I found a book from 1964... the fundies would love it.

[morri]

It is a sex ed book and the author(hypocritically a woman with 2 phDs.)

Sex Ed is very farfetched. quite freudian actually as it starts with being born and basically everything being a lust ful endeavour and sensation.

It is basically an child raising guide

some pearls:

Dads should only feed infants on an rare exception, they cant give a baby the same look as a mother

Girls and boys should not play with each other because you dont want boyish girl or girly boys. (and never would you want a soft man or a manly Woman)

Cut boys hair at age one because boys want to be boys from that age. (and put them in sturdy looking boyish clothes)(unlike girls which can be put into to pretty dresses)

Girls should always wear dresses or skirts because noone wanrts to see a manly woman in pants or even !jeans(studded trousers as they were called then)

Boys are more sensitive and more crybabies in their first years and girls are hardy because later in life they need to be hardy too.

beware the silent ones, if you dont instill a love to be with people they may become grownups with no love for communication.

Girls should have dollies so they can get used to caring for a human looing person

Boys should have teddies, if they play with girls toys they wont grow up to be men but boys

Girls shouldnt be expected to learn latin or math it may be too much for them and they miss out on learning to be a good housewife and will never find husband .

Girls should not want to go into mens jobs.

If men help too much in the kitchen they may have their mother as dols and therefore wanting to be female themselves and thus become homosexual.

Siblings dont need to get along with each other and you should never have brother or sister sleep in the same bed because it could arouse sexual desires.

An older sister shouldnt hold or cuddle their baby brother so they dont get a too close bond, which could turn sexual in later ages.

If siblings fight let them; a good (physical!)fight is great to get back in the right pecking order.

and i am only into the first 30 pages. (funnily it does have some good points like advising for at least 6m of breaastfeeding/bottle feeding and no spoonfeeding in early month.)

You can imagine what it will say on masturbation.

(even for penis pulling toddlers it says to redirect them to toys that arent their body as this is all lustful(at least this is still better than pearl)

I saw an overview over growth patterns... kids were naked but teenagers and adults are wearing swim suits. after all they are growth schemas not some schemas to depict the growth of sexual organs in a sex ed book? xD

anyway i am only up to primary school age theres still topics to come called:

what if your girl is chasing too many boys

or what if your boy is chasing too many girls.

[JemimaPuddle-Duck]

Holy crap.

[blessalessi]

What is the author/title?

[FloraDoraDolly]

I've read parenting books from that era. There's always something cringe-worthy, but this one is pretty far-out even for that time period.

[VVV]

That is freaking nuts.

I was born in 1961. Every picture of me as a young child, except for Sundays and obvious holidays like Easter, shows me wearing shorts or pants. When I started school, I had to wear dresses--in that era, girls were required to wear dresses to school--but playclothes were always shorts or pants.

My mother was born in the 1920s. She taught high school math before marrying my father. Actually she would not have met him if she hadn't gone to graduate school in math. Granted, my mother was a bit of an outlier, but that book in no way reflects the dominant point of view even in the 1960s.

[prayawaythefundie]

:lol: Books like that are so good for a laugh! I once found a sex ed book from the 40s written by a priest. There were no pictures at all. Prematiral sex was compared to natural disasters and a woman allowing a men (not her husband) to touch her sexually in any way was compared to church vandalism: taking the communion wafers from the tabernacle, throwing them on the ground and stamping around on them. It had some funny story about conception but I can't remember the details right now, I might take a look at that gem when I get home.

[Anny Nym]

Damn! :evil-eye: Like @FloraDoraDolly said, this book is QUITE far out for that era.

I think my "The catholic housewife in profession and life"(title translated) from 1932, with stamp and seal from the viennese archbishop, is more chilled out! :lol:

Some of the quotes are actually unusual for any time period. Is it self-published? Please tell us the title, I have to google that.

[morri]

It seems to me that is far out, because the author goes very explicitly against women in "men" job, while she herself has two phd.

It also seems like it is against the developing womens rights.

The author is: Dr. Dr. Sigurd Hild "Sexualerziehung" "bertelsmann Lesering" (BMG in music , so a well known Publisher xD)

What I havent mentioned yet is that shes not for punishment when "lusty" things occur because punishment leads to sexual arousal. Burt is should be just acknowledged and apparently this is all to stop the young uns from havng lusty thoughts.

Or telling boys that the penis gets stiff for procreating and that will turn them off enough for not masturbating .

[Anny Nym]

But Sigurd is a male name.

Odd indeed!

[morri]

is it I didnt know, well then everything is clear. :lol: it is just a poor MRA of the 60s.

[SoSoNosy]

No. I graduated from high school in 1961; we wore pants, jeans and shorts all the time. We had one year that a fundie teacher convinced the school board to require that we wear dresses but the board stuck in "unless there is a threat of inclement weather". Which translated to a cloud somewhere in the sky, and the rule went away the next year, along with the teacher.

[Coco]

I thought this was going to be about Fascinating Womanhood :lol: and fundies do love that book.

[MamaJunebug]

No. I graduated from high school in 1961; we wore pants, jeans and shorts all the time. We had one year that a fundie teacher convinced the school board to require that we wear dresses but the board stuck in "unless there is a threat of inclement weather". Which translated to a cloud somewhere in the sky, and the rule went away the next year, along with the teacher.

In '61?!?!?!

[Napoleon Dynamite] Luckee! [/Napoleon Dynamite]

May I ask your school's general location? I gradded in '70 and the VERY next year all the skirts-only rules went right out the window, exactly too late for me.

[YoshiCat]

That is freaking nuts.

I was born in 1961. Every picture of me as a young child, except for Sundays and obvious holidays like Easter, shows me wearing shorts or pants. When I started school, I had to wear dresses--in that era, girls were required to wear dresses to school--but playclothes were always shorts or pants.

In guessing it was one of those "fight back against all this modern stuff life women in pants and maintain proper standards" type of thing.

[singsingsing]

Girls shouldnt be expected to learn latin or math it may be too much for them and they miss out on learning to be a good housewife and will never find husband .

Thomas More would have taken great issue with that. You know you're behind the times when men from the 16th century are more progressive than you are!

[Monkeebrainz]

Times have really changed. I wasn't alive when he was popular but Dr Spock taught weird things about gender that sound like what this book says.

[VVV]

In guessing it was one of those "fight back against all this modern stuff life women in pants and maintain proper standards" type of thing.

Maybe. It was small town Kansas. Not a lot of modern stuff there to fight back against in the first place.