satban
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
When boys wore dresses
#11
We stopped petticoating boys as a socially acceptable practice after 1900 for two reasons.

First, education (including secondary education, AKA high school) became mandatory. The people who pursued this agenda were not social benefactors. They were the ultra rich (Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc.) who wanted both a disciplined workforce for their mines and factories, and a predictable consumer base for their products. And they certainly didn't want any independent-thinking youngsters challenging their social dominance.

The schools they established and promoted taught children how to respond to bells, respect and fear authority, sit in rows and wait in lines, and ask for permission to do everything - in short, it made them perfect factory workers. Putting little boys in trousers and girl in dresses, and making gender-specific conduct a legally-enforceable social expectation, made them very predictable consumers of the products they made once they became adults. If they could be told what to do, they could be told what to buy.

Second, we mechanized warfare and made wars more ghastly and inhumane than ever. Teaching boys to be tough and to admire military regalia and wartime sacrifices made wars of greed and conquest (and defense, obviously) feasible. A bunch of boys in pink dresses playing with dolls would have hardly made good soldiers willing to walk into a muddy WWI trench and mow down enemy soldiers with a machine gun. Petticoating challenged the concept of machismo and, as such, was portrayed as fetishistic and immoral by those who built a society based on profits from the defense industry.

Our society loves to stratify, categorize, and label things, activities, and people, and almost none of this has anything to do with nature. It is all about elitists telling others what to think and how to act so that they can profit from our obedience.

Petticoating is a natural exploration of love, closeness, affection, and sensory exploration. There is nothing wrong with it.
Reply
#12
Son of Emperor Nicholas of Russia, Alexei, born 1904
[Image: 342392f17a83252a57c055268c7b65bd.jpg]
Prince John, son of King George V and Queen Mary, born 1905
[Image: 7b2f08e688307d483b87530f9da98613--uk-his...n-mary.jpg]
Reply
#13
It seems I was born a century too late - though I'm doing my best to make up for lost time! Such lovely dresses - so enviousā¯¤ļø¸
Reply
#14
(09-07-2017, 11:39 PM)Conway Wrote: We stopped petticoating boys as a socially acceptable practice after 1900 for two reasons.

First, education (including secondary education, AKA high school) became mandatory. The people who pursued this agenda were not social benefactors. Ā They were the ultra rich (Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc.) who wanted both a disciplined workforce for their mines and factories, and a predictable consumer base for their products. And they certainly didn't want any independent-thinking youngsters challenging their social dominance.

The schools they established and promoted taught children how to respond to bells, respect and fear authority, sit in rows and wait in lines, and ask for permission to do everything - in short, it made them perfect factory workers. Putting little boys in trousers and girl in dresses, and making gender-specific conduct a legally-enforceable social expectation, made them very predictable consumers of the products they made once they became adults. If they could be told what to do, they could be told what to buy.

Second, we mechanized warfare and made wars more ghastly and inhumane than ever. Teaching boys to be tough and to admire military regalia and wartime sacrifices made wars of greed and conquest (and defense, obviously) feasible. A bunch of boys in pink dresses playing with dolls would have hardly made good soldiers willing to walk into a muddy WWI trench and mow down enemy soldiers with a machine gun. Petticoating challenged the concept of machismo and, as such, was portrayed as fetishistic and immoral by those who built a society based on profits from the defense industry.

Our society loves to stratify, categorize, and label things, activities, and people, and almost none of this has anything to do with nature. It is all about elitists telling others what to think and how to act so that they can profit from our obedience.

Petticoating is a natural exploration of love, closeness, affection, and sensory exploration. There is nothing wrong with it.

Petticoating was still fairly mainstream up to the early 1960's in some parts of the world. During this time is was used more as a punishment given by mothers or schools. Thou some fathers told the wives to use it on sons who did not measure up to be men. As women started to gain power this practice died off and become more of something down behind closed doors. In the late 1970's through today the practice started to pick up again. I can proudly say all over the world more mothers are using petticoating and its increasing everyday. The idea of gender neutral child raising and the rise of transgender youth has made it easier for mothers to petticoat more public, though most petticoating still happens with the boys being raised as stealth girls and home schooled.

Chris
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
satban

About Petticoat Discipline Quarterly

Focus MyBB Theme is designed for MyBB 1.8 series and is tested properly till the most current version of MyBB i.e. 1.8.7. It is simple, clean and light MyBB theme with use of font-awesome icons and shrinking header.

For any more information, please use our contact form.

              User Links