- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 119,349
- Reaction score
- 75,253
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
There’s no such thing as a “gay kid”
Is there such a thing as a straight (heterosexual) kid?
There’s no such thing as a “gay kid”
I don’t agree about Bambi. I think it’s important to introduce themes like death early to young children, my great grandmother grew up on a chicken farm and was skilled at butchering chickens long before she had her first period. I first butchered a chicken when I was 16 and many people these days have never done it, but I think learning about death, and it’s application to both humans and other forms of life at an early age is important.I haven't decided what my vote is yet. I think I know where you might be going with this and the answer should be no age is appropriate for the message it sends about fantasy love. I think you're going somewhere different. However, I watched it at a young age, as did my daughter, and I don't think either of us was harmed. I loved the mice and that nothing died in that cartoon.
Bambi now, that's one that should be held off for a later age. I still won't watch the beginning, lol.
good stuffCinderella was abused by her sisters, abused animals, catfished a prince and promoted gender stereotypes based on physical appearance and economic class. That makes it perfect to be viewed by kids 3-15
I think mostly yes. It’s been documented before that primitive societies in Africa don’t even have words to describe homosexuality. Not that they hate homosexuals or are “homophobic” under modern understanding, but that they are literally baffled by the very concept, having never observed it.Is there such a thing as a straight (heterosexual) kid?
Because two men engaging in a sexual used relationship is purely sexual,
whereas a man and a woman is also spiritual and procreative.
She didn’t catfish the prince. That’s a modern phenomenonCinderella was abused by her sisters, abused animals, catfished a prince and promoted gender stereotypes based on physical appearance and economic class. That makes it perfect to be viewed by kids 3-15 or so but once they go to college and turn into pinko, commie, tree hugging snowflakes it will be WAY too triggering.
I think mostly yes. It’s been documented before that primitive societies in Africa don’t even have words to describe homosexuality. Not that they hate homosexuals or are “homophobic” under modern understanding, but that they are literally baffled by the very concept, having never observed it.
This would seem to argue against the idea it’s a genetic condition people are “born” as
Well there was no real movement for homosexual “marriage” until the sexual revolution, it’s clear these tendencies previously existed, but were not sincerely regarded as marriage. The devaluing of marriage by many other practices is probably what led to homosexual “marriage” as a movementSource this? Why do gay people marry? Why did they fight for marriage? I mean, they can get sex anytime...why do they want to live either other men or women and share lives and have families?
This was perfectly recognized throughout history, which is why sexuality was controlled by moral codesThat's a load of BS for many straight people having sex before they make a commitment to each other. And esp for men...who just want to have sex, period
It is more true for men, I don’t complain about that point being made.(sorry, it's not sexist, it's 'more' true for men than women I'm not judging it, I think it's fine for women to desire consensual casual sex too.)
That’s a modern invention, and it’s been very damaging for society, it gives men advantages of being able to use women without fear of consequenceAnd the very prevalent use of birth control proves the second one is wrong too.
Not only minority, it’s fringe, and seems to occur only after a civilization has become at least agricultural, and in modern times is highly correlated with trauma as a childIt wouldnt 'seem' to argue anything. Being gay is a minority demographic. Your odd example isnt validating anything.
How would it be phrased then? Bamboozled?She didn’t catfish the prince. That’s a modern phenomenon
I don’t agree about Bambi. I think it’s important to introduce themes like death early to young children, my great grandmother grew up on a chicken farm and was skilled at butchering chickens long before she had her first period. I first butchered a chicken when I was 16 and many people these days have never done it, but I think learning about death, and it’s application to both humans and other forms of life at an early age is important.
And I think there’s been a major problem caused to society by this disconnection from the natural order as society has grown more “sanitary” over the past few decades
How so?
Well there was no real movement for homosexual “marriage” until the sexual revolution, it’s clear these tendencies previously existed, but were not sincerely regarded as marriage. The devaluing of marriage by many other practices is probably what led to homosexual “marriage” as a movement
This was perfectly recognized throughout history, which is why sexuality was controlled by moral codes
It is more true for men, I don’t complain about that point being made.
I do disagree with the idea that women generally desire casual sex, I don’t believe that to be true at all. This was always regarded as an exploitive practice by men against women, and still is. An example would be the Canadian radio personality Gian Ghomeshi, he hooked up with an actress and engaged in a fairly extreme one night stand with her, and then afterwards she tried to engage in a relationship with him, then after being ignored for a long time tried to report him for rape, he was acquitted after showing years of emails she had sent him. Yet people are still outraged over it.
