Debbie…normally I like your posts, but I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with your view on this issue.

The article isn’t saying that all boys should be princesses and start wearing tutus. It’s simply showing that if a little boy shows a preference for dressing up and doing stereotypically “girly” things, that he shouldn’t be ostracized and made to feel like there’s something deeply wrong or disturbing about him. It doesn’t mean that he’ll grow up to be a drag queen or even gay. It’s simply self-expression at a young age, and like all kids, they like something new every day.

In this day and age, typical gender roles are outdated and silly. Girls are free to play with trucks and dinosaurs and grow up to vote, have successful careers, and actually have a shot at being president. Why shouldn’t boys be allowed to like the color pink or to put on a dress during imaginative play? Seriously…what is the big freaking deal?

Rimma on November 12, 2010 at 2:34 pm

Spot on Debbie! Social Engineering by liberals has in the past and will in the future ensure that the psychiatrist and psychologist keep their pockets full.

Transgender Bender: Surgery to Woman, Then Man Again
Transgender Women Say Transition Before Irrevocable Sex Change Is Fraught With Psychological Hurdles

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodResourceCenter/charles-kane-transgender-woman-back-man-surgery/story?id=12095720

Duane on November 12, 2010 at 2:36 pm

yes, we should discourage boys from wearing what they feel like wearing and taking dance classes just much as we should discourage girls from playing soccer, doing well in math and going to college! Get real!!!

alex on November 12, 2010 at 3:43 pm

Yes, if they want to be tranny hookers when the hit their teens, who are we to judge? 😉

Worry01 on November 12, 2010 at 3:56 pm

To this day, I bristle with macho resentment each time I walk into a mens’ lavatory and see one of those ****ing folding diaper stations. Worse yet is seeing the damn thing in use!

Graty Slapchop on November 12, 2010 at 3:58 pm

I do not know why you are objecting to this Deb. Our first lady is a transexual, and her “husband” is a bitchy gay.

And wasn’t it Bill Clinton and the President, Hillary Clinton, that set out to feminize America?

I think Reagan was the last Real Man in the White House.

Jonathan Grant on November 12, 2010 at 4:20 pm

Good news everyone, the bible tells us just what to do to guys who dress up in womens clothing, kill them. If it’s the word of god then you can’t ignore it.

Nak on November 12, 2010 at 4:37 pm

Well, Nak, thankfully we don’t follow the fables of bible, but laws of the land. And the law tells us what to do with people like you!

alex on November 12, 2010 at 5:03 pm

I find it hilarious when women think that natural roles for men and women can be interchangeable. While women should be free to have careers, there’s no denying God’s/nature’s law that women are the predominant nurturers. Women can’t excel over men in forms of physicality, and men can’t excel over women when it comes to child rearing. There are specific roles to be fulfilled. Where is this child’s father? He should’ve been the first one to tell his mother to STFU and dress the boy as a BOY.

Kirk on November 12, 2010 at 5:18 pm

I’m in agreement with Debbie here. I wouldn’t be caught dead in pink shoes or a tutu. I’d probably die of embarassment if I had to wear that stuff. My mother never dressed me in that stuff and I’m grateful for that.

Ghostwriter on November 12, 2010 at 5:27 pm

Well, sometimes when you tell the boy that only girls wear dresses, the boy groups up to be a transexual and has a sex change operation so he can wear dresses.

I know of a family near where I live that had an adolescent boy that thought he did want a sex change. The family let him wear skirt and wear his hair long. After a few years he started dressing in a more masculine way.

I think that is a better outcome than the sex change one.

Perpetua on November 12, 2010 at 6:27 pm

Gross, disgusting and the ultimate reason why will fall as a nation. Past generations would never put up with this. Now we have feminized boys to the point they want to be girls. There are advantages in society to being a girl or acting like a girl. Feminization is applauded and masculinity is rubbed out in society. So a boy gets sees wearing pink shoes for breast cancer awareness as cool and get applauded. Justin Beiber and the emo types are wanted by the girls because the girls want an effeminate boy. A boy who is in touch with the “feminine side.” Being a masculine boy is called a bully. There is a line to cross from being a gentleman who treats a woman with respect and an effeminate boy or man who acts like a female to get a response from other females.
Muslims must be laughing now. The destruction from within will only make the destruction from the outside only faster and easier.

CaliforniaScreaming on November 12, 2010 at 6:32 pm

Ol’ Ronnie Ray-Gun was no macho man in his sack preferences. In fact, he was one of the many Hollywood secret “glitter gays.” Yeah, he and actors such as Rock Hudson had chiseled chins and broad shoulders and *portrayed* roving rogues and lusty ladykillers on film, but are you people so naive to think that gay men are only effeminate and slight of build?

