Jump to content
Battlefield.no
Sign in to follow this  
Arex_x

Narvesen-prisen går til homofob. (Fritt ord prisen.)

Recommended Posts

Krf jubler.

I år går Fritt ord prisen , (Hva nå den er verd.) til filosof, forfatter , statsstipendiat , synser og homofob Nina Karin Monsen.

Slik jeg forstår det , får hun prisen for bla måten hun holder seg på i debatten om homofili. Vi har ytringsfrihet i Norge , og det innebærer at folk skal kunne uttrykke også upopulære meninger.

Men consider this ; Ville denne prisen kunne gå til en person med en mer upopulær mening ? Jeg tror en Eugenist eller en rasist aldri ville ha fått denne prisen samme hvor godt man snakker for seg.

Hva tror I ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Det er faktisk litt besynderlig at man snakker om ytringsfriheten som bakgrunn for prisen, at hun har stått frem og skrevet slik selv om det er upopulært, når de aldri i livet ville gitt samme pris til en person som fremmet rasistiske kommentarer eller fremmet rusbruk eller noe annet som ville vært upopulært. Jeg er helt enig at Karin Monsen skal få lov å tenke det og også ytre det, men jeg har tungt for å se poenget med å prisgjøre det. For jeg ser ikke helt klart hva nøyaktig det er hun fremmer?

På den annen side så har jeg aldri hørt om dama og heller ikke hørt noe om prisen det er snakk om, så er egentlig litt care hele greia :boxed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeg synes prisen er gitt på riktig grunnlag, men det betyr ikke at jeg liker at hun fikk den.

Det og fremme frykt mot en gruppe mennesker er forkastelig, uansett hvor ille du selv mener dem er.

Jeg er selv ikke noe bedre enn henne, da jeg regelmessig slenge drit om pedofile.. Så jeg bør kanskje egentlig ikke mene noe om det.

En ting er sikkert, media oppmerksomhet fikk de :boxed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Det blir liksom tosidig. Ja, det blir om ytringsfriheten, men valget nuller det ut og gjør at det egentlig ikke blir så utrolig for homofobe meninger har jo ikke akkurat blitt skjult eller noe, de er jo overalt?....Blir egentlig bare meh hele greia, who cares :boxed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeg sliter med å finne ut hva det egentlig er hun har skapt debatt om. Det har vært mye snakk om trakkasering av homofile, men så vidt jeg kan se har hun egentlig bare fremmet et veldig konservativt familiesyn. Sånn helt ærlig, så er jeg delvis enig med henne, selv om jeg og hun har helt forskjellig verdigrunnlag. Slik det funker i dag blir det sett som en menneskerett å få barn, noe jeg mener er feil. På den annen side er det latterlig å mene at barn har det bedre på barnehjem enn hos homofile fosterforeldre.

Personlig virker det på meg som at dama er en premieidiot som hadde et par gyldige poeng som ble druknet i gammeldags vissvass basert på et konservativt og halvreligiøst samfunnssyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enig med Beckert og gjengen.

Ytringsfrihet skal ikke belønnes, den skal brukes godt gjennomtenkt og varsomt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nina Karin Monsen

En kvinneforkjemper som har stillt sterkt i debatter rundt religion og kvinnediskriminering. Skaut og prostituerte har flere ganger blitt omdiskutert, og hun tar selvsagt side ved kvinnene. Jeg syns i grunn det er synd hun får prisen for sin pågang for homohets når hun faktisk har en del andre artikler som er langt mer interessante. Hun har gjort en god jobb med å fremme synet på kvinnediskrimingering.

Det skal sies hun uttaler seg svært skarpt og i flere tilfeller, sier mer enn hun vet, syns nå jeg.. Det virker på meg som om hun har full kontroll over hvordan det er å være kvinne i samtlige religiøse samfunn, være det kristne eller muslimske. Jeg har liten tro på at Nina kan sette seg inn i dette uten en oppvekst innenfor de gitte rammer. Greit at hun sloss for det, men blir feil når hun skal være så bastant på ting hun umulig kan vite absolutt alt om.

