“Children of LGBTQ Parents:
Normalization and Assimilation”
In these more modern and, some
say, more “tolerant” times, The Gay Agenda has quickly normalized and sanitized
perceptions of Same-Sex relationships in general and same-sex parenthood in
particular. What some would call a glorification of postmodern alternatives to
the pre-WWII era “nuclear family,” some would call a perversion of traditional
family unit structure and values (Becker, p8). Michael E Lamb, editor of Parenting
and Child Development in “Nontraditional” Families notes in his
introduction that it would indeed benefit society as a whole “ to discuss in depth the ways in which various
"deviations" from traditional family styles affect childrearing
practices and child development (Lamb, xiii)”
The fact that recently gay
marriage is more widely accepted and gay rights more explicitly defended, has
perhaps made it “easier” for children of same sex parents to feel “normal”—or
does it give them a certain sense of still being deprived of stable gendered
role models, or still being “Other-ed” or stigmatized by children of
heterosexuals? Proper child
socialization and identity formation/establishment is often shaped by the
parents—are children of same sex parents disadvantaged in a way by circumvented
or inverted gender presentations; are children of same sex parents confused by
lack of standard masculine-feminine identification and is that “confusion” in
fact liberating as a condemnation of making oneself a stereotype, a
condemnation of “labeling” or “gender policing”? Perhaps it can be proven that
a child’s development of his/her own sexuality and self-identification in the
face of disapproving, bullying, or simply unsympathetic peers is not
necessarily affected by parent’s sexual orientation.
In these cosmopolitan,
gay-friendly times, the Western world seeks in many ways to re-define and
outline concepts of family and gender. In the post-Clinton-Lewinski-Scandal era
of American sexual politics, in the post-Scandal era wherein America’s
sordid history of slavery and miscegenation is remixed and upgraded to place
Sally Hemmings as Olivia Pope in a designer suit and “white hat”, in the era in
which the nation confronted, horrified, its behind-curtains Catholic Pedophilia
glorification, new ideas about relationship dynamics and taboos arise just as
dramatically as the recent spikes in divorce and adoption rates. In this
exciting and unsettling New Age, many discover families are dramatically
reconfigured. Through gradual standardization of homosexual portrayals in the
media, many American citizens, liberal and conservative, question Ideals among
hetero- and homosexual families of what’s considered “proper” or “traditional”
in the family unit organization and/or presentation of gender roles, including
masculine and feminine presentations of caretaking and employment
responsibilities, as applicable (Opposing Viewpoints, p1). In the face
of the question of whether gay parents appropriately raise well-adjusted,
properly socialized, healthy, intelligent, and confident children, there are
several opposing arguments presented. Among potential oppositional perspectives
are: how children may feel isolated or ostracized for parents’ orientation (National
Review); how witnessing homosexual displays of affection and/or sexual
activity may be believed to cause children to experiences warping of gender
identification; and whether or not a child’s proclivity towards homosexual
desires/presentation can absolutely be attributed to direct imitation or
emulation of a homosexual parent. These questions can perhaps be placed in a
clearer context by exploring how the traditional family structure in America
has changed, as well as how drastically and quickly changed has been the
perspectives on Gay Marriage and Gay Parenting in the American collective.
The 20th and 21st
centuries have been the most rapidly evolving in human history, with trends in
arts, religion, fashion, and even human thought changing ever more fleetingly
with each six months. The dawning of the 21st century especially has
illuminated severe deviations from the traditional “nuclear family” structure,
starting with (and blame attributed to) not only the institution of gay
marriage, but even heterosexual families’ households changed drastically with the
country’s post WWII high morale expansion and suburbanization-modernization, as
well as post-1960s Women’s Liberation and the so-called Sexual Revolution. An
article appearing in The American Family illustrates thus:
The
economic prosperity following World War II enabled many American families to
pursue what was perceived to be a better life in the wide-open spaces of the
outlying, newly developing suburbs. The ties that bound the nuclear family, the
extended family, and the ethnic neighborhood—all of which existed before the
war—were loosened. (Becker, p1)
The thoroughly researched report went on including
explanations for the formation of new dynamics including: increased occurrences
of divorce leading to split and mixed families, the advent of the acceptable
“stepchildren” as a normal reflection of broken vows, incidences of struggling
retiree grandparents raising grandchildren, adoptions, and interracial
marriages. All this in mind, it would seem evident the American Family Ideal
was already becoming more inclusive, more fluid—or, some would say, the
Standard was more corrupted—well before the political debates about laws
governing same sex relations began.