I have news for ya, then, because there’s whole gay subcultures such as “bears” who are often bearded, hairy and beefy-built men and not in the slightest feminine-appearing.

united states of sharia on November 12, 2010 at 6:32 pm

Gays, contrary to the Hollywood stereotype, are often very masculine except in their sexual preference. The latter is neither here nor there and they still act as men are raised to act. While I have a moral objection to homosexuality, that is still different from the outright femininization of men.

That always looks out of place and is positively ridiculous.

NormanF on November 12, 2010 at 6:38 pm

That child is laughed at by his fellow students. IF not in person, behind his back. I guarantee that! Book or no book. Understanding teachers or not. THE OTHER KIDS KNOW HE IS NOT LIKE THEM. They WILL resent his differences and all the EXTRA attention he gets.

His mother is trying to make everybody notice HER child and even wrote a book to draw MORE attention to his “difference”. LOOK! LOOK! At my SPECIAL child and aren’t I just soooooo great for having one LIKE HIM. oohhhh la la.

The whole family is narcissistic. Typical anti-social behavior.

Everybody is wrong except the Kilodavis family, that is their attitude.

They are wrong to foist their child’s weird and odd on other people’s kids and demand ATTENTION. WRONG! WRONG!

Sewsalot on November 12, 2010 at 7:43 pm

It’s one thing for a young child to try on mom’s clothes but it’s another thing for mom to buy the boy girl’s clothes in his size and encourage this behavior. Disgusting.

Where’s dad? Getting his hair highlighted , getting a manicure and pedicure, getting his eyebrows plucked, getting his back waxed, and buying skin bronzer.

michman on November 12, 2010 at 9:40 pm

Debbie, this is pure child abuse!

Bobby'sBrain on November 13, 2010 at 12:28 am

Dear Debbie, this is no different to child abuse!

In the UK a couple of years ago, female members of parliament started a group called “Pink stinks”

http://www.pinkstinks.co.uk/

to stop young girls liking pink! I am not kidding! This seems like an extension of this appalling perversion.

These scum are trying to castrate the next generation! why don’t they dress a muslim in pink, THAT is more appropriate!

juniper on November 13, 2010 at 7:55 am

How is restricting the way someone chooses to dress within the US any different then Shari Law in the Middle East? Limiting Freedom of Speech/expression goes against American values and to say different mimics Muslim extremism. While I would have reservations against my child dressing up in women’s clothing, I realize that it isn’t my right to infringe on his. Also, the NFL has a period of time (not sure how long) where players are allowed to wear pink with their uniforms to support those fighting breast cancer. It has nothing to do with gender roles. Anyone who says different is an idiot.

Our freedoms are what define us. As soon as we attack others for their personal choices we become no better than those who strike at the very heart freedom. It may be a double edged sword that eventually destroys us, but to go against it will cause the collapse far faster than any external enemy.

Ps. My family and I use to dress my little brother up in my older sisters dress for shits and giggles. It was great!

James on November 13, 2010 at 8:40 am

A look back at the previous administration might help solidify Debbie’s point. An entire party, the Republicans, who bend over and take it up the ass from the fufu democrats every opportunity they get. Just a couple examples:

When they fired eight whack-job U.S. attorneys while the Clintons fired all of them, however many their were, and then just sat there while the democrats savaged them. No fighting back except by conservative pundits. The party made to look like a bunch of limp-wristed wussies.

The Joe Wilson-Valerie Plame affair. Allowing a fellow party member and associate to be sent to prison over a scandal created out of thin air by democrats and the media. Even more sickening: Allowing the mirage of scandal to continue after it was disclosed that Richard Armitage was behind the leak that the entire episode revolved around. Scooter Libby, entirely innocent, hung out to dry by an administration too pansi-fied, wuss-ified and chick-ified to do what’s right for fear of what their enemies will do or say to them.

An entire political party, the one who is supposed to represent the conservative worldview, that refuses to engage an opposition party that will turn this country into Cambodia, only on a much larger scale.

Now the Bolsheviks are coming for the rest of us. Debbie’s post being just one more excellent example.

CornCoLeo on November 13, 2010 at 10:51 am

Previous post (2nd Paragraph) “however many THERE were” instead of their. Also, I normally try to make only short posts. It was difficult to do on this one. Sorry.

