James Dobson Not So Encouraging

[chelsea]

James Dobson was on Larry King Live last night and was saying that he believes gay men are "created" when they are little boys between the ages of 18 months to 5 years who do not disattach from their mothers. Nice thing to say, how SO not encouraging to AP mothers. My parents like James Dobson so they just looked at me like this :scratch when I went into the "Oh brother, that is the dumbest thing I ever heard. Little boys naturally seek out a male role model, but they do not need to be forcefully pried away from their mothers" tirade. :shifty That "observation" is especially not encouraging for a single mother like myself. :no Thanks, James.

[expatmom]

Yikes!

Did he claim any scientific evidence or is this just an idea he cooked up? I think that theory flies in the face of pretty much any legitimate research on attachment and child development.

[cklewis]

he says that in bringing up boys. :/

c

[erinee]

he says that in bringing up boys. :/

c


Doesn't he actually say that boys have to "kill their mothers" psychologically? I've only skimmed the book and didn't like what I saw, but that just sounds icky. :/

[cklewis]

he says that in bringing up boys. :/

c

Doesn't he actually say that boys have to "kill their mothers" psychologically? I've only skimmed the book and didn't like what I saw, but that just sounds icky. :/


oh yes. that's my big hobby horse with that book.

c

[NewCovenantMama]

How does he think lesbians are "created" then???????????????
:think :scratch :shrug

Emma

[chelsea]

he says that in bringing up boys. :/

Yah, I remember reading the tiny little chapter made for "single moms and grandparents" that was squeezed in, and being so discouraged with his "statistics" that I never read the rest. :sad2

[Benjaminswife]

Crazy :(

[cheri]

I watched a little bit of the show when he was talking about gay marriage and the pastor who recently got into trouble (sorry I can't remember his name) I had to turn the channel.

[Maggie]

:hunh :rolleyes :td The man obviously has issues.

Chelsea, I'm sorry you were discouraged by Dobson's ignorant comments. :hugheart You're doing the right thing for your little guy! :heart

[Iveyrock]

I have a friend who read bringing up boys and felt that she needed to completely disconnect from her son. Which is especially crappy because she was a SAHM... so what's he supposed to do all those hours that daddy is gone? And yeah, single moms... I actually found that whole chapter to be a little weird, and that was before I knew about GBD. It seemed very paranoid, about the gay agenda and how they are out to make everyone gay. I have a couple of gay friends and relatives, and none of them have ever tried to "convert" anyone.
Amber

[Wonder Woman]

How does he think lesbians are "created" then???????????????
:think :scratch :shrug




:laughtears

And sadly enough, I've even had people tell me that I could never nurse a daughter as long as I nursed my son, because it would make her lesbian :hissyfit

ummm....anyone know if the prophet Samuel was gay? because he didn't go into service in the temple until after he was weaned around the age of five :shifty

[cklewis]

And history would tell us Christ was weaned ~6yo. :scratch

Weird.

C

[Mother of Sons]

I heard him on his radio show talking about the same thing. It was extremely discouring and doomsdayish. You are screwing up! Your kids are going to be gay! yada yada. Then at the end they said "We don't want to be discouraging to single mothers etc." and I sat there thinking "Exactly how are you NOT being discouraging?

Oh and it didn't stop with single mothers. If your husband isn't a great dad, works too much, too critical, etc. then you are in trouble too.

[Joanne]

What myopic thinking. As if attachment to mom and development as men are mutually exclusive.

What he says and suggests flies in the face of God's biology.

[cklewis]

What he says and suggests flies in the face of God's biology.


yup. bingo.

c

[Dana Joy]

:rolleyes

[Can Dance]

:rolleyes

we need a yeah that sign.

[RubySlippers]

Doesn't he actually say that boys have to "kill their mothers" psychologically? I've only skimmed the book and didn't like what I saw, but that just sounds icky. :/


Oh, and terribly sinful and wicked...."Thou shalt not kill," ring a bell, anyone? Besides the fact it's the opposite of "honor thy father and thy mother." He's promoting heresy. :sick2
IMO, he got that "theory" straight from the pit. :td

[Bonnie]

He got that theory from Freud. Not exactly a chamption of Scriptural psychology. :no2 My dh is beginning to understand my objections to Dobson. :clap

[mama-hobbit]

This issue is going to make me blow a gasket pretty soon. :hunh

I don't like most of what Dobson has to say about children, but...

