnessed quite a few of them also rethinking their situation in order to marry and have natural children.
It wasn't hard to conclude that for many caught up in the lifestyle, acting gay is a "preference" at best. You can argue that gays and lesbians who make a course correction to align with their God-given birth gender are "really" gay or bi, but the point is that if they can function in either type of relationship with enough success to have children and to stay with the biological co-parent of the child (for at least as long as today's stupid heterosexuals do before divorcing), they do indeed have choice.
Many whom I witnessed made that choice to act volitionally from their minds instead of instinctively according to their denied emotional drivers or moral vacuums, and have become healed. It took patience and determination to follow a higher part of their nature than genital escapism.
That is a false statistic promoted by the pervert "researcher" Kinsey. Actual stats are closer to 2%.
Here is the John Jay study:
The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States
A Research Study Conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Amen to that. I went to my grandniece's dance recital in a Bible Belt state and was horrified at the hootchie-mama costumes on the 3- and 4-year-olds, which were met by wolf whistles and hoots of approval by the audience. They apparently thought it was "cute" to parade their babies in costumes that would have been considered pornographic just a generation ago.
Again, bingo. Parents of boys have to be very assertive in defending their son's innocence with the schools full of femnazi or pansexualist administrators and teachers. I know we did.
We also had to protect our son when he was a teenager from sexually aggressive girls whose parents were ok with the idea of young teens having sex. Their kids were C-students. Ours was an A student. We did not want his future ruined by a careless girl wanting to score a baby daddy.
We live in a pretty typical (not particularly liberal) suburb. But even our fairly conservative private school and our Methodist church were having "pajama party lock-ins" --teenagers encouraged to attend co-ed sleepovers in the gym. I raised hell with the school and most definitely sought another church. Two of the kids were caught sneaking off to get physical in the pews of the sanctuary.
But if you had studied the history of costume, as I had to do in art school, you would know that female sexual-parts exposure usually corresponded with men exposing their sexual parts, such as the periods in Greece or in the European Enlightenment when the women exposed their breasts and the men wore bare legs and kilts, or tights and tunics.
Maica's point was the contrast between today's business attire for men vs today's women exposing their breasts in what are supposed to be serious situations, where sexual elements are distracting and manipulative.
We need look no farther than our First Lady, who routinely wears bare armpits, bra straps showing, bare legs and open toes to state occasions, even memorial services, while her husband dresses appropriately. Yet the left gives her narcissism a pass and touts her as a lawyer. (Actually, she gave up her license to practice years ago.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.