With the definitions of family
more elusive, and the definitions of “love” more broad, one may begin to wonder
in extremes whether or not in the near future there will be advocates this
zealous arguing for the acceptance and normalization of Pedophilic marriages. Edward
Alexander, writing for The Weekly Standard surmised:
The
triumphant campaign for gay marriage (and gay adoption) had swept all before
it, once Vice President Biden forced President Obama to accelerate his
"evolution" from the traditional (for most of human history)
understanding of marriage as a heterosexual institution to endorsement of
same-sex unions. The campaign had been conducted on the lowest possible
intellectual level, i.e., that of "equal rights" for all people who
love each other. But do any two heterosexual people in love have a
"right" to marry? Suppose one of them is already married? Suppose one
of them is the child of the other? (Alexander, p1)
In light of the question of whether same sex offspring are
really living a life that’s best for them, the full article from “Gay
Parenting” in Opposing Viewpoints in
Context quotes extensively:
Those
who oppose the idea of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people having
and raising children argue that the traditional family structure serves as the
basis for society, and without it, society as a whole will deteriorate and
suffer. Collette Caprara in a Heritage Foundation blog entry, entitled
“Reinventing the Family: Good Intentions Are Not Enough,” on October 24, 2011,
writes, “Youths growing up with both a mother and father in the home are also
less likely to engage in high-risk behaviors such as becoming sexually active
or engaging in substance abuse and less likely to exhibit antisocial behavior.
In addition, teens in intact families tend to fare better on a range of
emotional and psychological outcomes and to have higher levels of academic
achievement and educational attainment. With an apparent disregard for the
social and economic consequences to children, the rise of experimental family
forms and the ‘commissioning’ of babies may be the ultimate expression of the
commodification of children—when offspring are conceived for the gratification
of adults who have yet to grow up.” (Opposing Viewpoints,
p2)
Harsh as some of Caprara’s
assessments may have presumably been, it is imperative that, politics aside,
more scrutiny be given as to whether such alternate family, marriage, and relationship
paradigms are truly best for children instead of just abstract concepts,
untried, used as cannon fodder for vain political rhetoric and philosophical
fascination with the taboo. Frustrated by the lack of truly thorough research
on the effects of gay parenting on children, Mark Regnerus of University of
Texas took it upon himself to conduct a larger, wider, more inclusive and
representative study (The Wilson
Quarterly) with samples of adults who had grown up with gay or lesbian
parents and had come of age before gay marriage was even legal. His findings
showed that children who had reached of adult age after being raised by gay or
lesbian parents were more likely to need public assistance as an adult, more
likely to face unemployment, more likely to experience depression and, thus,
more likely with such symptoms to engage in drug use.
"If
same-sex parents are able to raise children with no differences" from
children raised by their married biological parents, Regnerus writes, "it
would mean that same-sex couples are able to do something that heterosexual
couples in step parenting, adoptive and cohabitating contexts have themselves
not been able to do--replicate the optimal child-rearing environment of
married, biological-parent homes." (The
Wilson Quarterly, p1)
Contrary to Regnerus’ findings,
however, in a case of what could be skewed data and biased agenda pushing, a
report published in Gay Parenting and
Daily Hampshire Gazette on a study
conducted by Abbie Gouldberg concludes there are no higher rates of depression
or maladjustment among children of gay parents. The Clark University Professor
Gouldberg asserts cheerfully that children are much better off because they were
taught by their “more tolerant” gay parents to be “more open to same-sex
relationships” and are “not as gender stereotyped “ as their heterosexual, more
conformist peers (Wilson, p4). She also makes the connection that because of
this open-mindedness and their parents’ tolerance, children of same sex parents
feel more supported and thus more confident in life, translating to
seemingly more successful children,
especially “girls (of lesbian parents) are more likely to have higher career
aspirations (4).” Whatever the presumed benefits of higher career aspirations,
Gouldberg’s happy assumption does not explain the results of Regnerus’ study implicating
gay parenting as a key commonality among depressed, drug addicted, and
unemployed adults of a far more inclusive and representative sample, including
Blacks and Hispanics, than Amy Gouldberg’s own sample. Indeed, whose perception
is more “open-minded?”