Hva hun har skrevet om homofile er på den andre siden forkastelig. Det bringer hatet fra tidlig 1900-tallet tilbake igjen. Det er utrolig hyklersk og dobbeltmoralsk at hun er kvinneforkjemper, sterk motstander til religiøs kvinnediskriminering, samtidig som hun diskriminerer homofile på en verre måte enn hva hun forsvarer kvinneundertrykking. Hvordan hun kan påstå at barn av homofile er tilbakestående mener jeg viser en håpløs tankegang og en totalt ignorant kverulant.

Fy skam deg Nina!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeg kjenner kun en som har vokst opp med lesbiske/homofile "foreldre". Hun var temmelig markant imot, med andre ord hadde hun dårlige erfaringer med å bli oppdratt av to kvinner. Nå er det veldig mye vanskeligere å nekte lesber barn enn det er å nekte homser egne barn. Da måtte man isåfall gått rimelig hardt til verks og revet barnet vekk etter fødsel f.eks, noe jeg tror så godt som ingen hadde støttet.

Jeg er iallefall imot at homofile skal få adoptere barn, rett og slett fordi jeg mener at barn ideelt sett skal vokse opp med en foreldrer av hvert kjønn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Som zaxo sier, så er dette en dame som har stått i bresjen for mange viktige debatter innenfor kvinnediskriminering, blant annet i muslimske miljøer. Viktig og bra. Å kjempe mot ny ekteskapslov kan også være viktig og bra hvis man bruker riktige verktøy. Hadde hun i så måte vist til undersøkelser som viser at barn av homofile ikke har det like bra, eller kommet med noe gode poenger om mobbing i skolegård etc, så kunne jeg kjøpt det lett. Men hun har faktisk gått ut og sagt at ved å tillate to kvinner å få et barn, så diskriminerer man mannen direkte. Videre har hun skrevet at barn av to kvinner vil være mindre verdt enn hvis det hadde vært en far og mor. Da går man fra å være en viktig samfunnsdebattant til å bli en beruset pubdebattant. I hennes tilfelle virker det som hun er ruset på oppmerksomheten hun endelig har fått, noe som i såfall er trist.

Det viktigste ankepunktet mot tildelingen av prisen til henne er at fritt ord skal gå til en som aktivt debatterer og påvirker samfunnet. Da hun både nekter å stille til debatt, og også i liten grad besvarer motinnlegg, så er hun jo ikke engang aktiv. I denne saken har hun i større grad gulpet opp ikke-dokumenterte poeng i form av innlegg som har kommet på trykk i aviser bare fordi de er så tabloide i sin ordbruk. Det skaper ikke stort rom for debatt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

apropo fritt ord og samfunnsdebattant, Quentin Skinner presenterer ny bok og snakker om politisk bruk av ordet frihet med Håvard Nilsen på torsdagens akademiske frokost på uio :boxed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

funny-pictures-interesting-cat.jpg

hmmm, off-topic, har lolcatz blitt for populistisk til at det er gøy å bruke dem lenger? Før var det jo litt underground, nå er det mer "trendy"... søren og..

OT; Hvordan skal man egentlig vurdere hvem som "ytrer" sin mening best? Eller hvilke meninger som fortjener rampelyset? Skal man prise de ytringer som går på populistiske meningsmålinger, og dermed representerer flertallet, eller skal man berømme de som tør å gå imot massene og risikerer å få mye hets på grunn av det? Er disse modige, eller bare ignorante?

Jeg mener at hvis en slik pris skal ha noen samfunnsmessig verdi burde den gå til noen som er tapre nok til å si ifra mot en urett og virkelig tar i bruk åpne fora for å få dette på tapeten.

Signaleffekten av denne prisen er vel det de fleste reagerer på, er det ok og være homofob? Bør unge mennesker se at man kan være en dust og allikevel få en offentlig pris for det?

Ville ikke likt å sitte i juryen hvertfall, de hadde jo blitt kritisert uansett hvem de valgte, men er godt mulig dette var taktisk for å skape litt blest rundt selve prisen og ytringsfriheten i seg selv.