CornCoLeo on November 13, 2010 at 10:56 am

So even though God commands you to kill gays and men who dress in womens clothing, you all ignore it? I was told that the word of god is infallible and always true so why do you people ignore his command? And I don’t bother saying this on Muslim sights because last i checked they don’t make up he majority of this nation and have no say in our politics unlike all the idiot chrisitains and jews who listen to a 2000 year old fairytale for political guidance.

Nak on November 13, 2010 at 11:02 am

If he were still alive, I’m sure it would have wound up in Michael Jackson’s library.

Don’t get me wrong, I do believe that gender confusion is something that does occasionally occur in children like any other genetic abnormality through no fault of the parents. However, while I believe that parents should try to be sympathetic and understanding if their child tends to lean that way, outright encouragement of it is just plain wrong.

I hope this woman is planning on home schooling her kid until he is old enough to go to a trade school. My guess is that he’ll be either be taking up something that involves hairdressing or women’s fashion design, which means he’ll only be surrounded by others like himself. Needless to say, in any public K-12 school, he would probably wind up coming home beaten and bloodied from day one.

Irving on November 13, 2010 at 1:14 pm

Y’all need to calm down. It’s clearly this kid’s choice. What wrong with making him happy? Gay people contribute to society as much as you or I do, so even if he does grow up to be gay, I highly doubt it’ll be the end of the world. It’s also unlikely that he will have any mental problems unless it’s from people bullying him, so if that’s what you’re worried about, cool it with the bashing. Pink actually used to be considered a color for males and light blue for girls. And to those who say gender roles are irreversible: Are you against women wearing pants? Or perhaps kilts? Or – oh no! – women wearing the military trend? I’m a teenage girl and I’m currently one test away from getting my blackbelt. Cool off, and by the way, gender confusion isn’t necessarily a genetic abnormality. Being LGBTQ is perfectly normal. 🙂

Steph on November 13, 2010 at 1:50 pm

As a high school teacher, I know that I as well as many of my contemporaries have all noticed a gut-wrenching trend over the course of the past few years. You can accuse me of stereotyping all you want, but there are many of us inside the classrooms accross this country who know that if you have a class of 25 students, the highest performers academically will most likely be female. Those who generally submit the most legible homework or classroom assignment will probably be female. The majority of our male students will more than likely be too tired to be involved in classroom dynamics because their lives will mostly be consumed by three things: athletics, video games or internet porn.
I know this statement doesn’t apply to every male student. But I think you’d be amazed at the vast numbers to whom it does reflect.

Dan Hickman on November 13, 2010 at 3:14 pm

I went to an authority on the subject, my 16 year old grandson. He’s a typical teen who was never discouraged from playing with “girl” toys or wearing pink. His and his friends’ reactions, I quote, “that mother is f**king weird.

Naomi Romm on November 13, 2010 at 9:23 pm

As much as I personally loathe the coprophagous Katamites,
if you read up on history a bit, you will see that
homosexuals, a 5% minority amongst animals and humans at large,
are the overwhelming majority in the warrior classes.

Alexander, who conquered the world, was a flaming fag, the celtic and hindu warrior class where all homos.
Annibal’s Gaelic army where psyching out the Romans(as mercenaries for Carthago)with sex in public just like the San Fagciscos hippie democrats do today…So where all
the armies of conquering Islam, Turks and all where all gays,
the British Royal Navy was, as Churchill said:
“The real traditions of the British Navy are rum, buggery and the lash.” and last but not least, the Legion Etrangère flaming
reputation need not repeating…

So, one may not like these degenerates, but they have nothing to do with civilizations’ collapse.

So, just take a deep breath and ignore their swishing,
nothing is gonna happen on their account!

Ming_the_Merciless on November 13, 2010 at 9:39 pm

The big problem here is that, for all the complaints about the feminization of men and masculinization of women, nobody seems to want to reverse this via means that might succeed.

The most obvious way to restore traditional gendered behavior is to get the women out of the workplace and into the home. This would require ending various civil rights protections for women, and indeed, encouraging higher pay for men. Abortion must be nearly ended as well. This is an approach that, in theory at least, might even be effective. Of course, it will never be done, so challenges to feminization of men take the form of mocking a mother’s effort to raise a gender dysphoric son.

skzion on November 13, 2010 at 9:40 pm

I am far more concerned that a book like this will promote that this sort of behaviour is “normal”. I tend to differ on Conservatives on issues like this…the behaviour of course is NOT normal, and I do not think it should be promoted as such. But I am far more concerned with a child like this being bullied, harassed and made fun of because he likes girly things. I just can’t abide that.