It is not only wisely conscientious, it is
indeed perceptively healthy to question the long term potential negative emotional and psychological effects—rather
than the applauding of financial upward mobility in skewed studies of the gay
demographic in the corporate workforce (Fetto, Experian Marketing Services) found in society’s sheep-like,
fanatical, gay marriage bandwagon. Jay Roache’, a student of Rutgers
University, himself a gay father of adopted children, acknowledges the
subversive ulterior motives about the mainstream Gay Agenda and its potential
damages, saying “I fear the same that
the perversion of genuine love will be met with illusion and we will see way
more mess coming (Roache Interview April
26, 2014)
It is imperative to question the future
potential of other taboos (incest, pedophilia, polygamy, etc) being made
legally acceptable by the Law of Man instead of the moral Law of God or Nature.
These concepts in mind, it is worth a thorough read of Edward Alexander’s enlightening
summation:
[In 1869, Matthew Arnold] Arnold singled out for relentless
mockery liberalism's obsessive campaign to change England's marriage laws so as
"to give a man leave to marry his deceased wife's sister," that is,
to eliminate the longstanding English taboo on in-law marriage. Defenders of
the taboo claimed that Leviticus forbade such marriages. Liberals said
Leviticus did no such thing and therefore "man's law, the law of liberty,
... makes us free to marry our deceased wife's sister." But Arnold's
objection to the liberal position had nothing to do with Leviticus--"the
voice of an Oriental and polygamous nation." Rather, it expressed his
sense of the sacredness of marriage and the customs that regulate it as the
delicately woven fabric of civilization, a barrier against the promiscuity of
primitive life, against "anarchy." Such barriers are laborious to
create, easy to unravel. England's 65-year battle over this taboo, viewed from
the perspective of our own recent reversal of the laws (to say nothing of
ancient custom) regarding marriage, reverses Marx's famous saying about history
repeating itself, the first time as tragedy, the second as farce. But there is
an eerie resemblance to the present that is worth noting. Arnold mocked
Victorian liberalism's obsession with the "right" to marry one's
deceased wife's sister as the perfect example of its Philistine "double
craving" because it combined "the craving for forbidden fruit and the
craving for legality." (Joe Biden, whatever his shortcomings, grasped this
combination instinctively; and it is thanks in large part to him that a future
book of presidential history may well be entitled Legalizing Forbidden Fruit:
The Age of Obama.) (Alexander, p2)
Speaking of “Forbidden Fruit” it is perhaps
apropos to recall the age-old anti-gay slogan: “Adam and Eve, not Adam and
Steve” and, from there, to consider the issue of gender presentation in same
sex households and the effects of such on a child’s own social-sexual
development.
In traditional heterosexual
households, it is often accepted that Mommy, the feminine principle, presents
as soft, often accommodating, sensitive, affectionate, and fulfilling role of
cook, cleaner, and [patient] child provider; alternatively, Daddy, the
masculine principle, presents often as stern disciplinarian yet wise advisor,
brash and direct in speech, and hard working. In hetero- and homo-sexual homes, how are these masculine and feminine
roles or stereotypes maintained or disassembled? In same sex families, how, if at all, does the
child identify “mommy” and “daddy” or which mommy/daddy is regarded as the
worker/provider and which is regarded as the caretaker/nurturer? “[S]exuality
is an important aspect of gay relationships,” Virginia Casper writes in Gay
Parents/Straight Schools, “But for many straight Americans, it is the
defining one. Asked to imagine a gay-headed family on a Saturday morning, many
Americans would not be likely to conjure up images of laundry and chores (Casper,
22).” Abbie Gouldberg seems to like the idea of the gay household model
creating more open-minded individuals (Wilson, p.4) who perhaps can be said to
be “beyond gender” (such as the incredulous pretention that today’s Americans
live in a “post-racist” society) because “gay parents…encourage a girl to play
with both dolls and trucks” or introducing gender neutral toys and games
(Caldera, et al.), and, like Angelina Jolie’s gender-bending Shiloh, these
ungendered children are supposedly more“Independent (Wilson, p.4).”
