Replies

I was reared with the fiercely staunch attitude on my mother's part that if a child was diapered, fed and held [as in for 10 minor so] then that was enough and the child should be put in it's bed and allowed to scream it's heart out for 3 hours if that's what it wanted to do.

I'll say my mother was misguided instead of an idiot.

I used to agree with her. I was an idiot.

THE RESEARCH IS CLEAR ON THIS POINT. CHILDREN WHO ARE CARRIED ON CRADLE BOARDS BY NAVAJOS OR IN A WRAP OF CLOTH IN MANY 3RD CULTURES OR IN BACKPACKS OR TUMMY PACKS--THOSE CHILDREN HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT MUCH MORE POSITIVE QUALITY OF LIFE ARISING OUT OF THAT DIFFERENCE IN CHILDCARE AND CARING IN GENERAL.

I've often heard it said that "She just loved him too much. He was spoiled rotten."

I don't believe that. LOVE IS--WHATEVER'S BEST FOR THE OTHER PERSON that's remotely healthy, honorable etc.

Catering unfittingly to a child's carnal sin nature is ****NOT**** LOVE. And some carnality requires a quick, immediate, firmly loving but maybe stern rebuke, discipline, extinguishing. Usually blatant rebellion and defiance fall in that category.

On the other hand, affirming physical affectionate contact--is priceless. THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR IT. And TOYS are definitely not a substitute for it.

Typically, there's a huge setup of a problem when a father is a farmer or mechanic or truck driver or foot ball player or military officer. He's 100% all man and a fairly cold, distant, harsh man at that.

His first born son is little mister artistic and hyper sensitive, maybe even delicate. Dad sets in to insure that no sone of his turns out homo. And ends up producing just that--as much out of ignorance as stubbornness and pride.

WHEN FATHERS ARE LAVISHLY, FREELY, PERSISTENTLY FREQUENTLY AFFECTIONATE [in nonsexual, healthy ways] WITH SONS, THOSE SONS HAVE A MUCH, MUCH, MUCH LOWER LIKELIHOOD OF TURNING OUT HOMOSEXUAL. This can mean a hand on the shoulder, a firm warm touch on the upper back, shoulders or some such; even holding the sons hand more than briefly in some contexts and some ages; rubbing the son's shoulders, neck, arms, hands, feet when the son is tired or frustrated, tense; standing with arms around son facing the same situation in many contexts. Even as a teen, if the father has paved the way FROM BIRTH ON--in many contexts it's fitting. Especially if the father has trained, verbally taught the son that such is a SUPER HIGH FAMILY PRIORITY, CHRISTIAN VALUE OF VERY high priority regardless of what onlookers think--AND IF THE SON AGREES. Certainly wrestling in a non-conquest sort of way, nonintimidation sort of way is great though some sons are not very open to it.

In the scenario/situation described above, I'd counsel the father that HE MUST COMPROMISE. Yes, probably he can shape his son to be MORE masculine. HIS SON WILL NEVER BE A CARBON COPY OF HIM. ACCEPT IT. AND, worse, to some father's minds--FOR THE HEALTH AND SUCCESS AND SANITY OF THE SON, THE FATHER MUST LEARN TO DEVELOP AN APPRECIATION OF 2-3 SENSITIVE TYPE THINGS THAT THE SON IS INTERESTED IN.

IF THE FATHER WILL NOT BOND AND MATCH THE SON to some critical significant degree ON SOME OF THE THINGS THE SON IS INHERENTLY INTERESTED IN, THERE IS LITTLE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE SON WILL BRIDGE MUCH TOWARD OWNING MORE OF THE FATHER'S TYPES OF MASCULINITY.

THE MAIN KEY THING IS FOR THE FATHER to spend TONS OF TIME with the son doing almost anything. Take the son on errands. Affirm SOMETHINGS about the son at least 5-15 ways on that one trip. Show interest in at least 3-5 things the son is interested in on that trip. Touch the son warmly at least 10-20 times that trip. Ask the son for his opinions or feelings in a NO THREAT way at least 5-15 times that trip.

Ask the son to help with various chores even if you have to do 98% of the work. Avoid just having his body nearby. ENGAGE him in as much dialogue as possible. Every natural opportunity and maybe some created ones, touch the son affirmly and verbalize affirming tones and words.

ESTABLISH SUCH A CLOSE BOND that the son would never dream of being greatly askew from the father's values, much less in rebellion against them. Because, walking with the father through the chores and scenes of life will have been as close as one could get to sitting in God's lap. Few people are so possessed or such clueless idiots as to reject that.

imho.

BTW, I spend so much time on sons for a variety of reasons--mostly because they seem most at risk for mangled or inadequate quality treatment in our culture because so many dads had such poor dads and parenting.