x
Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#147 - byposted (06/17/2013) [-]
Yes goyim, raise your sons to be effeminate and feelings-oriented. We cannot have a vanguard of traditional values, social and economic alike, to challenge us in our usurpation..err transformation of the Western world. Why, it will prevent another Shoah!
#177 to #147 - itsbendingtime (06/17/2013) [-]
DON'T FORGET THE 6 TRILLION
#91 - iggyblanco (06/17/2013) [-]
Parenting done right? Come on tumblr.
#149 - jinapayne (06/17/2013) [-]
I wonder if the parents are forcing them to look like boys/girls just to prove that they arent letting gender constraints affect their child...which it did.
User avatar #110 - misticalz ONLINE (06/17/2013) [-]
Forcing your kid to be a trap.

Whokay then.
User avatar #107 - misticalz ONLINE (06/17/2013) [-]
Holy **** I hate it when people say
parenting done right!!!~!~!
User avatar #105 - violentpixi (06/17/2013) [-]
Everyone seems to be all pissed at the 'parenting done right' and about being gay, but the whole idea is the fact that the parent's aren't forcing gender constructs on the children, that's all.
#115 to #105 - John Cena (06/17/2013) [-]
Giving gender constructs to children isn't limiting their imagination or rights. People who criticize parents for enforcing such boundaries are practically in an infinite stage of rebellion, trying to question and challenge any tradition they can. Children have no sense of sexuality, and they develop it as a result of the way they grow. Putting gender constructs is the parents' decision; it's no different than setting a curfew or forcing a kid to clean up the messes they create. It's not wrong for them to put gender constructs, nor is it wrong for them not to.

Allowing children to cross dress is, to children encouragement to act like the opposite sex. Whereas when they dress in their gender-appropriate clothing encourages heterosexuality, allowing them to cross dress encourages homosexuality. There is no middle-ground "tolerant" level of neutrality. One way or the other, we're forcing our views. Gender constructs, in my opinion, is absolutely still parenting done right.
User avatar #136 to #115 - squeemonster (06/17/2013) [-]
So you mean that going "I don't give a **** what you wear, you decide" is encouraging a behavior? Because that just sounds like me saying "I don't give a **** about what you wear, you decide", period. "Hi Jenny, I got you this pink skirt? Oh, you prefer these brown pants with a lizard? Fine then." is as valid as saying "Hi Jenny, I got you these brown jeans with a lizard. Oh, you prefer the pink skirt? Fine then". Giving a say to your children is being sensitive to their choices and opinions. It's not bad parenting, you can advice and guide them, make sure they are safe, happy and informed but in the end the only thing this is encouraging them is to be themselves... Yes, they aren't mature enough to lead their lives as they please, of course, they're children. But my older brother played with easy bake ovens, dollies and stuff and he's perfectly straight. It's not a direct correlation, just saying...
#164 to #136 - John Cena (06/17/2013) [-]
When children do something out of the norm, like cross dress, and their parents show no care towards it or show signs of approval, the child takes that attention and approval as a clear sign. They break a boundary they had once set and, perhaps, were reluctant to go towards. That doesn't mean they're automatically homosexual. If, however, the child ends up crossdressing more and more, and partaking in the opposite gender's activities more and more as the child grows up, then that brings them closer to a certain sexuality.

I'm not sayin gthat child becomes gay from cross-dressing, I'm saying that the boundary once set against homosexuality becomes broken by the approval of crossdressing, and since children desire attention more and more, they'll act more gender-opposite for attention. Eventually, come puberty time and what not, their psychological development, along with genetics and hormones, might result in homosexuality. I'm not saying they WILL be gay, but rather they're pulled.
User avatar #122 to #115 - violentpixi (06/17/2013) [-]
"Allowing children to cross dress encourages homosexuality. Children dressing gender-appropriate encourages heterosexuality. " I find that to be complete ******** ... sorry dear.
#165 to #122 - John Cena (06/17/2013) [-]
You can interpret what I said as whatever extreme you want.
User avatar #167 to #165 - violentpixi (06/17/2013) [-]
What you said has not a single fact anywhere
#170 to #167 - John Cena (06/17/2013) [-]
that is what a theory is my dear. Saying that the treatment of society on children having no affect whatsoever on sexuality, however, is absurd. Plenty of psychologists and sociologists have determined fundamental behaviors for learning.

