How many of you had BF/GF's as babies? what do you think about putting setrosexual qualities on young childern? Honestly i dont see anything wrong with because as far as i know, most homosexual people have had a hertosexual relationship before they relized they were homosexual. so as far as your childern, and other younger childern in your life, do you think its wrong to call young childern's play mate's their bf/gf?
quote:Originally posted by angelicmadrigal: I personally don't think homosexuality has a lot to do with socialization. I think it's genetic...or at least predominately a genetic thing.
Fingers are genetic, but fingerprints serve to identify people. The same thing happens with eyeballs, as well as any other biometric. (A biometric is some aspect of a person that can be measured, and is unique across many people--hopefully all of them.)
Looking for a "cause" to everything is a bit counterproductive, I believe. First, it perpetuates the blame-shifting victim culture: don't blame me; my genes make me gay. It's my parents' fault! Second, the first step in finding a "cure" is to discover the cause--and, given the APA-encouraged act of taking the knife to intersexed infants in the U.S., I have no faith at all that our culture would refrain from using a cure if one was found. I'd rather not live in a world where everyone was the same.
And now, ending that rant, back to the original topic:
quote:so as far as your childern, and other younger childern in your life, do you think its wrong to call young childern's play mate's their bf/gf?
My children can call their playmate whatever they want--friend or bf/gf. But I won't refer to the playmate as gf/bf until my child does.
------------------ Sapphire Cat Looks won't tell who's living inside. Artist, poet, programmer, dreamer, and crossdressing bondage kitty
Note that I didn't say "HOmesexuality is caused by genetics" I SAID "I THINK.....genetics" I think , being the operative term there. I DON"T know for sure, but if who people are PHYSICALLY attracted to isn't a biological/genetic thing I'd like to know what you think it is?
And I'd thank you not to say I"m "blaming" homosexuality on anything like I see it as some sort of disease or something.
Whoa there, I don't think sapphire was being hostile to you, angelic.
I also don't think he was saying that you personally were "blaming" homosexuality on genetics. However, and if I'm correct in assuming this of sapphire I'd be in agreement, I think he was just saying that the thought that homosexuality is genetic isn't doing anything to advance the gay rights cause, despite what people might think. (And feel free to step in and tell me I'm outta line if it's so, sapphire.)
The thing about saying that homosexuality is genetic (and we've had this discussion here before, so let's try to not rehash it completely) is that, as sapphire pointed out, some people think it isn't very empowering to homosexuals (or bi-folks, or trans-folks...) to say that they have to be accepted, since they are the way they are through genetics. It is empowering, say those same people, for homosexuals to say "I'm gay, and whether it's because of genetics, or socialization, or just my own choice, it's none of anyone's business, and that's the only reason you should accept me."
------------------ "I'd like to be an astronaut, but if I can't be an astronaut, I'd like to be a coach driver." -Neil, 7 Up
quote:Originally posted by angelicmadrigal: I DON"T know for sure, but if who people are PHYSICALLY attracted to isn't a biological/genetic thing I'd like to know what you think it is?
That's the whole point--it doesn't matter. People aren't judged for their eye color; nobody debates whether blue-eyed people are inferior. There's no cultural pressure for them to get brown-tinted contacts, whether they're doing any vision correction or not. They don't get their own bars that the cops randomly raid for no reason. They aren't forbidden membership in the Boy Scouts of America. They aren't killed or committing suicide for their eye color. (At least, none that I know of in the U.S.) And so on.
It could be argued that blue eyes are readily apparent and gayness isn't. In that case, what about PDA, and the special rights (tax breaks) that married heterosexual couples get? What about homophobic whispers and suspicion? And the gay bars, support groups, pride marches, and gift shops?
Look the bottom line is I dont' think how homosexuals are treated in this country has anything to do with whether children have "boyfreinds" or "girlfreinds" when they are little.
When kids learn to dislike homosexual people it's because of the way there parents/peers/media treat homosexuals. Kids copy the TREATMENT they see people close to them giving same sex couples. If are a child and you have parents and freinds athat respect homosexuality as a valid lifestyle then the child is more likely to be accepting of it. I don't really think it's as much being sexualized as children as it is being taught to be tolerant or intolerant of another person's life choice.
Madrigal, according ot Jess' initial post, it seems she really wasn't asking if this may cause trouble in how others view those who are not heterosexual, but instead, was talking about the confusion it may or may not cause in terms of self-identity.
There's really no reason to get hostile in a thread like this, as this sort of discussion is all about each user discussing their feelings, or reactions to how another user might feel about it. It isn't about proving or disproving one user's approach.
To get back to the original topic ... I remember that as a very small child, it did annoy me and make me uncomfortable that any girl I played with was referred to as my "friend" but some adults would call any boy I went near my "boyfriend" and launch into the "aww, he's her little boyfriend, isn't that cute, are you going to get married when you grow up?" number. Right - I was 5.
If small children are playing at being "boyfriend" and "girlfriend", then I think it's fine for adults to follow their language (until they get bored and switch to playing at being dinosaurs, or whatever ).
But imposing an adult model of "boyfriend and girlfriend" on any two children of opposite sexes playing together - that does annoy me.
And I don't think it has any relevance whether the kids in question later grow up to be straight, gay, or bi. I just object to imposing adult perceptions on kids' behaviour just because it seems "cute" to the adults to do so. And it does seem to reinforce a picture of the world in which men and women can't just be friends and it's assumed that everyone's life is going to be bound up with finding a partner of the opposite sex.
Really, I'd agree with everything logic_grrl just said on this. I don't even know that I'd call this sort of thing 'sexualizing" so much as I'd call it "romanticizing" -- in other words, assigning a relationship romantic status simply because of gender or affection.
And I'd see it as a bigger detriment to opposite-gender friendship or relationships as fluid rather than defined by single roles on the whole than I would to sexual identity, especially since very, very few people are 0's or 6's on the Kinsey Scale.
I agree, logic, that the worst part of it all is the double standard. When two little girls are playing together, adults never say "aww, look at the cute little girlfriends! They're gonna be lesbian lovers when they grow up!" But seem to make marriage cracks whenever the kids are of different sexes.
I find that even with my two little cousins. One's a boy and one's a girl. They're about 4 years old. At family functions my relatives are always trying to make them kiss and dance together... which seems a little creepy.
Oi, Rizzo, that just made me remember something. When my little brother and a female cousin of mine were both about a year old, I remember that myself, my sister, and her two sisters (all of us are pretty close in age) were doing that sort of thing- saying my brother and cousin were boyfriend and girlfriend. What is scary is that I was only five years old, my other cousins were four (twins) and my sister was three- and yet we'd somehow already been socialised into that sort of heterocentricity.
Posts: 2710 | From: Australia | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
Copyright 1998, 2014 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998
Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.