Sometimes, something like this happens and a child is too young to understand. I hate when people are mean to them. Children like this tend to be sweet and docile and NOT mean, gruff and nasty. I hate to see them tortured because they are indeed “different”. It’s just cruel.

What I hate most about the gay political agenda is that they want to promote their lifestyle as “normal” when of course it is not. I do resent that twisting of reality but at the same time I do not hate gays or think of them as “less than”. I think America has afforded them so much more acceptance and they should appreciate it without trying to demonize those who do not appreciate the gay lifestyle (but do not descriminate against them). Gays need to understand why some people are not comfortable with their lifestyle and that should be ok as long as the people do NOT descriminate against them.

Anyway, I have a heart for little children like this because it is not normal, but I hate to see them mistreated and torn down because of it. I also resent the left trying to make this seem “normal”. It clearly is NOT, but I don’t want kids with this issue to suffer.

I just have a heart for a true underdog. I liked this little boy, but I was sad his Mum wrote the book. It’s not gonna do what she wants it to do and to publicize this child’s idiosyncracy is the wrong thing to do.

I have known little boys like this and I like them and want them to be who they are without being hurt. If I could make it so they were “normal”, I would, but I can’t and I guess I just hate the bullying.

Skunky on November 13, 2010 at 11:39 pm

Whatever anyone’s feelings are about traditional gender roles, and the effects of them being redefined/subverted, a basic fact has been ignored for the most part.

“Pink boys”, to borrow one mother’s term for children like her son, exist. They have always existed. They will always exist. Getting your panties all bunched up over their existence is about as ineffectual as protesting about the existence of redheads. You can force legions of gingers to dye every last strand of hair black, but it will continue to grow back into a fabulously copper coif.

Same with the sissies. Whether parents toss every pink article out and dress them up in blues and Army fatigues, teachers berate them for liking wearing pink shirts and dresses, or classmates bully them when they are in the halls, the child in question will sill be a sissy. The only difference will be a battered and ashamed sissy. And that is the kind of treatment a lot of these kids are subjected to, by kids who aren’t taught better, and the adults who are failing them.

The point of My Princess Boy is NOT recruitment/encouragement, but mostly just to give comfort and visibility to the kids who suffer such appalling treatment.

Robert on November 14, 2010 at 4:52 am

The boy wearing the pink cleats and the wearing of pink uniform shirts — neither of them indicated any “feminization” of our men. Both are being worn in support of CAUSES — the first being Breast Cancer awareness, the second being Anti Bullying Awareness.

I find it appalling that you could point to such things as indicators of the “feminization” of the men of our culture. Especially the Anti Bullying act — when our kids are bullied for all kinds of STUPID things — such as wearing a pink shirt by a boy might make him a target for what is essentially anti-gay bullying (he would be labeled a “queer”, “homo”, “prissy” and worse for wearing a a pink shirt. You do NOT know whereof you speak.

I see no evidence that parents are “turning their children into transvestites or homosexuals”. I see parents who are loving and supportive of their children’s desires. When I was younger, I loved to get dressed up for Purim (Jewish holiday when we wear costumes). My choice was NOT to dress as the Queen or the Princess. I chose instead to dress as the villainous MALE Haman! But no one thought, “OMG, she is going to be a lesbian. She is going to be butch. Or she is going to want surgery to become a man,” What is wrong with you people???

When I was growing up I was much more interested in the work my daddy did around the house than in the work my mommy did around the house. When I was an adult I did work in which I wore jeans, workboots, a tool belt and climbed ladders, cherry pickers, and built things.

I am as straight as the come and I am actually a PRETTY woman who loves getting dressed up and putting on make up. I love men.

There is absolutely no reason for us to have such narrow definitions of what makes a man or what makes a woman. Get over it folks…

Rochelle on November 14, 2010 at 8:33 am

Robert and Rochelle, every day, I see young man-childs and woman-childs walking about. Yesterday, I went shopping at a grocery story, I saw an adult woman (probably in her 20s) carrying what looks like a big cartoony frog-like doll on her back, like you would carry a backpack. That’s not a woman, but a woman-child who is apparently stuck in pre-puberty stage of her childhood. What the hell happened there?