Kanskje bf.no burde hatt en lignende pris :boxed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eller kanskje ikke siden man kan finne debattanter som holder et adskillig høyere nivå enn gjennomsnittet her i sandkasser rundtom i landet :boxed:

Der fins noen ytterst få som klarer å si noe, de kan telles på fingrene. Resten er bare "what he said" "qft" eller oneliners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OT; Hvordan skal man egentlig vurdere hvem som "ytrer" sin mening best? Eller hvilke meninger som fortjener rampelyset? Skal man prise de ytringer som går på populistiske meningsmålinger, og dermed representerer flertallet, eller skal man berømme de som tør å gå imot massene og risikerer å få mye hets på grunn av det? Er disse modige, eller bare ignorante?

Hadde Nina gått ut med at homofile foreldre førte til langt større mobbing av barn med bakgrunn i en undersøkelse, så hadde jeg hatt et helt annet syn på saken. Men hun gir blanke i alt holdbart materiale og prøver ikke støtte opp om de som blir mobbet, men går til direkte angrep på en del av befolkningen hun holder en "grudge" mot. For at det skulle vært hold i halvparten av det hun sier, så måtte det jo nesten forekommet undersøkelser. Og for alt jeg vet kan det godt hende barn som har vokst opp i et hjem med 2 mammaer eller 2 pappaer får psykiske problemer, men måten hun fremmer budskapet er så totalt håpløs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tenkte jeg kunne sakse ut litt faktisk forskning på området siden jeg har fri tilgang til psykologiartikler som er publisert i verden. Er masse artikler tilgjengelig på området så hvis noen faktisk er interessert så er det bare å si ifra.

Children and Adolescents of Lesbian and Gay Parents

DOI: 10.1097/CHI.0b013e31818960bc

ISSN: 0890-8567

Accession: 00004583-200812000-00004

About this Journal ?Author(s): TELINGATOR, CYNTHIA J. M.D.; PATTERSON, CHARLOTTE PH.D.

Issue: Volume 47(12), December 2008, pp 1364-1368

Lesbian and gay parenting is increasingly visible today in the media, in legal and policy debates, and in academic writings. Children and adolescents of gay and lesbian parents are also increasingly visible in their communities, their schools, and in the medical world. Social, cultural, and medical changes have made it possible for more women and men to have children outside traditional methods of conception. Child and adolescent psychiatrists work with these families at different developmental stages and in varied settings including offices, schools, and communities. In this article, we identify various pathways to family formation among lesbian and gay adults, discuss research findings about the families of lesbians and gay men, and offer suggestions for clinical work with youngsters who have lesbian and gay parents.

PATHWAYS TO FAMILY FORMATION

Lesbian women and gay men may become parents in any of a number of different ways.1,2 Some become parents in the context of heterosexual relationships before coming out as lesbian or gay. Other lesbians and gay men become parents within the context of preexisting lesbian and gay identities. For instance, lesbian women may conceive children using donor insemination with known or unknown sperm donors. Known donors may take any of a variety of roles with respect to children, such as family friend, "uncle," or parent. In many cases, unknown sperm donors are expected to remain anonymous forever. Some sperm banks offer identity-release donors who are anonymous at the time of donation but promise to be known when children turn 18 years of age. Lesbian women may also bear children conceived using eggs from egg donors, who-again-may be either known or unknown. Lesbian couples may designate one member of the pair to be the biological mother of all of their children, or they may alternate these roles, one serving as biological mother for one child, and the other serving as biological mother for another child. Again, there is considerable variability in these decisions, as well as in the roles inside and outside the home that each mother takes in the family.

Gay men may have children who are biologically related to them via egg donation and surrogacy. Gay male couples also may consider whether one or both will use their sperm in the attempt to conceive. This can be a costly endeavor and may involve the aid of agencies to locate egg donors as well as surrogates and fertility clinics. Surrogacy may involve one or two women, who may or may not be known to the child and who may have different levels of involvement.

Other pathways to parenthood for lesbians and gay men also exist. Lesbian and gay adults may become foster and/or adoptive parents.3 Lesbian and gay adults may also decide to undertake parenthood together, leading to various arrangements that involve the biological parents as well as nonbiological parents. These forms of diversity all occur before one has considered race, class, religion, ethnic heritage, or the possibility that a parenting couple may separate. Families with lesbian and gay parents are themselves a diverse group.

