Comments on: Dangerous fun https://wthrockmorton.com/2005/11/06/dangerous-fun/ A [retired] college psychology professor's observations about public policy, mental health, sexual identity, and religious issues Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:52:00 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.3 By: grantdale https://wthrockmorton.com/2005/11/06/dangerous-fun/#comment-803 Sun, 13 Nov 2005 20:52:00 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com//2005/11/06/dangerous-fun/#comment-803 Boo,

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that’s a double sarcasm 🙂

BTW — you do realise Irwin’s wife (and the mother of the baby) is… American?

]]> By: Memphis https://wthrockmorton.com/2005/11/06/dangerous-fun/#comment-802 Sun, 13 Nov 2005 03:52:00 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com//2005/11/06/dangerous-fun/#comment-802 Hi Warren, I’d agree. Nicolosi’s theory about tossing babies in the air and then linking this to SSA (or lack thereof) seems far fetched and strange. The danger is in building theories, because, by definition, a theory must encompass all cases and have explanations for exceptions–In this case, what would he say about a boy who enjoyed playing with Barbies when he was young, and grew to be straight, and a boy who was into rough and tumble play, but grew to be gay?

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

Memphis

]]> By: Throckmorton https://wthrockmorton.com/2005/11/06/dangerous-fun/#comment-801 Sun, 13 Nov 2005 01:04:00 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com//2005/11/06/dangerous-fun/#comment-801 I think it is humorous to think that infants are learning that danger is fun by throwing them in the air. Perhaps infants do learn trust or at least begin to experience the parents as providing comfort and safety. But to say that little boys learn this and little girls don’t or that moms don’t play rough and only dads do and so on and so on seems funny and somewhat sad to me at the same time. And then to say that all of this is reliably related to sexual attractions in adolescence seems pretty far fetched to me. I was trained in object relations theory by true believers but I am not one. I think there are some pretty interesting insights and practical helps for therapists that emerge but I do not believe that this theory or any other psychodynamic approach to personality does justice to the complexity of the subject matter.

]]> By: Anonymous https://wthrockmorton.com/2005/11/06/dangerous-fun/#comment-800 Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:01:00 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com//2005/11/06/dangerous-fun/#comment-800 So um… what exactly is the point of these, Dr. Throckmorton? Are you making fun of Nicolosi or gays or beating a dead horse or what?

Boo

]]> By: Throckmorton https://wthrockmorton.com/2005/11/06/dangerous-fun/#comment-799 Fri, 11 Nov 2005 03:19:00 +0000 https://www.wthrockmorton.com//2005/11/06/dangerous-fun/#comment-799 See the newest post for the Aussie version of dangerous fun. Thanks for the reminder Boo.

]]>