Homophobia associated with higher rates of psychoticism

It is blatantly obvious what is occurring here. It requires intentionally ignoring the facts to not be able to discern the truth.
What's occurring? I'm trying my best to copy your style.
You've presented no facts at all proving religion, or in your case Christianity (always Christianity) causes homophobia. Some American republicans are homophobic? Probably yes. Some Muslims are terrorists. It doesn't prove Islam causes terrorism, does it?
 
yHIGmxu.png
 
I wonder how did Gallup phrase that question.

"What do you think about gay marriage? Morally wrong or morally acceptable? By the way, how often do you go to the church?"
 
It actually says nothing about gay marriage. They should have asked how many times the person has wanted to kill a homosexual with a baseball bat or stone them to death.

What's occurring? I'm trying my best to copy your style.
You've presented no facts at all proving religion, or in your case Christianity (always Christianity) causes homophobia. Some American republicans are homophobic? Probably yes. Some Muslims are terrorists. It doesn't prove Islam causes terrorism, does it?
Where do you think irrational hatred of homosexuals, Jews, and others who practice different religions comes from? Thin air? Genetics? Bad water?

Why do you think they think it is socially acceptable to still do so?

Why do you think so many Jews and Muslims share this very same irrational attitude about homosexuals and those of other religions?

Why do you think so many people think it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against gays, especially Christian Republican congressmen? Why do you think they think it would deprive them of their "religious rights" to hate homosexuals if they are given the very same rights as everybody else have? Coincidence?

It obviously doesn't matter at all what facts are presented to you regarding this matter.
 
Their behaviour is being phased out of society slowly but surely,
Comedic assertions at this time of day? Where's the line for the spiked punch?

Not surprising at all.

They should have also asked the participants their religious beliefs and how religious they considered themselves to be.

That's not always a concern in terms of attachment theory.

Spoiler :
With some abrahamic religions being notable exceptions.


My 5 year old son has little girls trying to hold his hand and asking to be his "girlfriend" at school, so Kyriakos argument is just utterly false. Children are interested in, and can understand romantic relationships from the time they are old enough to see Cinderella marry the handsome prince.
In your experience, is that age normal for being exposed to sexuality, or perhaps not the right time in the child's development?
 
Comedic assertions at this time of day? Where's the line for the spiked punch?

The world isn't like it was half a century ago. The assertion that everything is great is absurd but so is the assertion that nothing has changed.
 
The world isn't like it was half a century ago. The assertion that everything is great is absurd but so is the assertion that nothing has changed.

I was taking issue with the suggestion of homophobia steadily going away (as opposed to concentrating or worsening, for instance).
 
In your experience, is that age normal for being exposed to sexuality, or perhaps not the right time in the child's development?
As a parent you have only a limited degree of control over when your child is exposed to romance, relationships, sexuality, etc. I mean I live in a pretty cushy-pants suburban neighborhood, so my kids are pretty close to the maximum level of "sheltering" that the country has to offer.

As I am typing this I am watching some kind of clothing commercial featuring what looks like 8 year old twerking and sexy-dancing to the "Everybody dance now!" song(C+C Music factory "Let the Music take control"). I think the point is that young children are exposed to romantic and sexual themes in our culture, period. The notion that they are not or that they can't understand, or that we have to keep them away from gays because they can't be exposed to any sexual ideas... yeah that's just wrong. When I asked my mother (at the age of 4) how she became pregnant with my baby brother, she went right to the store and got me this book entitled How Babies are Made... It's fine.

I understand that people have this (false) idea in their minds that exposing children to gays makes them gay, so let's just talk about that since that is the real point. Stop trying to hide behind the "Oh young children are too young to be exposed to ANYTHING sexual", its just a false, preposterous argument.
 
It ain't getting better, if that's what you're asking.

Lmao what? Okay. I didn't realize all gays still have to live in total secrecy and have to fear death by mob should they be discovered. I guess the media is just covering up this state of atrocities homosexuals live in.

Don't get me wrong, there is still a long way to go until homosexuals can feel totally equal to others without fear of isolation or harm, but to pretend like we are still in the 1800s discredits your cause.
 
As a parent you have only a limited degree of control over when your child is exposed to romance, relationships, sexuality, etc. I mean I live in a pretty cushy-pants suburban neighborhood, so my kids are pretty close to the maximum level of "sheltering" that the country has to offer.
:yup: (That control being shared with other parties).

As I am typing this I am watching some kind of clothing commercial featuring what looks like 8 year old twerking and sexy-dancing to the "Everybody dance now!" song(C+C Music factory "Let the Music take control"). I think the point is that young children are exposed to romantic and sexual themes in our culture, period.
(That control being shared with other parties).