Please, research this a little more before you get freaked out. Don't bash this 'cause you hate the mouth it's coming from.

It's not about having to detach in a forced manner - all healthy little boys detach from mom in a way as they grow older. All children (boys and girls) have a period where they become more solidly who they are and less who their mom is. This is normal. It is not something we are supposed to force, and no one is advocating that. The point is to help little boys do it without trauma, and to be sure they have a safe and loving environment with men and older boys who love and accept them as the wonderful individuals they each are.

The problem Dobson (and many others) are talking about is when they do not learn to form healthy relationships with the same sex.

It has nothing to do with ripping little boys away from their mommies!

It is not about Freud.

It is not heresy.

This is about the natural process of growing up and away from mom. You did it. I did it. Every person on earth has to do it.


There are days I think Dobson could come out and support co-sleeping, babywearing, anti-circumcision, breastfeeding, grace-based-non-spaking parenting and this crowd would string him up because of his errant past. Give the guy a break (how about a little grace for old Jim?) and pray that the fantastic people he's been surrounding himself with recently will rub off and help him see grace as something we need to offer our children.

[LoveIsGentle]

he says that in bringing up boys. :/

c


That's one of the first books I was given when ds was born, and it left me seriously doubting everything I was doing....like I was going to ruin my own child with attachment. That book stayed with me more than I realized - even now, I'll find myself doubting my abilities as a mother and going back to the things said in that book as reasoning. :neutral

[Dana Joy]

The problem Dobson (and many others) are talking about is when they do not learn to form healthy relationships with the same sex.
Honestly whether it came from Dobson, Sears or Kohn- I do not buy that unhealthy same sex relationships growing up cause homosexuality. Otherwise there would be so many more homosexuals. IME 1 in 5 people have unhealthy relationships with their parents. The numbers just aren't there to support this- 80% of the population would be gay.

[Bonnie]

MH, on the surface of it, I agree with what you are saying. The problem is, when you look at the big picture of what the man preaches, about this and other early-childhood things, it IS about forced detachment "if necessary," it is about unhealthy levels of independence, and yes, it IS about Freud. The diatribe he goes on in Bringing Up Boys is twisted. Normal, healthy, independence from a parent through appropriate growth is NOT about "killing" the mother, and yes, he uses that term.

[cklewis]

This issue is going to make me blow a gasket pretty soon. :hunh

I don't like most of what Dobson has to say about children, but...

Please, research this a little more before you get freaked out. Don't bash this 'cause you hate the mouth it's coming from.

It's not about having to detach in a forced manner - all healthy little boys detach from mom in a way as they grow older. All children (boys and girls) have a period where they become more solidly who they are and less who their mom is. This is normal. It is not something we are supposed to force, and no one is advocating that. The point is to help little boys do it without trauma, and to be sure they have a safe and loving environment with men and older boys who love and accept them as the wonderful individuals they each are.

The problem Dobson (and many others) are talking about is when they do not learn to form healthy relationships with the same sex.

It has nothing to do with ripping little boys away from their mommies!

It is not about Freud.

It is not heresy.

This is about the natural process of growing up and away from mom. You did it. I did it. Every person on earth has to do it.


There are days I think Dobson could come out and support co-sleeping, babywearing, anti-circumcision, breastfeeding, grace-based-non-spaking parenting and this crowd would string him up because of his errant past. Give the guy a break (how about a little grace for old Jim?) and pray that the fantastic people he's been surrounding himself with recently will rub off and help him see grace as something we need to offer our children.


he uses the phrase "kill the mother." that is freud. that ain't Bible.

c

[ArmsOfLove]

wellllll . . . the word choice is ignorant and problematic but I don't disagree with the idea he's trying to present. It's actually what I believe to be part of the issue overall from everything I've read. The thing is, the child doesn't need to *lose all attachment* or *disattach* but it's the idea of *forming a strong bond with the father or strong male influence*. This *is* the time for male identity to be developing. Children flip flop a couple of times in their *strongest* attachment between mom and dad--that's how God designed their development to be within the first 8 to 10 years.

The reason that the baby has realized by around 18 months that they are not the same person as mom is because it is time for this to happen--for strong attachment to form with another person and that person is intended to be dad. If the child doesn't do this it does cause problems for him down the road--homosexuality or not :shrug But it doesn't have to be bio dad as we can see in adoptive homes :) It can even be a good male friend at the church who is willing to be there and be a good influence and male-identity-model.