Let me rephrase what I said: allowing cross dressing is, in effect, breaking a boundary for children such that "homosexuality is forbidden". It's up to the child, then to tune themeself to sexuality based on their own body and life; still, the parents approval of, or lack of negative feedback towards, opposite-gender behavior results in children fulfilling an attention-need and pushing them towards a more homosexual destination. When puberty hits, of course biological make-up determines a lot; but our understanding of gender identity still accounts for plenty.
User avatar #106 to #105 - mutzaki (06/17/2013) [-]
And many argue that they are, except in the opposite way.
User avatar #113 to #106 - violentpixi (06/17/2013) [-]
It seems that Gwen's son was invited to a girls party (note the typically girly decorations in the background) and just joined the **** in because he hasn't been grown up with the concept that femininity is bad. That's the point it's making.
User avatar #123 to #113 - mutzaki (06/17/2013) [-]
You're basing that off of assumptions. It's more likely that the point is that it's good that they let their children dress the opposite way of what's otherwise accepted in society.
But if you take it a step further, you can speculate that the parents are more or less pushing their kids onto dressing a certain way, simply to go against the norm and to actively prove that they're for transvestism/expression of transgender. This is also basing off of assumptions, but it's just as probable.
User avatar #127 to #123 - violentpixi (06/17/2013) [-]
That was a princess and superhero themed children's party and the seven year old boy put on a tutu and danced around for fun whilst the mother, Gwen Stefani, looked after her youngest son who was dressed as Spiderman.
User avatar #128 to #127 - mutzaki (06/17/2013) [-]
Ah, then I was mistaken about him. It may apply to Jolie's case, though.
User avatar #133 to #128 - violentpixi (06/17/2013) [-]
I don't know what's going on with that kid but she is cute as **** and I want to steal her. I bet she doesn't listen to The Ramones though.... poser.
User avatar #173 to #105 - mayormilkman (06/17/2013) [-]
This post is one of the many things that shows the differences between Tumblr and FunnyJunk quite well. Sometimes a post like this ventures into a territory most of this website is unfamiliar with, but is something widely accepted on Tumblr. In political attitudes, we're closer to Reddit than Tumblr.
User avatar #189 to #173 - violentpixi (06/18/2013) [-]
Tumblr is pretty much 100% for gender and sexuality fluidity, also it is a website where, quite the binary opposite of Funnyjunk, 80% of the users are female. I do see sexuality acceptance more common from females in practise, might be linked? It'd be interesting to see some research.
User avatar #190 to #189 - mayormilkman (06/18/2013) [-]
As I have posted, we're not very familiar with those sorts of things. A good amount of Tumblr content I've seen on here that is based upon social issues is usually very misinterpreted, and the majority of the users take it the wrong way. I'm not sure why Tumblr's userbase is more aware of these things than Funnyjunk, or why it is more female. It has gotten very popular since 2010, while FunnyJunk has been around since 2001 (I'm not so sure how its popularity has been over the years; a good amount of users here have been visiting the website for a long time). I don't know much of "migration" into Tumblr either, although some say that some of the crazier "social justice" users came from LiveJournal.
User avatar #95 - iggyblanco (06/17/2013) [-]
Maybe we should let them pick out their own meals too, I'm sure they will be healthy. Or let them decide if they want to go to school or not, that way they end up really smart. And as for brushing their teeth and bathing, only if they feel society's pressure to be clean is important to them.

We should let kids make their own decisions, they don't need parents to push them in the right direction.
#144 to #95 - John Cena (06/17/2013) [-]
because wearing clothes designed for the opposite gender is inherently unhealthy.

because conforming to societal gender norms is necessarily "right."

because comparing clothing preferences to activities required to stay healthy is entirely appropriate.

because parents don't have the ability to decide when their children should be able to decide something for themselves and when they should not.
User avatar #176 to #144 - iggyblanco (06/17/2013) [-]
Child psychologists will tell you that children wearing clothing of the opposite gender is in fact unhealthy, it can even lead to Gender Identity Disorder.

Not conforming to societal gender norms should be a child's decision only when they are old enough to understand the consequences of that decision, but not when they can barely wipe their own ass

It is entirely appropriate because it demonstrates the idiotic idea that children are capable of making responsible choices when they don't yet understand the consequences.