Another
issue of note inevitably to surface in any growing family household is the
issue of Sexual Curiosity. Children are often influenced initially in sexual
development by the sexual portrayals in their own household (Bering)—which is
of course not to say children are witnessing explicit sexual activity—and even
displays of affection between parents; mild expressions of desire and/or
flirtations still shape how children feel they are as adults to approach and
conduct themselves with the opposite sex. In modern times, some may argue
children no longer base their interaction on opposite sex by heterosexual
parents’ interaction: now, it seems to be a free for all as children now more
likely have to discern organically, spontaneously, how they will interact with
a person of same or opposite sex, with no set example of etiquette. Studies
(Pick) have shown sexual proclivities, kinks, and/or fetishes are undeniably
shaped by childhood memories and parental impressions (Darling)—does this prove
that children of gay parents are more inclined to fetishize or otherwise find
desirable, elements of homosexual eroticism, including but not limited to
aspects of homosexual foreplay including sex toys? One must wonder if this is
an unintended and imperceptible side effect (that perhaps Ms. Gouldberg did not
anticipate in her “cars and dolls” encouragement) of this Aeon’s debauched
permission of a “right” granted without consideration of its potential damage. Again,
if in another 50 years Presidents are granting rights to pedophiles to legally
seduce and/or marry children, without seriously contemplating the gruesome
possibilities and mental instability from which could be wrought, it is worth
considering if that too would be considered a positive progression of America’s
“heroic tolerance”, ironic in its polarity to the arguably (to today’s
standards) “close-minded” and “oppressive” Puritan values this nation was first
purportedly founded upon.
Often children of hetero or homosexual parents, for whatever reasons
including bullying and/or peer pressure, do not want to identify with
their parents and, as a personal revolution or liberation, present themselves
in ways as different from their parents as possible. Could this include
children of homosexual parents who deliberately and resentfully present
themselves as heterosexual (even to some extremes of denying their own latent
homosexual desires) out of shame for homosexual parents’ stigmatism in society
at large? Children also obviously mimic their parents, finding the parental
example set before them, regardless of society at large, as the Ideal they
should aspire to. Could
children of homosexual parents feel, especially in early stages of development,
that homosexual relationships are indeed the “norm,” the “majority” or even the
only way relationships are supposed to be, just as undoubtedly
heterosexual parents’ children have felt it is the “only way?” Again, Ms.
Gouldberg feels the opposite:
Q: Does any of the research show the opposite—that some
kids of same-sex parents want to be anything but gay, not because they don't
love their parents, but because they've been dealing with
"difference" all their lives?
A:
That is exactly what I found. These kids are tired of defending their families
and they're very aware that their parents feel this pressure to produce straight
kids. They're so aware, growing up in the lens of media scrutiny, they feel
they need to say, if I feel like screaming at my mom, it has nothing to do with
the fact that
she's gay! (Wilson, p 4)
Conclusively, children may be
faced with peer dissatisfaction or bullying for homosexual parents, however, it
has been demonstrated through evidence presented in the paper, that although
same sex relations are becoming more widely accepted, children of gays and
lesbians do not necessarily identify as homosexual in any larger rates than
children of heterosexuals. Furthermore, it seems time can only tell as in the
next generation or two will the long term psychological effects be fully
realized, the consequences of the “open” perceptions of this modern, “post-racist,”
post-gender”, “post-homophobia” society. Like Pandora’s Box[1],
like the “broad…way to Hell”[2],
maybe there is such a thing as “too open.” Perhaps it is truly best to conclude
with a return to the words of Jay Roache’, who candidly and emotionally reveals
his own misgivings as a gay man and conflicts within himself concerning the
image and gender presentation(s) he wants his child[ren] to be influenced by:
Now in my personal relationship I would feel completely
awkward expressing affection in from of my child, male or female. And I desire