The notion that they are not or that they can't understand, or that we have to keep them away from gays because they can't be exposed to any sexual ideas... yeah that's just wrong. When I asked my mother (at the age of 4) how she became pregnant with my baby brother, she went right to the store and got me this book entitled How Babies are Made... It's fine.
In line with the previously quoted section, how okay would you be with the idea of two 8-year olds 'experimenting?'

I understand that people have this (false) idea in their minds that exposing children to gays makes them gay, so let's just talk about that since that is the real point.
That wasn't the point I was addressing. :lmao:

Stop trying to hide behind the "Oh young children are too young to be exposed to ANYTHING sexual", its just a false, preposterous argument.
Sommerswerd, you don't have to hide anything if you don't want to...:think:
 
In line with the previously quoted section, how okay would you be with the idea of two 8-year olds 'experimenting?'
I do not approve of 8 year olds having sexual intercourse. I do approve of teaching 4 year olds about some basic things about sexuality, such as human sex organs, how babies are created etc.

However, "how okay I am" with it is irrelevant. They are exposed to these matters and they can understand them. Check out these comments on Mamapedia where mothers are discussing how their 6 and 8 and 7 year olds etc are discussing sex at school.
That wasn't the point I was addressing. :lmao:
My mistake then.:blush: What point were you addressing then? Did it have something to do with homophobia? That's what I assumed you were talking about because that is the subject of the thread. Are you saying that your reason for asking about the appropriate age to introduce children to sexual themes had nothing to do with homosexuality or homophobia?
 
Hm, before the actual sex-drive kicks in (ie start of puberty) a child is not sensing things such as 'sexy moves' in the way some adult would. One emotional background (elementary school years) is not the same as the one triggered and formed by puberty.

Furthermore i have to suppose you see different things in the terms there, cause an 8-year old boy is incapable of having what is usually defined as 'sex', due to genital organs not yet offering this ability. Of course any pre-ephebic child can kiss. That doesn't mean it is correct to term that as 'sexual', regardless of the context being romantic (with another child they like, etc).
 
I do not approve of 8 year olds having sexual intercourse.
I'm going to assume by this statement that the idea does make you uncomfortable. My next question, in light of the rest of your post defending exposing children to sexuality (possibly up to and including intercourse), is why?

I do approve of teaching 4 year olds about some basic things about sexuality, such as human sex organs, how babies are created etc.
For instance, why only "basic" things?

However, "how okay I am" with it is irrelevant. They are exposed to these matters
Yes... yes they are. (That control being shared with other parties).
and they can understand them. Check out these comments on Mamapedia where mothers are discussing how their 6 and 8 and 7 year olds etc are discussing sex at school.
What I see is damage control wherein they counsel to ascertain what the child thinks sex "is" without giving away unnecessary details, thereby limiting the child's understanding. You would think the term "age appropriate" would be a giveaway.

My mistake then.:blush: What point were you addressing then? Did it have something to do with homophobia? That's what I assumed you were talking about because that is the subject of the thread.
You brought up the tangent of exposing children to sexual matters and I thought it interesting to explore the tangent that you offered.

Are you saying that your reason for asking about the appropriate age to introduce children to sexual themes had nothing to do with homosexuality or homophobia?
Only indirectly given the initial subject (an association between homobphobia and defense mechanisms or attachment styles) of the thread and homosexuality being a flavor of sexuality.
 
Hm, before the actual sex-drive kicks in (ie start of puberty) a child is not sensing things such as 'sexy moves' in the way some adult would. One emotional background (elementary school years) is not the same as the one triggered and formed by puberty.

Furthermore i have to suppose you see different things in the terms there, cause an 8-year old boy is incapable of having what is usually defined as 'sex', due to genital organs not yet offering this ability.

Submitted for your consideration:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/104/4/936.short

Reexamination of the Age Limit for Defining When Puberty Is Precocious in Girls in the United States: Implications for Evaluation and Treatment

Paul B. Kaplowitz, MD*, Sharon E. Oberfield, MD‡, the Drug and Therapeutics and Executive Committees of the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society

+
Author Affiliations

From the *Department of Pediatrics, the Medical College of Virginia of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia; and the
‡Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York.

Abstract

In 1997 a study from the Pediatric Research in Office Settings network, based on pubertal staging of >17 000 girls between 3 and 12 years of age, indicated that breast and pubic hair development are occurring significantly earlier than suggested by our current guidelines, especially in African-American girls. In response to this article, the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society undertook a comprehensive review of this topic. The primary conclusions of this review are:

1.  The current recommendation that breast development before age 8 is precocious is based on outdated studies. Until 1997, no data were available on pubertal staging in US girls that could have documented a trend to earlier maturation.

2.  The 1997 study indicates that stage 2 of breast and pubic hair development is being achieved ∼1 year earlier in white girls and 2 years earlier in African-American girls than previous studies have shown.

3.  Concerns that girls with moderately precocious puberty will be significantly short adults are overstated; most have adult height within the normal range.