[Maggie]

I also don't believe that growing up without a strong male influence causes homosexuality. I do agree it may cause problems. I don't care who's saying it. I don't believe it's accurate. And it's just one of a million other things Dobson has said that I think are pretty far off the mark.

[ArmsOfLove]

I also don't believe that growing up without a strong male influence causes homosexualityit doesn't "make" you homosexual, and many don't become homosexual, what it does is sometimes lead to gender confusion and a lack of male identity.

[Six Little Feet]

I also don't believe that growing up without a strong male influence causes homosexuality. I do agree it may cause problems. I don't care who's saying it. I don't believe it's accurate. And it's just one of a million other things Dobson has said that I think are pretty far off the mark.


ITA


I also don't believe that growing up without a strong male influence causes homosexualityit doesn't "make" you homosexual, and many don't become homosexual, what it does is sometimes lead to gender confusion and a lack of male identity.


Is this the same for females that do not have a female role model?

I do not agree that there is a corelation. I know of many gay men who had the positive males in their life who are gay.

To me it just doesn't wash.

I do not think there is *anyone* to blame for homosexuality.

[ArmsOfLove]

Is this the same for females that do not have a female role model?I do believe so :)

and being a strong model doesn't mean they had a strong relationship :shrug

[chelsea]

This issue is going to make me blow a gasket pretty soon. :hunh

I don't like most of what Dobson has to say about children, but...

Please, research this a little more before you get freaked out. Don't bash this 'cause you hate the mouth it's coming from.

It's not about having to detach in a forced manner - all healthy little boys detach from mom in a way as they grow older. All children (boys and girls) have a period where they become more solidly who they are and less who their mom is. This is normal. It is not something we are supposed to force, and no one is advocating that. The point is to help little boys do it without trauma, and to be sure they have a safe and loving environment with men and older boys who love and accept them as the wonderful individuals they each are.

The problem Dobson (and many others) are talking about is when they do not learn to form healthy relationships with the same sex.

It has nothing to do with ripping little boys away from their mommies!

It is not about Freud.

It is not heresy.

This is about the natural process of growing up and away from mom. You did it. I did it. Every person on earth has to do it.


There are days I think Dobson could come out and support co-sleeping, babywearing, anti-circumcision, breastfeeding, grace-based-non-spaking parenting and this crowd would string him up because of his errant past. Give the guy a break (how about a little grace for old Jim?) and pray that the fantastic people he's been surrounding himself with recently will rub off and help him see grace as something we need to offer our children.

I'm sorry, it sounds as though you feel very upset about this thread (especially with the part you wrote that I bolded). I am not an "anti-Dobson" person, I think he does have some very applicable things to say in regards to many things. What you have described as "his view" though is not what he was saying on show, so I have to assume you were not watching Larry King Live last night. If what you have described is truly his view, I have to assume that you have either read much more material of his than I have (I'm going by Bringing Up Boys and the interview last night) because what I wrote is what I understood from that limited viewing to his materials/spoken word, or that perhaps you have had a chance to speak with him personally and he has expounded on what he has written/publicly spoken. Sometimes a public speaker may *mean* one thing but not clearly describe what they truly mean, and he could simply be coming off wrong. :shrug If you could recommend some of his materials that describe this issue in better detail I would love to read them, because like I said, I do think he has some good things to say, and I would love to know that I have "misunderstood" him because what I am "understanding" now, I am totally disagreeing with.
Sorry, totally did not mean to offend. :hug2

[CelticJourney]

There are days I think Dobson could come out and support co-sleeping, babywearing, anti-circumcision, breastfeeding, grace-based-non-spaking parenting and this crowd would string him up because of his errant past.

I think that is a mis-charactarization of this community and I am a little taken aback that you think this about the mothers who post here. I have found them to be open-minded and very giving of grace. This forum is about discussing parenting teaching and you might be surprised to read that many times we remind each other that we must seperate the man from his teachings when expressing dislike or anger.

As for Dobson's ideas: Attachment with same-sex parent is important, radical detachment with a parent at the level of 'kill the mother' is just wrong. I agree with Crystal that perhaps he did not choose his words well and is not representing his own ideas clearly, but until he clarifies his teachings, I think we are perfectly justified to discuss those ideas as presented.