a male child. My issue is male bonding and that brotherly connection I feel
that my dyssexualism[3]
has interrupted… At any rate...I
would never take away a mother from my child and yes there are such things as
adoptive mothers etc but I was born with my birth mother. I would enjoy what
I've experienced to be delivered to my son. That mother and father dynamic I
just know that I would be more of a present father figure for my son…I would
provide my child with his birth mother and birth father. Although my love for Brandon is
ridiculous and never to cease, I believe that things could work in our favor,
and I would have a present mother figure at all times for this child. So yes
I'm saying that I would PREFER having my son while Brandon and I are together
but having a woman I between us. And I feel that is selfish. But that's what I
would prefer. Perhaps that's me
not willing to leave my present sex style/love for my child and is what's
preventing me from receiving that gift. [Regarding his strict, abusive,
heterosexual Christian parents who often demonized him and discouraged
homosexual proclivities, Roache continues] And regardless of their acceptance or not, I
would have probably [lived up to the Christian example] and been single all of
my life or just fell into a heterosexual relationship. It wasn't really me
deviating [by engaging in homosexual affairs] it was me more so no longer
denying my [innate] shadow. Single or heterosexually conforming, I would've
lived a secret online gay life. If I
was raised by gay parents hmmm...it depends on how they raised me. If they
never showed me to a heterosexual style I don't know how I would be. If they did
present healthy comparative heterosexual friends or acquaintances as
examples/role models then I still don't know. I think I would be open. More
experimentative. I would end up in a heterosexual marriage because I still feel
a Mother and Father, male and female role is important for my child to grow up
seeing. But I would probably dibble and dabble [in homosexual encounters]
still.
Works
Cited
Alexander, Edward. "Liberal
Dogmatism; How a far-out idea becomes orthodox." The
Weekly Standard 12
Aug. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 25 Apr.
2014.
Becker, Cynthia S., Ed.,
"Changing Family Patterns." The American Family: Reflecting a Changing Nation. 2005 ed. Detroit: Gale, 2005.
Information Plus Reference Series. Opposing Viewpoints
in Context.
Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
Caldera, Yvonne M.; Huston,
Aletha C.; O’Brien, Marion; “Social Interactions and Play Patterns of Parents
and Toddlers with Feminine, Masculine, and Neutral Toys”. Child Development, Vol. 60, No.1 (Feb 1989), pp 70-76, Published by
Wiley Online on behalf of Society
For Research in Child Development Web reprint http://www.jstor.org/stable/1131072
Casper,
Virginia, and Steven B. Schultz. Gay
parents/straight schools: Building communication and trust. Teachers
College Press, 1999.
Darling,
Carol A., and Mary W. Hicks. "Parental influence on adolescent sexuality:
Implications for parents as educators." Journal
of Youth and Adolescence 11.3
(1982): 231-245.
John Fetto, for Experian Marketing Services reports
“A look at household income and discretionary spending of lesbian, gay, and
heterosexual Americans” http://www.experian.com/blogs/marketing-forward/2012/07/20/sim-a-look-at-household-income-and-discretionary-spend-of-lesbian-gay-and-heterosexual-americans/
"Gay Parenting." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. Detroit: Gale, 2013.
Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
Goldberg,
Abbie E. Lesbian and gay
parents and their children: Research on the family life cycle. American
Psychological Association, 2010.
Lamb,
Michael E. Parenting and child
development in" nontraditional" families. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers, 1999.
"Looking at the research on
gay parenting, Mark Regnerus noticed that the samples
of most studies were small and
unrepresentative, so he collected a sample that
was random and large." National Review 16
Dec. 2013: 12. Opposing Viewpoints
in
Context. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
Pick,
Susan, and Patricia Andrade Palos. "Impact of the family on the sex lives
of adolescents." Adolescence 30.119 (1995): 667-675.
Roache’,
Jay. Personal Interview/Conversation, consent to cite granted April 26, 2014
"The gay parent report card." The Wilson
Quarterly 36.4
(2012). Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
Wilson, Suzanne. "Children of Lesbian and Gay
Parents Are Not More Likely to Have
Problems." Gay Parenting. Ed. Beth Rosenthal. Detroit:
Greenhaven Press, 2013.
Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "A Conversation
with Psychologist Abbie
Goldberg: What Studies Show About Gay/Lesbian
Parenting." Daily Hampshire
Gazette 22
July 2009. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 25 Apr. 2014.
Works
Consulted
Bos, Henny, Loes van Gelderen, and Nanette Gartrell. "Lesbian and Heterosexual Two-Parent Families: Adolescent–Parent Relationship Quality and Adolescent Well-Being." Journal of Child and Family Studies (2014): 1-16. Web reprint. < http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10826-014-9913-8#page-1 >Web Search 4 Apr 2014
Brown, Sarah S. "Popular
Opinion on Homosexuality: The Shared Moral Language of Opposing Views."Sociological
Inquiry. 70.4 (2000): 446-61. Web Reprint. < http://www.dallasvoice.com/gay-and-lesbian-parents-teaching-kids-its-ok-to-be-different-1013572.html
> Web Search. 4 Apr. 2014.
Cahill, Sean, Mitra Ellen, and Sarah Tobias. “Family Policy:
Issues Affecting Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Families.” New York:
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute, 2002. ngltf.org. Web.
4 Apr. 2014.
Family Equality Council and Center
for American Progress. United States. National Association of Social Workers. Strengthening
Economic Security for Children Living in LGBTQ Families. Denver, CO:
Movement Advancement Project, 2012. Web.
. Web
Search 4 Apr 2014
Fitzgerald, Bridget. "Children
of lesbian and gay parents: A review of the literature." Marriage
& Family Review 29.1 (1999): 57-75.Web Reprint. < http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J002v29n01_05#.U0JwyahdXZU > Web Search. 4 Apr. 2014
Gantz, Joe. Whose Child Cries: Children of Gay Parents Talk about their Lives. Rolling Hills Estates, CA: Jalmar Press, 1983. Print. The American College of Pediatricians. “Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time for Change?” acpeds.org. Mar 26 2009. Web. 4 Apr 2014
Gates, Gary J. “LGBT Parenting in
the United States” The Williams Institute. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA School of Law,
2013. Web. < http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/LGBT-Parenting.pdf > Web Search. 4
Apr. 2014
Golombok, Susan, and
Fiona Tasker. "Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their
children? Findings from a longitudinal study of lesbian families." Developmental psychology 32.1 (1996): 3.
Kosciw, Joseph G., and Elizabeth M.
Diaz. Involved,
Invisible, Ignored: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender
Parents and Their Children in Our Nation's K-12 Schools. Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). 121
West 27th Street Suite 804, New York, NY 10001, 2008. Web. <http://www.familyequality.org/_asset/5n43xf/familiesandschools.pdf > Web Search. 4 Apr. 2014
Lewin, Ellen . "Embracing
Consumption: Making Sense of Gay Fathers’ Strategies for Becoming
Parents." The Austin Summit on LGBT Families . University of Texas.
Austin, Texas. 26 Apr 2013. Reading. Departments of Gender, Women’s &
Sexuality Studies, and Anthropology. Iowa: University of Iowa, 2013. Web. < http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/sociology/_files/pdfs/lewin.pdf > Web Search. 4 Apr. 2014
Marks, Loren. "Same-sex
parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American
psychological association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting." Social
Science Research 41 (2012): 735-751. Web Reprint. < http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/Marks.pdf >Web Search. 4 Apr. 2014
Pluhar*, Erika I.,
and Peter Kuriloff. "What really matters in family communication about
sexuality? A qualitative analysis of affect and style among African American
mothers and adolescent daughters." Sex
Education4.3 (2004): 303-321.
Pick, Susan, and
Patricia Andrade Palos. "Impact of the family on the sex lives of
adolescents." Adolescence 30.119 (1995): 667-675.
Walker*, Joy.
"Parents and sex education—looking beyond ‘the birds and the bees’." Sex Education 4.3 (2004): 239-254.
[1] The
Greek myth of Pandora’s Box explained at length here http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/grecoromanmyth1/a/050410Pandora_and_her_box_or_pithos.htm
[2] Matthew
7:13
[3]
A
concept referring to “dysfunctional sexuality” or a luminal, undefinable and
fluid sexuality or asexuality. Indication to its meaning here http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/28522-introduction-and-question-on-asexuality/
No comments:
Post a Comment