RESEARCH FINDINGS ABOUT THE FAMILIES

There has been a considerable amount of empirical research on children and adolescents with sexual minority parents, and the findings from this work are remarkably consistent. The work began by studying children who had been conceived in the context of heterosexual relationships that ended in divorce when one of the parents came out as lesbian or gay, but it has come to include families whose children have been conceived in the context of preexisting lesbian or gay identities and to include adolescents and young adults, in addition to children.1,2,4,5

When children grow up with lesbian or gay parents, do they usually develop in typical ways, and do they show healthy development? The early research on children from divorced heterosexual families in which the mother came out as lesbian compared their development with that among matched groups of children from divorced heterosexual families. Children in both groups had lived through the stresses of parental separation and divorce, but there was no evidence that parental sexual orientation resulted in special concerns. For example, one such study compared development among 37 children with divorced lesbian mothers with that among 38 children with divorced heterosexual mothers.6 Based on Rutter A (i.e., parent report) and Rutter B (i.e., teacher report) scores, these authors reported no differences as a function of parental sexual orientation in children's behavior or relationships.6 The study was enhanced by follow-up interviews with the children when they reached young adulthood.7 Follow-up interviews showed that the now-adult offspring had developed in positive ways, with few differences between those who had grown up with divorced lesbian mothers versus divorced heterosexual mothers. For instance, no differences were observed between the two groups in their psychiatric histories, general conduct, or academic attainment. Those who had grown up with divorced lesbian mothers were no more likely to identify themselves as lesbian or gay than were those who had grown up with divorced heterosexual mothers.7

As important as research findings from these studies have been, however, critics pointed out that the research was limited in various ways. For instance, most of it was based on small and relatively homogeneous convenience samples. For this reason, the degree to which it was possible to generalize from research findings remained uncertain. Another issue was that few information was collected from informants outside the participating families. Critics have suggested that family members may have systematic biases in reporting information about their own families. For example, one possibility is that parents may have defensively described their children as healthier than they would seem to observers outside the family.

Another wave of research in this area involved the study of families identified using rational sampling frames. For example, in one study, every family who had conceived and given birth to a child using the resources of a single sperm bank, during a fixed period of time, was invited to participate in research.8 The resulting sample of 80 families included 55 families headed by lesbian mothers and 25 families headed by heterosexual parents. In families headed by both lesbian and heterosexual couples, one parent (i.e., the biological mother) was biologically related to the child, and the other parent (i.e., the nonbiological lesbian mother or the father) was not. Data on child adjustment were collected from parents using the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist and also from the children's teachers or child care providers using the Achenbach Teacher Report Form. Much like the results of earlier research, findings showed that children were developing in healthy ways and that parental sexual orientation did not seem to be affecting development. What mattered more than parental sexual orientation for children's adjustment was the warmth and closeness of relationships with parents.

Even as they provided information about children born to lesbian mothers, however, results of studies like these also raised additional questions. Women who conceive children using the resources of sperm banks are generally well educated and financially secure. It was possible that these relatively privileged women were able to protect children from many forms of discrimination. What if a more diverse group of families were to be studied? Another issue was that the children who were studied most carefully in early research were still young. Some questions and concerns about these families focus more on older children and young adults. What if an older group of youngsters were to be studied? Would problems masked by youth and privilege in earlier studies emerge in an older and more diverse sample?

An opportunity to address these questions was presented by the availability of data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (often called Add Health). The Add Health Study involved a large, ethnically diverse, essentially representative sample of adolescents and their parents in the United States.9 Surveys, questionnaires, and interviews were completed by more than 12,000 adolescents (with average age of 15 years) and their parents, peers, teachers, and school administrators. Parents were not queried directly about their sexual orientation but were asked if they were involved in a "marriage or marriage-like relationship." If parents acknowledged such a relationship, they were asked the gender of their partner. Using these data, Patterson and coworkers 10 identified a group of 44 adolescents whose mothers were living with same-sex partners and compared them with a matched group of 44 adolescents whose mothers were living with other-sex partners.