[HuggaBuggaMommy]

he says that in bringing up boys. :/

Yah, I remember reading the tiny little chapter made for "single moms and grandparents" that was squeezed in, and being so discouraged with his "statistics" that I never read the rest. :sad2


Same here...

[joyful mama]

There are days I think Dobson could come out and support co-sleeping, babywearing, anti-circumcision, breastfeeding, grace-based-non-spaking parenting and this crowd would string him up because of his errant past. :sad2 I'm sorry you feel that way. I dont know enough of what he preaches to even address the whole issue at hand...

[ArmsOfLove]

well, I've said before and I'll say again, I liked Bringing Up Boys :shrug And aside from a few disagreements I appreciated a lot of what he said in it. I even liked the chapter for single mamas--rather than giving no hope I thought he gave very practical and encouraging suggestions for dealing with the issue in light of what he presented in the entire book.

the truth is, contrary to what the world says, boys need men in order to know how to become men. It's in light with the Continuum Concept, it's common sense, it's supported by the raging teen elephants who calmed down as soon as an older male elephant was brought in. It's the reason for Boy Scouts, Explorer programs, and other organizations where boys learn how to become men. It's supported by Jewish tradition as boys transition into the men's world--a model found in cultures and tribes all over the world.

This doesn't mean that a boy without a dad present is doomed to homosexuality :rolleyes2 and it doesn't mean that a schleppy or abusive dad is better than no dad :shrug It just means what it means.

[mama-hobbit]

I didn't see the Larry King show... so I can't answer for JD's exact wording last night. And I sure don't mean to offend by my comments... I love you moms and the ability we have to hash these things out together.

I have read FOF materials for over 15 years. I have been given every parenting book JD has written. Some stuff I agree with, a lot I don't.

I guess the problem I'm having is that I keep coming upon these threads where the tone sounds a lot like a reactionary "Oh-My-Gosh! Did you hear what that Dobson just said... OHHHH that devil Jim!" - especially in relation to homosexuality and identity disorders. If you don't take the time to look into the issue you may latch onto the wrong intent - it sure isn't to blame the parents and it isn't rip Johnny away from mom and "make a man out of him."

There are people who agree with the theory's he's espousing on possibilities for distorted identity and homosexuality. There are those who don't. We can agree to disagree and I'm OK with that. There is stuff about it I agree with and stuff I don't too.

I respond to these threads because this issue does hit rather close to home for me. I have family and friends who are openly practicing homosexuals, celibate homosexuals, ex-homosexuals, etc. I have grown up with in loving relationships with homosexuals. I'm not just talking about research and people with letters after their names and what they have to say. I have real people in my life with names and faces and stories that break my heart. People who are looking for the church to do more then pat them on the head and say "It's OK, God made you this way. Go and sin no more." or "Hey, I know the Bible seems to say it's wrong, but God is Love and it's really OK." or better yet "DIE ________!" They have real lives and real questions about how they fit into God's world if the Bible is true and the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. How they got they way they are. How they can change. How they can be whole. How they can be acceptable to God. :shrug

There are no easy answers.

All this to say it bothers me when statements are made with no research behind them to be sure what a man means by what he says or who he's been talking to for information. I'm all in favor of asking questions when our hearts are open. But I worry that we (and I do this too) jump the gun and fire off at people we assume we'll disagree with.

Here is a start for those who want to learn more...
http://www.alanchambers.org/
http://www.narth.com/index.html
http://www.exodus.to/component/option,com_frontpage/Itemid,1/

[joyful mama]

:hugheart

[ArmsOfLove]

mama-hobbit :hugheart thank you for sharing your heart on this issue.

I do think what is being expressed by many here is shock and outrage that *in light of the real people out there who need the help of which you speak*, Dobson, who has a huge audience, is saying things that come across as hurtful and, if he's misexpressing his ideas, he needs to do it better :(

[Can Dance]

yeah I was just about to say, though we may not like how Dobson goes about phrasing his stuff, he isn't totally crazy. (am I saying that ? :shifty) I do wish though, he was a bit more sensitive to how he phrases things.
FTR, I am also someone who thinks male role models are VERY important in both genders for role modelling and development. research has definitely shown that to be true. men are in NO WAY disposible. just in case anyone thought that I thought that. :)

[Aisling]

I don't think J. Dobson is the devil. At all. But he actually stated that he didn't think people chose to be homosexual, and basically left no room for any other contributing factors to male homosexuality except a failure to began breaking attachment with their mothers at 18mo and to start living in a "man's world". I have huge problems with that.