That’s a modern invention, and it’s been very damaging for society, it gives men advantages of being able to use women without fear of consequence
In your opinion, how old should a child be to watch Disney's Cinderella?
Not asking who should show it to them, just whether they should be watching it in the first place.
Reasons for this thread will be posted later.
Not only minority, it’s fringe, and seems to occur only after a civilization has become at least agricultural, and in modern times is highly correlated with trauma as a child
I haven't decided what my vote is yet. I think I know where you might be going with this and the answer should be no age is appropriate for the message it sends about fantasy love. I think you're going somewhere different. However, I watched it at a young age, as did my daughter, and I don't think either of us was harmed. I loved the mice and that nothing died in that cartoon.
Bambi now, that's one that should be held off for a later age. I still won't watch the beginning, lol.
"Your mother can't be with you any more."
Except the movie doesn't really show that. How exactly do you think the Prince had the opportunity to learn about Cinderalla's "moral character"? Now, we as the audience know she has a a good moral character but they don't show any real depth or conversations to them as a couple beyond them dancing to a couple songs and it's much more about a man being attracted solely by looks and a woman looking for her "prince" to save her which isn't always the best guidance.
Other versions of Cinderella such as my personal favorite, Ever After, do establish a more believable couple.
I reject the notion other animals display homosexuality. Homosexuality is a political construction and not a biological one. You can say other animals engage in acts analogous to sodomy, but you cannot say they are “gay”Pretty much everything in that sentence is wrong. And how would we know what existed before there was agriculture and verbal and written language? Other higher mammals display homosexuality...why wouldnt Homo sapiens?
There’s no evolutionary reason for “homosexuality”. And the idea it’s genetic is unproven.There's also evolutionary evidence that supports its purpose. (But you dont believe in evolution)
Beating people to death is bad, but maybe people who are severely disordered to the point where they push their disorder on others make bad employees.??? Gays were still being beaten to death, couldnt even get jobs if they came out of the closet,
There is nothing wrong with two male roommates living together.were disowned, etc. And you think they didnt desire, or werent having such committed relationships anyway? There was just no safe, practical way to protest at the time. Advancements were incremental, as social change often is.
Abuse and neglect in the general are perennial and unsolvable conditions, like poverty. Divorce certainly devalued marriage. Which is why no fault divorce should simply be outlawed.Women didnt get equal status under the law until the '20s, what changed in the '20s? Certainly nothing about women or what we needed, wanted, deserved under the law. (Yeah, I know, you dont approve of our equal status either)
And if anyone devalued marriage, it was straight people. Adultery, abuse, neglect, divorce.
Yes there is, and it is harmful to society. Opening Pandora’s box on accepting sodomy means now we have to gender transition prepubescent children if they are groomed by politically homosexual activistsThere's nothing immoral about being gay. It harms no one.
You are now changing your argument. Your argument was women enjoy casual sex. No they don’t. If you can find one or two freaks this doesn’t disprove the argumentSex is great...why wouldnt women desire it? Some more than others, everyone is different, including among men.
Birth control as a pharmaceautical option is very new.It gives women the opportunity to enjoy sex with less risks of pregnancy, and sometimes STDs, if they use condoms.
BC is not a modern invention, women have used methods and herbs, and men have used condoms, for hundreds of years.
I reject the notion other animals display homosexuality. Homosexuality is a political construction and not a biological one. You can say other animals engage in acts analogous to sodomy, but you cannot say they are “gay”
There’s no evolutionary reason for “homosexuality”. And the idea it’s genetic is unproven.
Beating people to death is bad, but maybe people who are severely disordered to the point where they push their disorder on others make bad employees.
There is nothing wrong with two male roommates living together.
Abuse and neglect in the general are perennial and unsolvable conditions, like poverty. Divorce certainly devalued marriage. Which is why no fault divorce should simply be outlawed.
Yes there is, and it is harmful to society. Opening Pandora’s box on accepting sodomy means now we have to gender transition prepubescent children if they are groomed by politically homosexual activists
You are now changing your argument. Your argument was women enjoy casual sex. No they don’t. If you can find one or two freaks this doesn’t disprove the argument
Birth control as a pharmaceautical option is very new.
I find it stupid when someone judges a 1950's movie by today's viewpoints. Understanding of the era is necessary.