Focus on the Family Will Keep your Kid from Being Gay

Thank goodness. Radical cleric James Dobson reveals sage advice in a recent newsletter on how to keep our kids from being gay, quoting "Dr." Joseph Nicolosi:

quote:

---

Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.

---

Wait, what?Why is it that this advice, especially the last part, all sounds so completely homosexual? I mean, if a gay man did with his son what Dobson has just suggested that a straight man do, wouldn't he be the first to call the guy a pedophile?They're just making this stuff up, of course, but this is the best they could do? The best bullshit they could come up with sounds exactly like gay sex play, if it was between adults, and that's supposed to keep a kid from being gay?I'd suggest that FOTF needs to be stopped, but they're clearly too buffoonish to be any threat.

I'm surprised when, being as anti-gay as they are, they advocate extremely gay things. I mean, their advice might as well have been "shopping for drapes and experimenting with different hair and skin products with your son will totally keep him straight. Totally!"Note: Not to suggest that gay men want to shower with little boys. Gay or straight that's borderline creepy.

I did it once by accident. In front of my parents. Big, Elizebethan dress.

Oh, one more thing - anybody ever notice that Dobson and his ilk only ever have a big hard-on about male homosexuality? Apparently the sexuality of women is so beneath their regard that they don't even bother to consider how to keep your daughter from being a lesbian.Either that, or they secretly like lesbians. Hey, who doesn't?

"Gender identity crisis"?Do you really think you could look down the front of your trousers and mistake that for a vagina? Gay men are gay because they prefer to have sex with men. Not because they think they're womem. How could somebody be confused about that? Even men who opt for sex-reassignment aren't confused - they have absolute clarity that they're actually women in men's bodies.

How exactly do you like them, then?

Yeah, but typically they're hypersensitive about gay stuff. Like the gay TeleTubby thing. And they pretty much suspect all gay men of being closet child molestors.So yeah, I do still find it surprising that they would suggest a borderline pedophilic shower encounter as the recipe for male straightness. Do you suppose that the reason that it seems totally natural to Dobson and this other guy is because they were abused as children? Just a thought...

Not just showering; showering so that the incipently-prubescent child can see your penis. Sex with children is bad, as far as I'm aware. And I hate to tell you this, but because we have a taboo about it, nudity is sexual. Just as an exposed inner thigh is outrageously sexual in a polynesian country.Nudity doesn't have to be sexual, of course. But it is in this culture. Creeps the hell out of me. Are you telling me that I don't have the right to find certain things creepy? Congratulations on internalizing a culture where nudity is non-sexual. How is that supposed to be relevant to the conversation?

You don't think he's a radical, or you don't think he's a cleric? Or both?Clarify please. I chose those terms because they're accurate, non-judgemental descriptors. You don't want to know how I refer to the man in casual conversation, trust me.

I did start it. Maybe I shouldn't, but I did. Reply away in any manner that you choose. I don't see that whose child it is makes a difference. People have sexually abused their own children before; in fact isn't it more likely that a child will be abused by a relative than by a stranger? No, and I didn't say that it was. But it's close. It's too close for me to be comfortable with, and I'm a libertine to a considerable degree. The focus of my OP and associated posts was to point out that if even I, sexual libertine extraordinare, find Dobson's suggestion borderline creepy, it's staggeringly unexplainable that Dobson, class-A prude, wouldn't even flinch. It's the position of all pertinent scientific authorities, such as the AMA, the American Psychiatric Association, and other organizations that children of a certain age cannot meaningfully consent to sexual activity, and thus any sexual interaction with such a minor by an adult represents sexual abuse. The issue is closed, for me. I'll grant that a minor might be able to meaningully consent to sex before the law grants that they might be able to. There's obviously nothing about your 16th birthday that magically bestows on you the power to consent. No, I don't believe I am. He can say what he likes. I can make fun of him for it. You can disagree with me. I can reply.What's the problem, here? We're all doing something we have every right to do. Oh, right. The problem is that you've called me a hypocrite, which is somewhat impolite. But I'll let it go, this time. I'm gracious like that.Look, I'll sum up and then I don't know what there is to talk about. I believe that the display of genitals to a child approaching puberty, is, at the very least, approching an abusive situation. It's a danger zone. It's something that would make me think twice about someone's fitness to care for a child.And this was the point of my post: if it's borderline creepy behavior to me, why doesn't it appear that way to Dobson? Who's normally so hyper-sensitive to sexual exploitation of minors, especially by homosexuals? Any explanation for that aside from his overall goofiness?

You're thinking of "terrorists", not clerics.Anyway I never said he was a muslim. "Cleric" means religious figure, which he very much is.

The fact that he advocates substantial - aka "radical" - change to the fundamentals and principles our society and government is founded on. He advocates political views that are non-traditional, non-Constitutional, and that have no basis in any existing American principles. Remember how you stopped reading before the end of the first sentence? Had you continued you would have seen that I posted his (well, not his, but that of an expert he quoted) exact advice on how to keep your kid from being gay.So, to sum up - his solution to the problem of your son growing up gay is to make sure that he sees your naked penis in the shower.

Your post, again, seems to consistently ignore the fact that we're not just talking about bathing, we're talking about the display of genitals to a child.According to your logic, apparently, the guy in the park in the trenchcoat isn't a flasher; he's an educational resource for children.

No, you mean Muslim clerics. I never claimed that Dobson was a muslim.Look, he's a religious leader and figure, but he's not, to my knowledge, an ordained priest. Nonetheless he possesses a degree of authority among Christians. Thus, he is a cleric.I'm sorry that you find the connotations of my precise and accurate word choices so troublesome. Maybe you should inspect what you know of Dobson instead of going off on these irrelevant diatribes.

But he doesn't hold conservative, traditionalist views. He holds radical views.Thus, he's a radical. Try again, Tal. Where did I say that it did? I merely, and accurately, described Dobson as both a "cleric" (which he is) and a "radical" (which he is.) You've yet to dispute either of those claims successfully. And your constant attempts to point out that he's not as bad as certain Muslims is irrelevant, because I didn't say that he was.