IMO, no age is too young to explain to your child that no one should be touching them in their private parts or whatever you want to tell your child they are called. Conversations don't have to be graphic to get a point across to them.

I believe the earlier the parental figures talk about the birds and the bees, and in a respectful way, the better off the child will be. It is when we are left to our own devices to figure out these things that things can go awry, IMO. I think it is a lot better for the child to be exposed in an educational way, than being exposed to sex by porn mediums.

My three year old has expressed interest in being a bird before. Should I consider purchasing a cage? But seriously what would be wrong with just letting the little boy play and act like he wants. This is way too early in a child's life to address this type thing. Boys will be boys, girls will be girls, but most importantly kids will be kids. I am not going to freak out everytime my son wears a bracelet or my daughter throws a football.

Wow dude, where did I say that I even assumed anything about the child's sexual preference?

 

Sounds like while reading my posts your mind fills in assumptions of what I'm trying to say, and then you in turn put words into my mouth, beyond what I even said.

 

Until this last post of mine referring to the young child perhaps wanting to wait to avoid social ridicule, I never once even mentioned him/her or my particular view on the specific matter at hand. It's your assumption of what I actually think about it.

 

Do I think that possibly that child has a certain self-awareness about what gender traits they feel more comfortable about ... I'll state now (for the first time) that I lean toward thinking that they very well might.

 

Along with it can I assume their future sexual preference?....no... but I can without specific knowledge, but with past understanding of these type situations that it's not entirely impossible that the child will by adolescence be more aware of what stimulates them, and it's probably not a far stretch to imagine that he/she would very possibly be attracted to males.

 

I just used my own personal experience to shed light that I had a certain self awareness when I was 7 even before adolescence. Truth is that awareness was more like at the age of 5 believe it or not.

 

I've received similar reaction in the past from people who can't understand how I might've known that I was developing differently at that early age.

 

When you develop as the norm, you typically have no self awareness questions about it, but when you realize that you're not developing as the norm, your self analysis can kick in at a much younger age than those of the status quo.

 

I've had numerous gay people express to me that they too had a certain self awareness long before adolescence. How we knew is hard to say, but nonetheless we in fact did, making our analytical brains kick in long before the average child and even more so than some adults ever do throughout there entire lives.

 

When you develop as the accepted norm there's really nothing that challenges your thinking, when you develop differently you can't but help start pondering at an earlier age of social expectations and how you might fit into the puzzle.

 

I also never said that the world had any unified heterosexual agenda with gender appropriate clothing. Again words put into my mouth. It's just an observation that it is in fact learned social conditioning and not innate, and nor did I say that there was particularly anything wrong with it...again your assumption. It is what it is.

 

I'm sorry that it irritates you so much to try comprehending things beyond your solid conditioned reactions that boys are boys and girls are girls not if's and's or but's, but just because you can't comprehend it doesn't make my approach here inaccurate.

 

Remember it's the experience of those who are experiencing, and you are merely a puzzled bystander from the accepted normal society who views it all as a foreign idea that perplexes you. You can aim at understanding or stay right put in your current state of mind, but no matter where you are in it all, it's a truth that a certain percentage of people develop differently than the masses. Always has been, and always will. It might be a minority, but nonetheless a reality of humanity.

 

Does it mean the individual must be forced to be reconditioned (which is ineffective anyhow) to satisfy the mass society, or that the person could be free to be themselves regardless of society's misunderstanding of it all?

 

Sorry that all of humanity doesn't develop in the way that you perceive that they must, but it's a fact that they don't, and if it's not hurting you personally what the hell does it matter.

 

You appear to be a classic example of the thought to not try to teach of pig to sing. Firstly, because they can't, and secondly it only irritates the pig by trying to.

 

Feel content in knowing that you are not alone though. It's a fact that the majority of society by and large has always had trouble understanding anything outside of the accepted norm.

 

Some have an easier time with analysis and some don't.

 

Either way, you are who you are and I accept you for that, but must admit that it's apparent that It might be a false assumption on my part that I could ever come close to teaching you to sing.

 

You didn't choose to be tone deaf, and I have to accept that as a fact of your conditioning.

 

Am I a bit smug?

 

Sure, that's part of my own psychological conditioning growing up being an analytical person among multitudes of non-thinkers, so it's had an effect on me to have an inner battle with accepting that as a reality, and trying for years to understand that society's lack of ability to understand is in fact another truth of humanity.