4.  Therapy with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists has not been proven to have a substantial effect on adult height in most girls whose puberty starts between 6 and 8 years of age.

5.  New guidelines propose that girls with either breast development or pubic hair should be evaluated if this occurs before age 7 in white girls and before age 6 in African-American girls. No changes in the current guidelines for evaluating boys (signs of puberty at younger than 9 years) can be made at this time. normal puberty, breast development, pubic hair.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/10/15/peds.2011-3291.abstract
Secondary Sexual Characteristics in Boys: Data From the Pediatric Research in Office Settings Network

Marcia E. Herman-Giddens, PA, MPH, DrPHa, Jennifer Steffes, MSWb, Donna Harris, MAb, Eric Slora, PhDb, Michael Hussey, MSc, Steven A. Dowshen, MDd, Richard Wasserman, MD, MPHb,e, Janet R. Serwint, MDf,g, Lynn Smitherman, MDh,i, and Edward O. Reiter, MDj

+
Author Affiliations

Departments of aMaternal and Child Health, and
cBiostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina;
bPediatric Research in Office Settings, Department of Research, American Academy of Pediatrics, Elk Grove Village, Illinois;
dDepartment of Pediatrics, Alfred I. DuPont Hospital for Children, Wilmington, Delaware;
eDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Vermont, College of Medicine, Burlington, Vermont;
fDepartment of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland;
gContinuity Research Network, Academic Pediatric Association, McLean, Virginia;
hChildren’s Hospital of Michigan, Wayne State University School of Medicine/Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan;
iNMA PedsNet, National Medical Association, Silver Spring, Maryland; and
jBaystate Children’s Hospital, Tufts University School of Medicine, Springfield, Massachusetts

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Data from racially and ethnically diverse US boys are needed to determine ages of onset of secondary sexual characteristics and examine secular trends. Current international studies suggest earlier puberty in boys than previous studies, following recent trend in girls.

METHODS: Two hundred and twelve practitioners collected Tanner stage and testicular volume data on 4131 boys seen for well-child care in 144 pediatric offices across the United States. Data were analyzed for prevalence and mean ages of onset of sexual maturity markers.

RESULTS: Mean ages for onset of Tanner 2 genital development for non-Hispanic white, African American, and Hispanic boys were 10.14, 9.14, and 10.04 years and for stage 2 pubic hair, 11.47, 10.25, and 11.43 years respectively. Mean years for achieving testicular volumes of &#8805;3 mL were 9.95 for white, 9.71 for African American, and 9.63 for Hispanic boys; and for &#8805;4 mL were 11.46, 11.75, and 11.29 respectively. African American boys showed earlier (P < .0001) mean ages for stage 2 to 4 genital development and stage 2 to 4 pubic hair than white and Hispanic boys. No statistical differences were observed between white and Hispanic boys.

CONCLUSIONS: Observed mean ages of beginning genital and pubic hair growth and early testicular volumes were 6 months to 2 years earlier than in past studies, depending on the characteristic and race/ethnicity. The causes and public health implications of this apparent shift in US boys to a lower age of onset for the development of secondary sexual characteristics in US boys needs further exploration.
 
Hm, before the actual sex-drive kicks in (ie start of puberty) a child is not sensing things such as 'sexy moves' in the way some adult would.
Again... Source?
One emotional background (elementary school years) is not the same as the one triggered and formed by puberty.
Can you explain this. What do you mean by "emotional background"? It sounds kinda made-up TBH.:)
Furthermore i have to suppose you see different things in the terms there, cause an 8-year old boy is incapable of having what is usually defined as 'sex', due to genital organs not yet offering this ability. Of course any pre-ephebic child can kiss. That doesn't mean it is correct to term that as 'sexual', regardless of the context being romantic (with another child they like, etc).
This is irrelevant to the point we are discussing. You dont have to be able to have sex to be able to to talk about sex or understand romantic love or sex-related concepts. Are you still trying to argue the idea that young children will be mentally harmed by being exposed to gays as you were before? Or have you abandoned that argument? If you have given up trying to argue that children are too young to be exposed to gays and you are just talking about general parenting techniques please say so.
 
@Rash (crosspost) ^Girls start puberty earlier, and i know of studies that depict their progression to adult far easier/faster. I specifically referred to pre-puberty boys, though.

And thanks for reminding me one horrible classmate when we were 9 at some party, and how nasty her behavior against me was :\ :)

@Sommer: no, you first have to apologise for accusing me of being homophobic :jesus:
 
@Rash (crosspost) ^Girls start puberty earlier, and i know of studies that depict their progression to adult far easier/faster. I specifically referred to pre-puberty boys, though.

And thanks for reminding me one horrible classmate when we were 9 at some party, and how nasty her behavior against me was :\ :)
I guess my edit didn't make it in time, then.
 
Back
Top Bottom