Consistent with earlier findings, results of work with the Add Health data revealed few differences in adjustment between adolescents living with same-sex couples and those living with opposite-sex couples. There were no significant differences between adolescents living with same-sex couples and those living with other-sex couples on self-reported assessments of psychological well-being, such as self-esteem and anxiety; measures of school outcomes, such as grade point averages and trouble in school; or measures of family relationships, such as parental warmth and care from adults and peers.10 Adolescents in the two groups were equally likely to say that they had been involved in a romantic relationship in the last 18 months, and they were equally likely to report having engaged in sexual intercourse. There were no significant differences in peer relationships, self-reported substance use, delinquency, or peer victimization between those reared by same-sex or other-sex couples.11,12 Thus, in findings from the Add Health Study, the gender of parents' partners was not an important predictor of adolescent well-being or adjustment. Not only is it possible for children and adolescents who are parented by same-sex couples to develop in healthy directions but as demonstrated in studies using extremely diverse representative samples of American adolescents, they generally do.

Whereas the fact of living with same-sex or opposite-sex couples was not important as a predictor of adolescent development, other aspects of family relationships were significantly associated with teenagers' adjustment. Consistent with other findings from the literature on adolescence, qualities of family relationships were important predictors of adolescent adjustment. Parents who reported having close and warm relationships with their offspring had adolescents who described themselves as showing more favorable adjustment and whose peers also described them as better adjusted. More important than the gender of parents' partners for teenagers' adjustment, it seems, is the quality of relationships within the families they have.

The fact that children and adolescents with lesbian or gay parents generally develop in healthy ways should not be taken to suggest that they encounter no challenges. Many investigators have remarked on the fact that children of lesbian and gay parents may encounter antigay sentiments in their daily lives. For example, in a study of 10-year-old children born to lesbian mothers, Gartrell et al.13 reported that a substantial minority had encountered antigay sentiments among their peers. Those who had such encounters were likely to report having felt angry, upset, or sad about these experiences. Children of lesbian and gay parents may be exposed to prejudice against their parents, and this may be painful to them, but evidence for the idea that such encounters have powerful effects on children's overall adjustment is lacking.

SUGGESTIONS FOR CLINICAL WORK WITH CHILDREN

Overall, in clinical work with children and adolescents of lesbian and gay parents, the impact of growing up with lesbian and gay parents should neither be ignored nor overemphasized. Clinicians should familiarize themselves both with the varieties of family configurations that are included under the umbrella of "lesbian- and gay-parented families" and with the available research evidence. Child and adolescent psychiatrists may have sensitive and important roles to play in the lives of families with lesbian and gay parents in terms of both psychoeducation and treatment. As with all families, familiarizing oneself with the strengths and the dilemmas of each family will help to understand what brought them to treatment and what type of treatment may be the most helpful.

From a clinical perspective, the diversity among families with a lesbian mother or gay father requires a deeper level of inquiry when taking a family history. Because of these diverse routes to parenthood, a family history includes details about the pathway taken, the child's awareness of the pathway, the decision-making process, actual methods of conception, and details of the pregnancy and birth. This should become part of the developmental history because single parents, heterosexual parents, and gay and lesbian parents may have conceived in any number of ways with the aid of fertility treatments. Of particular importance will be an assessment of family and community support during the process before and after conception. Clinically, it is important to know what information has been shared with the child or children and with the extended family and community.

For children conceived within a heterosexual union, or with a known donor using donor insemination, established roles and responsibilities of each of the adults who are (or are not) parenting the child or adolescent should be clarified. In cases in which couples have divorced when one member of the couple has come out as lesbian or gay, considerable tension may surround parenting and custody agreements. In cases in which a lesbian woman or couple has selected a friend or relative to be a known sperm donor, conflicts may arise about the rights and responsibilities of all parties. Thoughtful consideration of these issues can be complicated when unanticipated feelings arise in family members after the child is born. Prospective parents seeking consultation before conceiving a child should be encouraged to think about these issues with the known donor. The relationships among all of the involved adults are significant for the child regardless of roles, and the child's conception of the roles may differ from those of the adults.

It is important to have a clinical understanding of the dynamics and loyalties among the adults and the child, as well as to understand the child's feelings toward these significant adults. The child's feelings about a known or unknown donor may not be verbalized because of concerns about loyalty to parents; encouraging a child to explore such feelings in a therapeutic relationship can be valuable.