Countless studies have shown that the biggest contributing factor to male homosexuality is sexual molestation by a male at a young age. Homosexuality does not necessarily equal gender confusion, nor or all gay men effeminate. When the possibility of arousal (and yes, even in a small child this *can* happen) by a same sex person is introduced at a very young age, it causes a preoccupation with sexuality coupled with the fact that their first sexual experience was with a male.

I totally agree that lack of healthy male relationship can contribute. Another earmark of homosexuality is social rebellion, which is also prominent in males who had no father. It's just not as simple as failure to detach from a certain parent. (Especially at such a young age.)

Another thing that disturbs me about this whole "early detachment from mother" thing, is that it seems to assume that children are only attached to one parent or another at a time. You're either a "momma's boy" or "daddy's little man". :hunh I'd hate to be in a family like that, personally. It's not about ushering your ds into a "man's world". A child can receive nurturing from mom and dad at the same time, for crying out loud. My dh is nearly as gentle nurturing as me. I'm pretty darn adventurous and tomboyish by Dobson's book. You have to swallow his idea of gender roles before you can accept his homosexuality theory. And it isn't as black and white as he paints it. I believe that certain qualities that God would have in all of us have been "genderized", sadly.

If I grow up with only a father, I might learn to relate better to males, and might even identify more closely with male characteristics, but it's a long leap from that to actually being attracted to females. :rolleyes2

I believe males and females naturally posses unique characteristics. I believe these reflect different aspects of God's image. I totally agree that the father plays a huge role in a boys life, and the mother plays a huge role in the girl's. But the reverse is also true. I find his theory unfortunate, damaging, and overly simplistic. :/

[RubySlippers]

Ashley, ITA with you. :tu
I don't buy Dobson's premise either.

[cklewis]

ITA, Ashley!! It's that unfortunate blame-the-mother thing. It's too iffy to counter, and it just makes mommies feel bad.

C

[erinee]

ITA, Ashley!! It's that unfortunate blame-the-mother thing. It's too iffy to counter, and it just makes mommies feel bad.

C


Yes, I know that from experience, as I have a brother who is gay. I know how my sweet godly parents have agonized over what they should have/could have done differently. It's broken the hearts of my family, and my heart continues to be broken for my brother. :bheart Blaming does no good at all.

I think if Dobson wanted to make the points Crystal is making, he could have done that without throwing out the boogie man of homosexuality into the picture. Saying it's important is different from saying, "This is why kids turn out gay." And saying boys have a need to "kill their mothers" is far different from saying boys need to identify with men.

The fact that he should have chosen his words more carefully is not a small matter. Dobson has a lot of influence, and he communicates both orally and in writing for a living. He should feel very responsible for the way he communicates his ideas. They can be harmful to Christian families.

[chelsea]

Ashley, ITA with you. :tu

Ashely, I totally agree with your words as well. :yes
This issue is not simple and by his own words, Dobson appears to be simplifying it. I don't believe that gay individuals are born that way...neither do I think hateful things about them. I believe there are a number of factors that come into play. And I don't claim to be an expert about this.

I guess the problem I'm having is that I keep coming upon these threads where the tone sounds a lot like a reactionary "Oh-My-Gosh! Did you hear what that Dobson just said... OHHHH that devil Jim!" - especially in relation to homosexuality and identity disorders. If you don't take the time to look into the issue you may latch onto the wrong intent - it sure isn't to blame the parents and it isn't rip Johnny away from mom and "make a man out of him."

