.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Sunday, November 06, 2005

 

Dangerous fun


Do you suppose this child will associate danger with fun?

Comments:
I think he will associate "creepy" with "daddy." Don't know if that would influence his sexual orientation, but he'd probably be oriented away from self-focused, narcissistic pop stars with nose jobs.
 
I think the child will grow knowing (for a fact) that...

BLACK people can change!!!

(into NICE WHITE people, of course. Creepy white ones perhaps, as ck mentioned. But M.J. is PROOF that no-one if trapped in a Afro-American lifestyle. Or nose. Or hair. Or skim colour.)

You Americans continue to amaaaaze the World... /sarc

p.s. No child should EVER be endangered in that way. The entire World felt sick when we saw that footage.
 
"You Americans continue to amaaaaze the World... /sarc"

I seem to remember a certain Aussie crocodile hunter dangling a certain baby above a certain crocodile.

A certain Boo
 
See the newest post for the Aussie version of dangerous fun. Thanks for the reminder Boo.
 
So um... what exactly is the point of these, Dr. Throckmorton? Are you making fun of Nicolosi or gays or beating a dead horse or what?

Boo
 
I think it is humorous to think that infants are learning that danger is fun by throwing them in the air. Perhaps infants do learn trust or at least begin to experience the parents as providing comfort and safety. But to say that little boys learn this and little girls don't or that moms don't play rough and only dads do and so on and so on seems funny and somewhat sad to me at the same time. And then to say that all of this is reliably related to sexual attractions in adolescence seems pretty far fetched to me. I was trained in object relations theory by true believers but I am not one. I think there are some pretty interesting insights and practical helps for therapists that emerge but I do not believe that this theory or any other psychodynamic approach to personality does justice to the complexity of the subject matter.
 
Hi Warren, I'd agree. Nicolosi's theory about tossing babies in the air and then linking this to SSA (or lack thereof) seems far fetched and strange. The danger is in building theories, because, by definition, a theory must encompass all cases and have explanations for exceptions--In this case, what would he say about a boy who enjoyed playing with Barbies when he was young, and grew to be straight, and a boy who was into rough and tumble play, but grew to be gay?

By the way, you did get the link I sent you, right? What do you think?


Memphis
 
Boo,

The amaaaazed comment refered to the technology required to turn someone ex-black. It wasn't a comment about dangling a baby off a balcony.

(I think most Americans would agree with most others on the issue of Jackson being weird and creepy. ie yes he is).

For the Irwin crocodile parallel... there was outrage in Australia, at least at the time the footage hit the news that night.

But, the baby was NOT dangled above the crocodile. The photo Warren pulled -- the one used in news footage -- is deceptive.

There is footage taken from the side that shows Irwin a considerable distance away. And apparently too far away for either Irwin or the baby to be in any danger. (The incident was investigated by Queensland Dept of Families. The Irwin's have promised not to do it again, primarily because of the bad example it set to other parents about how dangerous these animals are, but it was found the child was in no danger.)

But then again, you Americans have difficulty distinguishing Hollywood-style fiction and camera angles from what actually occurs, right???

And that's a double sarcasm :)

BTW -- you do realise Irwin's wife (and the mother of the baby) is... American?
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?