When children have been conceived via donor insemination, other issues can also be considered. What kinds of information does the child have about the donor? What are the child's thoughts and fantasies about the donor? Some families will create a narrative at an early age to help the child understand his or her biological origins and explain it with more detail at developmentally appropriate levels. This varies between families, but it is inevitable that children will wonder about their biological origins in different ways, at different developmental stages. These are important issues to consider with families, while respecting decisions that families have already made.14 Parents may also harbor fantasies about the donor and ascribe traits that they imagine the child may have inherited from the donor. Encouraging discussion between the adults about these issues and giving permission to have these conversations with their children can be helpful. It is often conscious and unconscious feelings and fears that interfere with having a dialogue in the family. Despite fears that such dialogue can lead to rejection and disappointment, it may actually improve intimacy and connection within the family.

Clinical inquiry should identify relationships and areas of life where the family can talk freely about "who is in their family" and about any environment in which there may be secrecy. If there are secrets, reasons for these should be explored. Reservations about disclosure of sexual minority identities because of concerns about discrimination and bullying can affect a family in a variety of ways. Parents are apt to be protective of their children. In addition to real external threats parents and children may face, the parents may be contending with their own internalized homophobia, both of which may be expressed with anxiety. Young children will pick up on these feelings but will have neither the context nor the developmental capacity to understand complex societal issues. Older children will need to deal with issues related to covering up a part of their lives. This can have an impact on both emotional and social issues for children and should be explored by the therapist.

Children whose parents have fully integrated their sexual orientation and addressed these issues before having children, and who are in a community in which they are able to live openly, may be able to disclose their identities without fear. The ability of some lesbian and gay parents to live freely and openly in their everyday lives allows their children to be more open in their community and with their peer group. Although each situation is unique, the child and adolescent psychiatrist can have an important role to play in creating a space where these children and their families are free to speak about their experiences as well as their problems and in helping families work through challenges they may encounter.

Growing up with a lesbian or gay parent: young people's perspectives

Anna Fairtlough

Department of Professional and Community Studies, Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, London, UK

Accepted for publication 9 January 2008

DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)

10.1111/j.1365-2524.2008.00774.x

Introduction

This paper presents a qualitative content analysis of accounts, published in collected anthologies and magazines, by young people of having a lesbian or gay parent. It draws from life story approaches (Plummer 2001) and seeks to reflect young people's experiences from their own perspectives. It starts with the assumption that young people have rights to be heard and represented within research, policy and practice (Franklin 1995) and that they can provide unique and valuable insights about their lives (Alldred 1998, Lewis & Lindsay 2000). This paper then considers the insights that this analysis may offer to professionals working with these young people and their families, locating this within a discussion of UK policy and legislation.

Estimates of the number of children in the USA who have a lesbian or gay parent range from 1 to 13 million (Martin 1993, Stacey & Biblarz 2001). There are no reliable figures for the number of lesbian and gay parents in the UK. The second National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles in Britain in 2000 found that 2.6% of both women and men reported having a same-sex partner in the past 5 years, although many more reported having once had a same-sex sexual partner (National Centre for Social Research et al. 2005). Fish (2006) suggests that approximately one-third of lesbians and 14% of gay men have had children. However, it is likely that many more are involved with parenting children in some capacity (Tasker 1999). The increasing visibility of such families in Western, industrialised societies can be understood as part of wider social changes that show the traditional heterosexual family, headed by married parents taking specific and gendered roles, being supplemented by more 'diverse family forms with increasingly fluid and negotiated relationships' (Williams 2004, p. 18). The gay and women's liberation movements have enabled new possibilities of 'doing family' to be envisaged and created (Weston 1997, Weeks et al. 2001). The heterogeneity, in relation to the social differences of gender, 'race' and class of lesbians and gay men, has been noted (Patterson & Chan 1997, Fish 2006). Children with lesbian and gay parents also live in a diversity of family forms and situations. Some children were born to parents in a heterosexual relationship, with their lesbian and gay parent 'coming out' afterwards. Some are conceived by donor insemination and other methods of assisted reproduction. Others are adopted, fostered or raised by other relatives or friends.