Parents not only have the ability to make decisions for their children, it is one of their major responsibilites as parents

If you want to raise your kids with your hippy ideals, go ahead, I won't stop you. But the moment you call it "good parenting", you're wrong.
+2
#92 - dergen **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#104 to #101 - spanishninja (06/17/2013) [-]
its working
User avatar #46 - terrria **User deleted account** (06/17/2013) [-]
Those socks are ******* RUINED now.
User avatar #130 - shodaihokage (06/17/2013) [-]
I can go my whole life saying im a T-Rex. I can put my arms in my sleeves so they are short, only eat meat, and roar at people. But no matter how much I want to be im still a human
User avatar #86 - frotw (06/17/2013) [-]
I get the whole freedom of expression thing but this just feels wrong to me still
#65 - tmdarby (06/17/2013) [-]
Comment Picture
#49 - soggytomatoe (06/17/2013) [-]
**** YEAH RAMONES
User avatar #64 to #49 - gziggas (06/17/2013) [-]
Ramones (Ram-ah-knees)
User avatar #36 - xjessicaxrabbitx (06/17/2013) [-]
FJ is such a contradictory site. I feel like most people disagree with posts just for the sake of disagreeing. A parent can't be accepting, they're enforcing. Gender roles are good, but this father wearing a skirt with his son because his son was afraid to was popular not too long back:

cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2012/9/27/dress.jpeg
User avatar #119 - georgiohill (06/17/2013) [-]
all the people commenting saying they arent old enough and dont yet have a sexuality, it has nothing to do with sexuality or anything sexual, its how the kids feel they want to dress and what gender they want to be. While i disagree with openely allowing your kids to be ridiculed and encouraging cross gender behaviour. Allowing a child to act as the gender they want can help prevent issues in later life and of course make the child happier
#150 to #119 - byposted (06/17/2013) [-]
It is almost as if there is no need for parenting at all. Boys do not need a father to tell them to stop acting like a girly faggot, that is bigoted. In fact, masculinity is inherently racist and transphobic. Obama should criminalize it.
It is almost as if there is no need for parenting at all. Boys do not need a father to tell them to stop acting like a girly faggot, that is bigoted. In fact, masculinity is inherently racist and transphobic. Obama should criminalize it.
User avatar #153 to #150 - georgiohill (06/17/2013) [-]
You think im a libtard but your wrong, if a child shows typically masculine behaviours it should be encouraged too. Its got nothing to do with bigotry. Im sorry that you misunderstood
#108 - John Cena (06/17/2013) [-]
Wow this pisses me off. Homosexuality calls for equality and tolerance, and that's totally fine, but encouragement is going overboard.

Children are tuned to things that they like as they grow up. Take acquired tastes for example: If a child grows up in some other society and likes a food I wouldn't, it's because they were raised in that society. If the same exact child was raised in my society, they'd most likely like the foods in my society.

That same concept can be applied to sexuality. Growing up, kids have no idea of sexuality, so letting them cross dress and act like the opposite gender would tune them to the other sexuality. As a heterosexual, I can either encourage, tolerate, or discourage homosexuality. I'm past discouragement, and I tolerate; encouragement is something I wouldn't do. It's not restricting their imaginations or rights, the kids need to learn and respect limits. If they end up gay in their teens, fine, that's their choice, but otherwise it'll be my influence.
User avatar #187 to #108 - TheFreak (06/18/2013) [-]
Then why do we have stories of gay kids coming from homophobic parents?
#118 to #108 - teranin ONLINE (06/17/2013) [-]
So, when you were in your teens, when did you choose to be straight?
So, when you were in your teens, when did you choose to be straight?
#131 to #118 - John Cena (06/17/2013) [-]
It's not an immediate choice; it's more like a transition into either field. When we're little kids, we don't really have any sexuality. When we grow up, we go through puberty and start having "emotions" and "special feelings", (that whole birds-and-the-bees talk). You transition into one sexuality, and that solidifies. However, your view upon your gender-role and gender identity before puberty (like, how you view males dressing as females and doing feminine things, for example), in large determines which transition you makes.

From nothing, to either heterosexuality or homosexuality.