 

If I ever get around to handling that better you might notice eventually a less arrogant air about me. It's a character flaw on my part that I'm forever working on.

No, you said this:

 

In today's more acceptant world, some kids are trying to come out before they're actually adults and in many cases it's not working out too well for them with their peers.

 

That's what you said. So, I'm not inferring anything. Your words. You can scramble them amid a novella and they're still exactly what you typed.

Agreed, and maybe I did jump the gun too quickly but there's a difference between a six year old girl seeing it once and everyday. Sex is one of the (if not the) most addictive thing in the world. If we can avoid exposing young children to it maybe there is a better chance they won't grow up to have an obsession.

 

Disclaimer: I say young children in the context of this discussion. At some point (it differs for every child) children do need to be educated about sex. I think in general 7 years old is too young.

 

There's a good case that could be made that part of the reason why Americans are so obsessed with sex is the religiously prudish way we as a society approach it, thinking of it as nasty/forbidden/dirty. The Janet Jackson Super Bowl hullabaloo comes readily to mind as Exhibit A.

 

There's a good case that could be made that part of the reason why Americans are so obsessed with sex is the religiously prudish way we as a society approach it, thinking of it as nasty/forbidden/dirty. The Janet Jackson Super Bowl hullabaloo comes readily to mind as Exhibit A.

 

I think sex is probably pretty popular around the world in every culture regardless of religious upbringing...I'd be willing to bet people are obsessed with sex in one manner or another in every society on the planet.

 

As far as Janet Jackson mess the hullabaloo wasn't about sex as much as it was the FCC backlash. It was more about indecency than sex.

No, you said this:

 

In today's more acceptant world, some kids are trying to come out before they're actually adults and in many cases it's not working out too well for them with their peers.

 

That's what you said. So, I'm not inferring anything. Your words. You can scramble them amid a novella and they're still exactly what you typed.

 

In the context that I used the example that you have bolded, I was comparing it to me waiting to come out as an adult years ago when it wasn't so acceptable, and now how kids at times can have some false sense that the world is all better about it, and that they feel freer to come out as teens, but it doesn't always work out for them still in this modern more "so called" acceptant world, and they tend to experience issues with their peers and parents who could still shun, or give them trouble.

 

In relationship to the story of the 7 year old, while we don't yet know his/her sexual preference at this point, we can still very much use my personal experience, as well as gay teens today in our strife for personal freedoms amidst a society that tends not to be acceptant of people who develop differently against the norms.

 

That was the reason for the comparison, and my discussion of how it might be advisable to wait to avoid social ridicule.

 

Perhaps the 7 year old's situation is not 100 % related to sexual preference, and more so toward what gender they feel more comfortable as being, I'm not sure how you can't see how easily extrapolated both scenarios can be used in relating it to this story when all parties used in the examples are dealing with the similar strife of fitting into society, and especially when all parties are dealing with certain male/female situations of acceptability.

 

So while you continue to split hairs all for the sake of some ego motivated debate, can you not see that the inaccuracy that you are accusing me of is unfounded, and misguided?

 

It's all under the same tree of being accepted by society at large, and not at all much different in its similarities.

 

You are either gravely misunderstanding what I am saying, or you are more interested in some desperate trite attempt to disprove my points even if it means to dissect inaccurately what I have said, and suggest that I'm not consistent in my thought, while your responses and shots at my points continue to lack any valid consistency.

 

If you have a different perception of the whole story, that's completely fine, and you're completely entitled to, but at least try to do a better job at making sense when countering my thoughts.

 

Do I think that you're capable of that? So far your track record would suggest that I'm ultimately wasting my time and that you are not, but I'll hold out hope that you still can.

 

That doesn't mean that you have to agree with me, but just please try to make better sense.

In the context that I used the example that you have bolded, I was comparing it to me waiting to come out as an adult years ago when it wasn't so acceptable, and now how kids at times can have some false sense that the world is all better about it, and that they feel freer to come out as teens, but it doesn't always work out for them still in this modern more "so called" acceptant world, and they tend to experience issues with their peers and parents who could still shun, or give them trouble.

 

In relationship to the story of the 7 year old, while we don't yet know his/her sexual preference at this point, we can still very much use my personal experience, as well as gay teens today in our strife for personal freedoms amidst a society that tends not to be acceptant of people who develop differently against the norms.

 

That was the reason for the comparison, and my discussion of how it might be advisable to wait to avoid social ridicule.