It’s fine for parents to show loving supports to their children, to the point of NOT KEEPING THEM PERPETUALLY STUCK OF THEIR CHILDHOOD DESIRES! There is a good reason why nature made men and women as they are, and children should expect to follow its natural gender roles as they’re growing up and develop their own ways at the adult stage. It’s fine to learn some basic tools to get by life. But trying to switch around gender roles on them and stick them to it for long as it may is a dangerous social-liberal experiment, which can undermine natural gender roles and endanger the natural and social development of men and women as they were designed so by several thousand years worth of human evolution and nature. We cannot make men be more like women and women be more like men. Our physical, mental, psychological, and biological structures were not designated for that.

There are twisted minds and sick f**ks out there working as social engineers (scientists, psychiatrists, child development experts, talk show hosts, etc.) trying to corrupt and perverse the natural state of man and woman, probably as a way of saying “F**k you” to God. We have human deviants among us who like to fool you (like Rochelle, Rimma, and Robert) to believe their lies and accept their falsehoods about making human “better” by twisting around gender roles and producing man-childs and woman-childs in successive generations.

It’s hard to get a free-thinking grown adult to obey a stupid or bad law but it’s much easy to get a child to obey it likewise. The more man-childs and woman-childs there are, the easier for them to obey bad/stupid laws as long as they are comfortably “provided” and “protected” by a totalitarian regime.

Bobby'sBrain on November 14, 2010 at 11:04 am

This is SICK. The lady has a whole closet full of princess clothes for her SON?!? I think she is imposing gayness on a helpless boy.

And let me ask you smart liberals something. So…a 7 yr old, a 9 yr old, a 12 yr old, ACTUALLY KNOWS what they WANT?!?! is this what your telling me?!?! That these little kids KNOW their “PREFERENCE”??!! Prefernce FOR WHAT? Shiny things and cookies??!LOLOL YAAHHH RIIITE!

Odo on November 14, 2010 at 12:36 pm

Some misconceptions…

1. “There is a good reason why nature made men and women as they are” and “the natural state of man and woman”.

Nature indeed made man as he is, and untouched, he would be conceived by many as masculine. But women? There is nothing natural about femininity as it is construed here in the west. Since he put it better than I ever will, from the blog Cephalogenic:

“Think of two people in a state of nature, unclothed except for an unstylish strip of cloth to cover their sex organs. Can a man in such a state be masculine? Without a doubt. He is hairy–bearded, if nothing else. He is rough. He is primeval. There are things he can do and say and buy to make him more or less masculine, of course: but the man himself as he exists can be masculine.

Now; can a woman in such a state be feminine? Of course not. Nothing she does, no action she performs, will be accepted in our culture as properly feminine. For starters, she, like the men, is hairy, and this is absolutely unacceptable. Look at the quantity of bile–hatred, really–that was dumped on Julia Roberts when she dared to be seen in public with unshaven armpits, or Mo’Nique with hairy legs. A woman must purchase some sort of depilatory agent, or she is disgusting and unfeminine.”

And then of course make-up, and jewelry, and clothes and other accessories. Femininity is “something that women buy, and what is more, they must buy it, over and over again, until the day they die.” I can assure you, Bobby’s Brain, that nature did NOT create Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, or any other celebrated beauty as they are remembered: it was a lot of hard work FIGHTING nature that got them on the covers of magazines.

2. “I think she is imposing gayness on a helpless boy.”

She’s allowing him the age-appropriate toys he clearly wants to the exclusion of the toys you would rather he played with; I’m pretty sure she is not handing him dildos, butt plugs or “Inches” to try out.

And I’ll also point out that virtually every last adult gay man and lesbian had straightness shoved down their throats from cradle to prom if not beyond, and that lifelong experiment by millions of parents FAILED. If he’s a gay sissy, or a straight sissy, wearing a pink dress won’t change that one jot.

3. Drag queens are almost exclusively gay men, who do so for funsies and entertainment. Transvestites, however, are mostly straight men who somehow enjoy being in women’s clothes; they rarely do so for the entertainment of others.

So lets call it J Edgar Hooverism Syndrome.

Robert on November 14, 2010 at 2:18 pm

I agree that the this feminization of little boys and men is a disgusting display of PC stupidity.

But what creeps me out is that there is no face on the poorly drawn subject on the book’s cover. Why is the boy(?) not given a face? Just adds to the creep-factor about all this.

John on November 14, 2010 at 3:55 pm

The pink ribbons, pink worn in the NFL, pink tops on my yoplait yogurt are all doing a great job of raising awareness. I know that whenever I see something that is conspicuously pink I think of breasts. But that’s just me.

Richard on November 15, 2010 at 12:51 am

“Think of two people in a state of nature, unclothed except for an unstylish strip of cloth to cover their sex organs. Can a man in such a state be masculine? Without a doubt.