If you want more information, I guess acquiring a sexuality is almost synonymous with Ivan Pavlov's classical conditioning, an enormously famous concept of psychology where living creatures can be tuned to react in different ways. In fact, I'd throw in B.F. Skinner's Operant conditioning (reward-punishment learning) and Bandura's Idolization learning as huge factors too.
#143 to #131 - teranin ONLINE (06/17/2013) [-]
Ok well let me tell you this. I have certain fetishistic needs regarding sexuality, if those needs aren't fulfilled I'm not even really interested. At no time was anything even remotely relevant to those needs a thing that occured to me, or that I was interested in, before it simply suddenly became an interest in my early teens. There is a significant genetic and purely biological aspect to sexuality that you are ignoring to make your point, and while I don't wholly disagree that conditioning can affect certain aspects of sexuality, a person would need the reward center of their brain that is linked to orgasm (the same one that activates when you eat chocolate) to be stimulated when that action takes place, otherwise conditioning could never truly affect what a person's brain associates as erogenous. Psychology has little to do with significant sexual deviance, generally you can attribute small ones to it though like enjoying being tied to a bed and tickled because it triggered weird feelings in you as a kid, etc, etc.

I do think that if Gwen's son was told to wear the tutu by his mother, that's a ****** thing to do as a parent, but if her son asked to wear the tutu than her not telling him no isn't bad parenting, because he is the one determining if he likes something whether or not his mother was the driving force behind his introduction to it.
#155 to #143 - John Cena (06/17/2013) [-]
I'm well aware of the biological aspects of sexuality, and I absolutely agree with what your saying. Perhaps I worded what I said wrongly; I meant that society, discouraging or encouraging your sexuality, would still have a major effect on sexuality, but nonetheless I still completely agree with your argument of the human body's pull on sexuality.

Certain fetishes, like transvestites and furries, I suppose can or can't be attributed to conditioning (I dispotition towards bisexuality or homosexuality that coexists with heterosexuality or growing up with the anthropomorphic disney-ish animals that could talk and function as humans normally do).

While we do have biological predestinations, our psychological growth is still, in the end, a MAJOR factor in sexuality, but I completely agree that biological makeup is equally, perhaps moreso, a major factor.
User avatar #148 to #108 - Icedangel (06/17/2013) [-]
I don't think they encouraged it as much as allowed it. What if those kids went up to their parents and said 'Mommy, I want short hair!' or 'Mommy, I want this tutu!'

Being all 'No honey, those are for boys/girls only' is ridiculous. When I was a kid I was a complete tomboy but then once I hit puberty I straightened out. As for your statement that children don't have sexuality, they do. I have two friends who are both gay. The girl would say other girls are pretty and that she 'like liked them' from the age of 5. Children have crushes just like adults.

The male didn't realize he was gay until highschool, however he admits knowing he was always different from the start, but was too scared to say anything. He grew up like a normal male would.

On the same note my straight male friend said he used to love tea parties and make overs and dressing up in girls clothes. He said it made him feel pretty, however once he grew up a little he grew up out of that phase.

So no, you can't turn your child gay. There is no real 'gay/straight' line, it's more like the Kinsley scale or shades of grey and they will be gay or straight regardless of upbringing. Take the gay children who come from super religious homes or the children raised by two male parents.
#157 to #148 - John Cena (06/17/2013) [-]
Indeed, I worded my argument uncarefully. When I said encourage, I meant that allowing a child to develope a gender identity opposite their own gender, not "Okay Billy I've decided for you that you're gonna be gay". The opinions children develop from these views of being feminine or masculine affect their sexuality in large.

HOWEVER, the pull of biological makeup cannot be ignored, and perhaps I should have addressed that first. If I'm male, and I have an incredible amount of testosterone in my system, I'm bound to be masculine, despite the pull of my society.
User avatar #163 to #157 - Icedangel (06/17/2013) [-]
Not to mention in places like Saudi Arabia where being gay is punishable by death still having gay people is enough to debunk your 'society makes you gay' theory.

You know that's the same logic the Westboro Baptist church uses, right?
User avatar #160 to #157 - Icedangel (06/17/2013) [-]
Not quite. Again, I was treated 100% as a boy. People I met THOUGHT i was a boy. I looked the part, acted the part, and was treated the part. I am not gay at all.

There are plenty of super macho gay men that will debunk your 'testosterone = masculine straight' guy and plenty of 'metrosexuals' that will debunk your 'feminine = gay'. Sexuality is a predetermined thing, whether or not you act on it is the upbringing. Just wearing dresses wont make you want to be a girl if you are a boy. They don't see 'Oh, I must be a girl if I wear this dress.' They simply see 'I like this dress, I'm going to wear it.'