What I'm saying is that through the lenses of a single mother, his books and words give little hope to women whose boys have missed out on a male role model for a significant part of the 18 month-5 years old period. I totally believe that male role models are VERY important, even essential in little boy's lives. I believe that families with a mother AND a father are ideal...which is why God designed our reproductive systems work the way they do. ;) It is his wording that is leading me to question his "theories", which seem very AP-unfriendly.
I do take offense to the fact that you are pretty much implying I am a "Dobson-hater" (I'm totally not!) simply because I disagree with how he worded the whole thing. You don't need to "unattach" from your mother between the ages of 18 months to 5 years old in order to attach to a male role model. Absolutely not! There is a great danger in him coming to a mainstream audience and saying "boys need to unattach from their mothers at such and such an age" because I have heard numerous women who go to great lengths to avoid their sons because of this, etc. Are male role models essential in raising boys, or ANY child? Absolutely!! Must a little boy, or any child "unattach" from their mother in order to attach to this male role model? NO! Are people going to misunderstand what he is saying and try and "unattach" their boys from them? Yes, because I have seen mothers doing this.
James Dobson is a very influential man, and has a lot of great things to say. What I'm saying, is he must be careful how he words things...when you are a "teacher" and in a place of influence, you have a great responsibility to guard your words. That is what I'm saying. I'm not here to debate how homosexuals are "created", but what I'm saying is that from the viewpoint of a single mother, he needs to clarify the point he is trying to make!
:hug

[Aisling]

And what really saddens me is that the mamas who will go to lengths to detach themselves from their little boys are working to destroy what God intended for parents and their small children to have: the intuitive connection that flashes red when some thing's just isn't right with their little guy. This is the connection that picks up on things like sexual abuse. :( When you purposefully detach yourself emotionally at all from a child that young, you're opening them up wide for that kind of abuse...because they aren't close enough to talk openly with you about it, and you aren't connected enough to pick up on the little warning signals.

I just find this teaching downright dangerous. :bheart

[Wonder Woman]

*

[Iveyrock]

[/quote]
There is a great danger in him coming to a mainstream audience and saying "boys need to unattach from their mothers at such and such an age" because I have heard numerous women who go to great lengths to avoid their sons because of this, etc. Are male role models essential in raising boys, or ANY child? Absolutely!! Must a little boy, or any child "unattach" from their mother in order to attach to this male role model? NO! Are people going to misunderstand what he is saying and try and "unattach" their boys from them? Yes, because I have seen mothers doing this.
James Dobson is a very influential man, and has a lot of great things to say. What I'm saying, is he must be careful how he words things...when you are a "teacher" and in a place of influence, you have a great responsibility to guard your words. That is what I'm saying. I'm not here to debate how homosexuals are "created", but what I'm saying is that from the viewpoint of a single mother, he needs to clarify the point he is trying to make!
:hug
[/quote]

This is exactly what I think. I think you are probably right about what he is *trying* to say, but when I read the book (and I was very pro Dobson at that point) I got that your son needs to completely unattatch from you, and I have friends that took it the same way and purposely worked to unattach from their sons. Dobson has so much influence, and I think this message can be really harmful, whether that's what he means or not. If not, I think he needs to be a lot more clear in what he says.
I also have friends and family members who are gay, so it's a hot issue for me too... :hug2

[Rbonmom]

Ashley, :clap you hit the nail on the head! It also :bheart that JD's words have such a strong influence even when they are so off base. He has such a strong influence in the Church that so many parents never even question him.
Actually my major issue with Dobson is that his advice IME is just a "Christianized" version of secular psychology and not good or current psychology either, but icky Freudian type junk ie the "kill their mother" bit. I was a psych. major so to me it always seems like he just takes a secular concept, coats it in his "Christian" interpretation and then teaches it as if it's biblical :td
Also it's SO fear based :no2 ITU where Chelsea is coming from because as a single mom myself, I know how we second guess ourselves all the time. We don't need someone else instilling fear by suggesting that if we make the wrong move in toddlerhood we're sentencing our child to life-long suffering.
I also know some sweet Christian parents who are beating themselves up to the point of serious depression over their ds homosexuality because of the stuff JD says about it. Both parents feel to blame and agonize over what they could have done differently. Even my mom has told me privately "well you know JD says that if you do xyz, that leads to homosexuality. And B was just like that" :cry
Where is the power of God in this theory? I don't believe our children are simply the victims of our misguided, seemingly benign choices. Is God so small that because I AP and ds daddy abandoned us, there is no hope for my sweet guy? Of course not!

[Aisling]

(((Emmittsmama))) :hug

[hink4687]

Well my husband had absolutely zero male role models growing up and he has zero issues. He did have a good healthy bond with his mom though. And thankfully he is NOT gay and has zero issues from it!

I did not realize this was a theory by anyone but it explains now why my sister told me if I didn't wean soon I could make my son gay. :td