This is the stupidest thing i have ever heard.

Now; can a woman in such a state be feminine? Of course not. Nothing she does, no action she performs, will be accepted in our culture as properly feminine.

This is the second stupidest thing i have ever heard.

And where did “our culture” come out of “state of nature, unclothed except for an unstylish strip of cloth to cover their sex organs” HUH? Our 21st cent. culture is a “state of nature where we wear unstylish stiprs to cover our sex organs”??? Seems to me there are a whole bunch of variables someone is missing.

OF COURSE A WOMAN WOULD BE FEMININE IN THAT “STATE OF NAUTRE”!!! IN FACT I DONT THINK I CAN THINK OF ANYTHING HOTTER THAN THAT!

And a man in that “state of nature” can be as easily “feminine” as a woman can be “masculine” – think about 3000 years back. Think about what an alpha is, about what tribal hierarchy is.

Nothing she does, no action she performs, will be accepted in our culture as properly feminine. For starters, she, like the men, is hairy, and this is absolutely unacceptable.

Wait a second! Now in our culture we dont walk around naked with unstylish strips of cloth do we!

A woman must purchase some sort of depilatory agent, or she is disgusting and unfeminine.”

Wow, the third stupidest thing i have ever heard. Just go back 500 years, you think that would be the case? A “depilatory agent”??? WOOOOW talk about moral relativism and product of the times! You people do realize that after you die the world continues to go on and things do change. Feminism has ALWAYS existed, with or without “depilatory agents”, and WILL CONTINUE to exist without “depilatory agents”.

Femininity is “something that women buy, and what is more, they must buy it, over and over again, until the day they die.”

Do people actually eat this up?! By far the fourth stupidest thing I have ever heard. R u SERIOUS! I can look at a woman and SEE the FEMINITY IN HER FACE, IN HER BODY. She does not need to buy silicone breasts to have feminine hips or gucci bags or two inch heels. She can be COMPLETLY naked, W/O shaving or buying or putting on makeup, and FEMINITY WOULD BE WRITTEN ALL OVER EVERY CREVICE OF HER BODY (including those soft thin hairs protruding from her arm pit 🙂 R u serious with these quotes?

I can assure you, Bobby’s Brain, that nature did NOT create Marilyn Monroe.

I can assure you nature does not create anything. God does.

She’s allowing him the age-appropriate toys he clearly wants to the exclusion of the toys you would rather he played with;

Ummmm…those are NOT toys, those are CLOTHES, WOMANS CLOTHES on a little BOY. I wouldint doubt that dildos and butt plugs arent a far way off.

And I’ll also point out that virtually every last adult gay man and lesbian had straightness shoved down their throats from cradle to prom if not beyond, and that lifelong experiment by millions of parents FAILED.

Ok. Can you define for me what “shoving staightness” down somebody’s throat is? Cuz it looks to me “nature” imposes its own straightness – you know penis and vagina! Opposed to a freak mother imposing gayness on a natural boy by dressing him up in prinsess clothes.

What you fail to mention is that many people have been confused when younger, thought they were gay or lesbian, got with same sex and threw up all over the same sex. You also fail to mention people who have been supposedly “gay” their whole life but all of a sudden, at 40, have a change of heart. And if you start telling me it is natural being gay, how then do you explain bisexuality? How do you explain those people who “come out” of their “sissiness” etc. Seems thats just societies way of imposing confusion.

If he’s a gay sissy, or a straight sissy, wearing a pink dress won’t change that one jot.

You see this is where our society is damaged beyond repair. When we use terms like “straight sissy” and “gay sissy” – let me ask you, this “straight sissy” – does he like to get it in the butt and dress in womans clothes? If he does, well there you have it, another compartmentalization of confusion from our wonderful society. Another broken hollow soul with no where to go and no identity besides being a “sissy”.

Transvestites, however, are mostly straight men who somehow enjoy being in women’s clothes; they rarely do so for the entertainment of others.

That is not how the term transvestite was first used in history, and at least around belmont and clark i can assure you every last person that would identify hiumself as a “transvestite” is 100percent gay. Maybe you are thinking of the fetish i dont know.

And you do see with that statement that there is no way any of this is “natural” right? If one associetes getting off with something like clothes , THAT AINT NATURAL right????????????? Its not like they came out the womb and they loved womens clothes. From an early age there had to be some sort of association with it, some sort of subtle imposition that eats away at ones mind.

odO on November 15, 2010 at 4:14 pm

I was talking to a 13 yr old niece of my buddies a few weeks back. She was sad so I asked her what was wrong. You know her answer? She broke up with her GIRLFRIEND. I was like WHAAAA! Your girlfriend??? YOUR 13 YEARS OLD! You don’t even have a developed schema for eroticism or romance but you’re “recovering” from your “breakup” with your lesbian girlfriend!