I mean, you can't make this argument because there are too many contradictions that oppose it. Trannies and crossdressers raised under both free thinking and strictly conformist exist. non-trannies or cross dressers raised by extremely flamboyant parents.

I mean tiger parenting is a prime example over nature vs. nurture. these parents push their children so hard in the direction they want them to go that it's all consuming in the childs life. Some children go on to do what their parents want, others just don't.
#168 to #160 - John Cena (06/17/2013) [-]
Perhaps. I'm simply stating that allowing a certain sexuality feeds into the attention core of children, and that could push them toward a sexuality. This is a debate that is alive and well, whether sexuality is determined by upbringing or is predetermined. You say predetermined, I say (more or less) upgringing.

And yes, I'm aware there are anti-gay societies with gay people. What I'm saying, however, is that there are LESS gay people in anti-gay societies, based upon tranditional values. Kind of like anti-gun laws. If they're passed, we'd still have plenty of guns, just in fewer numbers.

In your case, for the sake of my argument, I'd say that you developed a gender identity already when people treated you like a boy.

To be honest, this argument isn't one that can be supported well and change people minds, one way or the other. Until more scientific breakthroughs occur in the fields of biology and psychology, either argument, in the end, is simply a theory.
User avatar #171 to #168 - Icedangel (06/17/2013) [-]
We can't say 'there are less gay people in an antigay culture' because people wont admit to being gay. It's like trying to say how many people smoke weed. Some will admit to it, others won't. Your theory is horribly backed and relies on scant 'evidence' at best. To have a theory that has millions of contradictions at best is silly.

Every point you've made I've presented a counter argument. Every point I've presented you with a verified rebuttal that you yourself could check by talking to Trannies and gays and asking them how they were raised. But you still cling to your moot points. As such, I'm wasting my time and will no longer continue this conversation.

You aren't addressing my counter arguments at all, just restating your 'theory' again and again. My arguments are more solid. There ARE people raised in these situations. There ARE people who, for all intents and purposes, are considered 'straight' until they tell you otherwise. Good day to you sir. It is refreshing to find someone at least attempting a good debate without bringing profanities into the picture.
#174 to #171 - John Cena (06/17/2013) [-]
Your counterarguments rely on the same hypothetical knowledge that I've presented, saying "there are plenty of", "I know a person", "from experience". Your argument that my facts are unsupported is a given, seing that I've presented no scientific facts stated in a powerpoint presentation on with my sources APA cited. Then again, neither have you.

In the end, we're both adamant in our beliefs and want to disprove each other, but we both don't give proper facts and both say that each other's facts are inadequate. In the end, this argument wasn't proven, on your side or mine, by science, hence "This argument is still alive and well" in the field of science. Your reasoning that I'm wrong is contradicting, because in such a case we're both equally wrong.

And indeed, I'd like to end this debate as well, we're both wasting time getting nowhere. If science proves what you say right, and me completely wrong, I'm more than happy with being corrected. Until then, our theories are just that.
#116 to #108 - fubmageren (06/17/2013) [-]
So its the society that turns people gay?
#125 to #116 - John Cena (06/17/2013) [-]
More or less. We can have a predispositioned sexuality based on hormonal balances, like the testosterone/estrogen ratio, but encouragement and discouragement from the society largely determine sexuality.

Hundreds of years ago, you'd be a stigma, an outcast, for being homosexual, and that largely discouraged it. Sure, there were some who were still homosexual, but the amount of such people was FAR less.

Then, as we got closer to the present, we became more TOLERANT, and more homosexual individuals were a legitimate part of our society.]

But now, it's moving to encouragement. It's lke feminism in terms of feminine-equality and feminine-superioirity, based on the arguments presented. Letting children crossdress is your own choice, and I suppose that's fine. HOWEVER, If I force gender constructs on my child and make them wear their own gender's clothing, and I'm not "parenting right", than that is definently too far.
#161 to #125 - John Cena (06/17/2013) [-]
Uhm.. You can BE gay and not act it, you know. Just because someone isn't at a pride parade does NOT be they are straight.

there have been gay people that marry a woman, father children, and live that whole life who are secretly gay in the sense that they are sexually attracted to males only.
#169 to #161 - John Cena (06/17/2013) [-]
Indeed. If biological makeup completely determines sexuality, then with the argument of whether they are gay or not based on their genetics is a matter of natural selection, then, isn't it? If society is stricter against gays, there is absolutely NO DOUBT that there will be LESS (in no way do I mean "zero") gay individuals, so I suppose a sense of boudaries or the elimination of genetic makeup explains why there are and aren't specific ratios of homosexuals to heterosexuals.

