 |
 |
 |
 |
Chapter 3 (continued)
Mother and Son (cont.)
Interference with Normal Development
Bieber describes ways in which the “close-binding-intimate” and “rejecting-minimizing-hostile, but not-detached” mothers promoted homosexuality in their sons. Together these two groups comprise about 76% of the mothers in the survey. These mothers interfered in four critical areas: 1) heterosexual development, 2) the father-son relationship, 3) peer relations, and 4) development of autonomy.
Heterosexual Development
Through their seductiveness and excessive intimacy, these mothers sexually stimulated their sons, yet they inhibited their sons’ heterosexual expressions through their restrictiveness or by making male sexuality seem brutish, aggressive, and unacceptable. They also discouraged masculine attitudes, and reduced their sons’ opportunities for acquiring heterosexual interests by interfering with peer relations (discussed below).8 (p79-80) Some such mothers also punish their sons when they engage in childhood heterosexual play and directly interfere in their activities with the opposite sex during adolescence.8(p253) Nicolosi adds that some mothers encourage a false “good little boy” role by avoiding acknowledgment of sexuality and aggression—traits that are characteristic of a masculine gender-role.7(p243)
Father-Son Relationship
These mothers frequently prefer their son over his father. This pits the two males against each other: the father trying to gain or regain the appropriate position with his wife and the son trying to gain exclusive possession of his mother. Such mothers may create an almost romantic relationship with their son, may sleep with him, may involve him in arguments with her husband, and in other ways include the boy in inappropriate situations.8(p80-81) These mothers are typically possessive of their sons, and by discouraging his heterosexuality she ensures that he will not abandon her for another woman.8(p315) Davies and Rentzel suggest that these mothers may be looking to their sons to meet their own emotional needs that the father is not meeting, or she may only be trying to compensate for the disinterest or absence of the father.9(p47)
Peer Relations
Activities and friendships with other boys were discouraged, perhaps because the mother was concerned about the boy’s health or fearful that he might become injured. These mothers would not allow relationships with “rough neck” boys, but encouraged their sons to interact with adults. Peers were generally considered to be intruding or of lower class. Also, by choosing one of her children (usually her pre-homosexual son) as the preferred child, she created a competitive situation among the siblings, which would instill in the son a sense of rivalry later carried into his relationships with peers.8(p50, 81)
Autonomy
These mothers fostered their sons’ dependence on them by isolating them from peers, siblings, and their father. They dominated and controlled their sons’ decision making, discouraged assertiveness, and babied their sons by their over-concern.8(p81)
____________________