You know what the problem is? The problem is that it’s actually “cool” nowadays to be “different” – you know, get some P.R., like Eddie Izzard. Use it to your advantage. I mean cmon, 13yrold lesbians?

Just go to youtube and type in “foot” and you will see young men whom identify themselves as “gay” licking their own feet – – THAT is the sick deprived society we live in. Just type in “life is short, have an affair” into Google and feast your eyes on Ashley Madison – – THAT is the sick deprived society we live in. EVERYTHING is designed to screw us up, to catch us up, to make us slip and fall and never get up.

#%@$%#$$#

odO on November 15, 2010 at 4:30 pm

1. I’m slightly upset that the author/artist chose to imitate the art of the famous book “The Little Prince”, (Le petit prince by Antoine de Saint Exupéry). The cover is virtually the same (although not as good as Exupéry’s, which was illustrated by the author/airplane pilot, himself). This is a sort of artistic plagiarism, unless of course, the artist acknowledged this.

2. I agree with Debbie on this issue, but I would add that I think it’s very useful to distinguish very clearly between what’s acceptable and what’s not. Like distinguishing a little dress-up versus a habitual and wide-spread “feminizing” of young boys in general. I actually have less of a problem with parents who allow their little boy to dress up in girly clothes in their home than I do with the public school system who tries to make boys act more like girls and punishes them for being and acting like boys. (No, I’m not talking about making bullying OK.) Of course parents who encourage their boy in this way instead of offering other alternatives are doing both their son and their larger society a disservice, and I am personally opposed to it. However, that is their prerogative! His parents and they must submit to their consciences just like all of us. However, what goes on in our public schools should not reflect anything of the sort and this type of book should not even be offered in such a venue! Unfortunately, there are already way too many of these kinds of books in circulation.

Dave on November 16, 2010 at 9:14 am

Debbie you are confusing cause and effect. Liberal mores don’t create boys who want to be girls. They are born that way and should be accepted for who they are.

George on November 16, 2010 at 5:53 pm

od0- I applaud you for trying to master the English language as an adult, but it might behoove you to take a few more lessons. I strongly recommend a course of study that places special emphasis on spelling and grammar.

But kudos for trying!

Robert on November 17, 2010 at 4:22 pm

I don’t know exactly who you are, Debbie, but it is your view on what people should be and what people should accept, that is “completely abnormal” and NOT OKAY.
I hope when you have children, if you don’t already, they are “Normal” in your eyes, otherwise I fear they may be beaten or even abandoned by you.

Debbie describes what this boy has as, “RuPaulism Syndrome”. Well Debbie, I have news for you, you have Homophobia. Let me define this word for you, because it’s probably too large for you to process. According to Dictionary.com, Homophobia can be defined as, “unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.”. What you have Debbie, is an unreasonable fear. You fear that “If this is America’s future, and sadly, it looks like it kinda is, there won’t be an American future.” Debbie, you are unreasonable, and have been warped by some outside source that is uneducated. America’s future will not be destroyed by Homosexuals, it will be destroyed by us Harming our environment, and starting unnecessary wars. However, this response is not about that. This response is about your ignorance.

Last time I checked, Homosexuality is globally spread. Are you saying that the entire world is going to diminish because people of the same sex are attracted to each other? Have you ever read a history book? For thousands of years there has been docmentation of Homosexuality, it didn’t just pop out of nowhere. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Homosexual animals in the wild.
If homosexuality is abnormal, and if it is going to ruin American society, then we have been doomed from the beginning.
The truth is, there is no such thing as “Normalcy” in society. People are people, and they can dress however they want, speak however they want, and be intimate with whomever they want. It is not up to any party, except the individual, to decide who or what they should be.

I hope after reading this response, you realize that you are the individual that will be “Destroying America”.

Sincerely-
Ryan Lee Levinson
Proud Homosexual

Ryan Lee Levinson on January 3, 2011 at 1:21 pm

The mom is an enabler. Saw her on a talk show and she is guiding his behavior and kept speaking in his behalf. Children are smart, but they are easily shaped.

ST on January 3, 2011 at 1:27 pm

Wow, I can hardly believe this article. But let me see if I can grasp what you are trying to say. You believe that we should be more like a terrorist organization that brutalizes young children (and adults for that matter) for having a different point of view than the current popular view. hmmmm My very first reaction is – what a narrow and un-American view.
My second reaction is that i’m very glad I didn’t grow up in your house, or one like it.