 

Perhaps the 7 year old's situation is not 100 % related to sexual preference, and more so toward what gender they feel more comfortable as being, I'm not sure how you can't see how easily extrapolated both scenarios can be used in relating it to this story when all parties used in the examples are dealing with the similar strife of fitting into society, and especially when all parties are dealing with certain male/female situations of acceptability.

 

So while you continue to split hairs all for the sake of some ego motivated debate, can you not see that the inaccuracy that you are accusing me of is unfounded, and misguided?

It's all under the same tree of being accepted by society at large, and not at all much different in its similarities.

 

You are either gravely misunderstanding what I am saying, or you are more interested in some desperate trite attempt to disprove my points even if it means to dissect inaccurately what I have said, and suggest that I'm not consistent in my thought, while your responses and shots at my points continue to lack any valid consistency.

 

If you have a different perception of the whole story, that's completely fine, and you're completely entitled to, but at least try to do a better job at making sense when countering my thoughts.

 

Do I think that you're capable of that? So far your track record would suggest that I'm ultimately wasting my time and that you are not, but I'll hold out hope that you still can.

 

That doesn't mean that you have to agree with me, but just please try to make better sense.

You really need to get over yourself. I've been perfectly clear with my thoughts on the matter. Because they contradict your "theory" and go on what is typed on here at face value, and what was included in the link, no less, you think I have an ulterior motive? Please. You interject your personal experience in every thread like this, and that's fine. I'm glad you share your perspective, it's a good thing. But to cast a broad blanket over this like there's some suppression on a 7 year old by society is just reaching in my opinion. And I think I've been perfectly clear. I simply don't need 1200 characters to say it.

So...lets say, for the sake of argument, that the mother of this little boy is gay, and had a live in "partner". Would this possibly complicate the matter and/or put a different light on this whole, in my words, fiasco?

So...lets say, for the sake of argument, that the mother of this little boy is gay, and had a live in "partner". Would this possibly complicate the matter and/or put a different light on this whole, in my words, fiasco?

 

I would hope it wouldn't.

There's a good case that could be made that part of the reason why Americans are so obsessed with sex is the religiously prudish way we as a society approach it, thinking of it as nasty/forbidden/dirty. The Janet Jackson Super Bowl hullabaloo comes readily to mind as Exhibit A.

 

Which is funny, because it is a complete misconception (at least in the Catholic Church). Sex is and always has been viewed as "noble and honorable," (Catechism of the Catholic Church - The sixth commandment #2362)

You really need to get over yourself. I've been perfectly clear with my thoughts on the matter. Because they contradict your "theory" and go on what is typed on here at face value, and what was included in the link, no less, you think I have an ulterior motive? Please. You interject your personal experience in every thread like this, and that's fine. I'm glad you share your perspective, it's a good thing. But to cast a broad blanket over this like there's some suppression on a 7 year old by society is just reaching in my opinion. And I think I've been perfectly clear. I simply don't need 1200 characters to say it.

 

I've searched, but cannot find any research articles on gender roles that support your ideas, but all that seems to be available are an overwhelming plethora of articles that echo what I've been trying to say in my humble non-professional way.

 

Here are just a small percentage of the many articles that are available, and there are countless more that support the idea that social conditioning plays a far larger role in male/female gender roles than just biological alone, and very much more so.

 

Again, we are all born naked and the rest is drag. We learn from day one what is expected of us.

 

Social construction of gender difference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Gender identity is a result of social conditioning. DYA | Random Musings

 

Male and female ability differences down to socialisation, not genetics | World news | The Observer

 

Factors Influencing Gender Identity - Child Development Theory: Middle Childhood

 

Children, Toys, and Social Conditioning | Diary of an Aspiring Writer

So...lets say, for the sake of argument, that the mother of this little boy is gay, and had a live in "partner". Would this possibly complicate the matter and/or put a different light on this whole, in my words, fiasco?

 

I would hope it wouldn't.

 

I guess my point with that question doc is...IF this was the case, could the possibility exist that the mother might be "pushing" this child in this direction?

I guess my point with that question doc is...IF this was the case, could the possibility exist that the mother might be "pushing" this child in this direction?

 

Who knows? I'm of the opinion that the parent is whacked in the first place, so I already have a jaded view.

Who knows? I'm of the opinion that the parent is whacked in the first place, so I already have a jaded view.

 

True dat!