On way or the other, the treatment of children on the subject of sexuality is still a defining factor on the subject. That's my belief, at least. You can believe otherwise, that's completely fine with me. If one day scientists present irrefutable evidence that you're right, and I'm wrong, than I'd be happy to be corrected. I'm not making this personal, I'm just venting on whether setting boundaries, as parents upon children, is "bad parenting". Regardless, my theory is still argueable against your theory.
#71 - John Cena (06/17/2013) [-]
Girls should look like and act like girls, and boys should act like and look like boys. boys should be boys, girls should be girls. I hate this picture.
User avatar #97 to #71 - ljxjlos (06/17/2013) [-]
People should act like they ******* want to act.
User avatar #111 to #97 - misticalz ONLINE (06/17/2013) [-]
I don't think an 8 year old has that responsibility yet.
User avatar #112 to #111 - ljxjlos (06/17/2013) [-]
Still, why the heck would you want to tell a child how she/it should dress? That´s ******** ...
User avatar #124 to #112 - misticalz ONLINE (06/17/2013) [-]
Because I don't want my kid looking like a cross dresser at 8 years old?

He/she can do that when they're older, yenno when they can actually decide if it's right or wrong to do it.
User avatar #126 to #124 - ljxjlos (06/17/2013) [-]
Who are you to decide what´s right or wrong?
If the kid wants to look like a crossdresser, it can do so...The childhood is the only time were you can actually be yourself, trying to destroy this, too, is a bit douchebag-ish, isn´t it?
#172 to #126 - John Cena (06/17/2013) [-]
You should try to help it avoid all the social stigma you can. You know damn well if your son went to school in a dress no matter how old he is he will never live that down and will have to switch schools most likely. A kid at that age doesn't know who they eally are... **** , some kids in high school don't really know who they are yet. I'm in college and am pretty sure I know who I am now but my freshmen self was completely different than my senior self in high school. A little kid will run out of the house in 2 different shoes, one sock one barefoot, backward pants and shirt, wool cap even though it's the middle of July. You need to help them dress at that age.
#35 - John Cena (06/17/2013) [-]
Angelina's daughter is so kawaiiiiiiii
User avatar #43 - residentblackman (06/17/2013) [-]
We all have to realize that the majority of tumblr users are rebel, borderline dyke teenage girls that think all conservative values should be disregarded. A boy dressed as a girl? OMG PARENTING DUN RIGHT!!!
#50 to #43 - feelythefeel (06/17/2013) [-]
>letting a child be who they feel like being
OMG PARENTING DUN WRONG, fall of 'murica, all our base are belong to SANTA!!!1!1111!
User avatar #55 to #50 - arkytior (06/17/2013) [-]
is...is your text pink?


Just checking if my eyes are okay...
#56 to #55 - feelythefeel (06/17/2013) [-]
Yes, it is.
User avatar #154 to #50 - residentblackman (06/17/2013) [-]
>implying children automatically know who they want to be
>implying parents shouldn't guide them
#156 to #154 - feelythefeel (06/17/2013) [-]
> implying that a parent should decide what children should be for them
> implying that associating yourself as another sex is in any way harmful and should be avoided
#159 to #156 - residentblackman (06/17/2013) [-]
Ahh, I misunderstood your point, I don't think that a parent should go out of there way to have their son behave like a girl or a daughter behave like a boy. If the children truly want to behave that way then by all means. I just had the idea that celebrities deliberately raised their children as the opposite gender.
Ahh, I misunderstood your point, I don't think that a parent should go out of there way to have their son behave like a girl or a daughter behave like a boy. If the children truly want to behave that way then by all means. I just had the idea that celebrities deliberately raised their children as the opposite gender.
#166 to #159 - feelythefeel (06/17/2013) [-]
I also agree that a parent shouldn't force something like that upon a child. Is that the situation? I don't keep up with celebrity nonsense, so I wouldn't know.
 Friends (0)