I also have to note that most individuals who ridicule the support of young people and make grand statements like the ones stated here have absolutely no alternative. Just that they are ‘against it’. Lets see you develop a method for ensuring that ‘all boys grow up to be men’ and so on without doing more damage than good.

I say we continue to develop a society where everyone is simply accepted for who they are and allow them to express themselves as they see fit. That is the american way.

Scott on January 3, 2011 at 2:30 pm

After reading a lot of the posts, I have to agree that this behavior is absolutely disgusting. I am positive this child did not choose this path, it was pushed and encouraged by the mother and allowed by the father. Currently I am pursuing my Masters in Psychology and from what I see this woman DOES display classic anti-social behavior. It is funny that when you look at nature and other mammals, we are after all just animals, you do not see this role reversal. Especially in those that mate for life, we see that the male is a protector and the female is a nurturing role. This is nothing more than the attention cravings of a delusional and anti-socialistic woman who is pathetically using her child for her own gain. She has obviously already castrated her husband considering the lack of a protective nature regarding the child’s mental and emotional nurturing. It is obvious the child is being used.

Big D on January 3, 2011 at 2:59 pm

I have long thought that perhaps Al Qaeda and other mid-eastern trains of thought are better than being an American, just for the reasons you have put forth. Being in my early 60s, I remember when “men were men” and homosexuals were consigned to seedy bars in neighborhoods nobody would want to enter. It was so up until the gay agenda coerced the American Psychiatric Association to say that being a homosexual was normal in 1978. These deviates can find no peace until they have forced their will and ways upon the American people.

Jay Johnson on January 3, 2011 at 5:26 pm

Today was the first I heard of this “Princess Boy”….as a mother of 4 sons I am sick to even think of the damage this mother is causing. Since Mrs.Kilodavis has no daughters…she created one.

What my sons liked between ages 2-5 varied and changed with maturity. I wonder if Mrs.Kilodavis will be able to accept Dyson when he no longer wants to be a “princess boy”?

In the meantime, I’m sure Mrs.Kilodavis is enjoying the revenue from her book sales.

GloryDaze on January 3, 2011 at 10:31 pm

i was just surfing the net for reviews about “my princess boy” book and its clear how much controversy its causing.

firstly i didn’t know this website at all up till this minute
but i do personally agree with this person opinion “Debbie”.

secondly yes it is true Muslims would never read this kind of book to their children. BUT it not because we are terrorists or” They’re encouraged at age three to become warriors, homicide bombers” as “Debbie” describes us. we wouldn’t read this book because Islam teaches us the importance a boy to be raised as a boy and eventually a man and a girl to grow into a women and each individual must be proud of his/her sexual identity.
but of course “Debbie” wouldn’t know that since i doubt she has read or even heard about what Islam is all about.

nora on January 4, 2011 at 3:09 pm

“I guarantee you that no one in Al-Qaeda is reading their kids anything resembling, “My Princess Boy.”

“Like I said, Al-Qaeda and the rest of the terrorist-loving Islamic world isn’t teaching their boys to be women and their women to be alpha males. Nope, they’re teaching their men to be masculine, tough, brutal (except in Afghanistan and some other places where poor boys are forever damaged after being enslaved in bacha bazi sex slave rings). Muslim boys aren’t encouraged at age three to wear tutus. Not that that’s laudable. It isn’t. But neither is teaching toddlers and young kids to go overboard and give a new stretch to the definition of “embracing their feminine side.”

Your simple suggestion that we need to look at Al-Qaeda for how we should raise our kids is in its self more warped then this child dressing up. More likely he will grow our of it. But if he doesn’t, to compare that we need to model our parenting motivation skills after a terrorist group is reprehensible. Surely you could have thought of a better analogy.

Urban Pride on January 4, 2011 at 5:16 pm

I think a lot of people are simply missing the point of what debbie is trying to say in her discussion of terrorist groups and how they raise their children. Its not that shes applauding that terrorist raise their children to hate and become killers but rather that they raise boys to be boys and girls to be girls. In america however this seems to be something of a novelity idea and things like this princess boy rubbish are becoming the norm and accepted behavior in our society. But thats what happens when sound parenting goes out the window in favor of the let your children do what they want mentality. And people wonder why our children are so messed up these days.

“The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.” Proverbs 29:15

Lance on January 5, 2011 at 2:51 pm