Research into the experiences of children with lesbian and gay parents

When lesbian and gay parents first became visible to welfare and public agencies, negative beliefs about their fitness to care for children were commonplace (Rights of Women Lesbian Custody Group 1986, Patterson 1992, 2005, Lewin 1993). These beliefs were articulated through interlinked moral, religious, legal and political discourses in the context of custody and contact decisions and in debates about adoption and fostering, the availability of assisted reproductive technologies and sex education. These decisions and debates were typically underpinned by assumptions about the desirability of traditional heterosexual and gendered family structures and psychological functioning. For example, it was argued that children raised by lesbians and gay men would have distorted gender identity, would become lesbian and gay themselves, would be socially isolated and would suffer psychological harm. Much quantitative research in this area has tested whether these beliefs are well founded (Patterson 2005). Although this body of research has been subject to some methodological criticisms and the difficulties of researching this frequently hidden population have been acknowledged, the overall direction has been consistent: the assertion that such families are innately harmful to children has not been substantiated (Patterson & Chan 1997, 2005, Tasker & Golombok 1997, Tasker 1999, Golombok 2000).

This research has been useful in combating some of the institutional discrimination against lesbian and gay parents. The UK Secretary of State made use of it in replying to a written question about the Adoption & Children Act (2002), which for the first time permitted joint adoption by unmarried (including same sex) couples, refuting the 'possible gender confusion' of children raised by lesbian and gay parents (Smith 2002). However, as this example illustrates, some underlying assumptions have remained unchallenged. Heterosexual parenting has been taken as the norm against which other forms of parenting should be judged and measured. Deviations from 'normal' gender and sexual identities and behaviour have thus been implicitly represented as undesirable. Stacey & Biblarz (2001, p. 176) have argued that defensiveness arising from this has obscured some real differences that have emerged in the research and claim that children of lesbian and gay parents 'appear less traditionally gender-typed and more likely to be open to homoerotic relationships' than children with heterosexual parents. In their view, these are positive characteristics. However, Hicks (2005, p. 160) asserts that this approach is problematic too. He contends that conceptualising gender and sexual identity as fixed entities fundamentally misunderstands the 'very complex and social constructed sets of ideas' that he believes them to be. He calls for more qualitative, in-depth studies with lesbian and gay parents and their children in order to explore the complexity and variety of lesbian and gay life. This paper is one contribution to the small body of such literature that is rooted in the young people's perspectives (Lewis 1980, Bozett 1987, O'Connell 1990, Tasker & Golombok 1997, Wright 1998, Paechter 2000).

Methods

The aim of the research was to explore the perceptions and meanings that the children themselves attributed to their experiences of their parents' sexuality. It draws on feminist (Roberts 1981, Stanley & Wise 1993) and other emancipatory (Robson 2002) research traditions. Central to these approaches is a rejection of the researcher as a neutral being discovering social 'facts'; rather, knowledge is seen as changing, contestable and constructed in particular times and places. Such an approach requires reflexivity about personal, emotional, political, pragmatic, ontological and epistemological influences on research (Mauthner & Doucet 2003).

Responses to the stories are undoubtedly influenced in this case by the researcher's own experience of being a lesbian parent and listening to other lesbian and gay parents and their children. Years of considering these issues practically, emotionally and theoretically are a rich resource to draw on (Wright 1998). However, there are some potential drawbacks of being intimately connected with the material: the researcher may be reluctant to acknowledge young people's painful experiences or negative views towards their lesbian or gay parent as this might be personally threatening or misrepresented by those who are hostile to lesbian and gay parenting. Using a research diary, reflecting with others about the interpretations and looking for negative examples were all strategies used to enhance the value of the researcher's 'insider status' and diminish the disadvantages of this (Lasala 2000).

Life stories

A life story may be understood as an individual's account of their life that sheds light on their experiences, motivations and actions and that is set in the social world. Plummer (2001) distinguishes between the long life story, a full book length account of one person's life gathered over time, with the short life story, one usually gathered in a single interview and collected in a series. These stories are in the latter category and focus on a particular issue: children's experiences of having a lesbian or gay parent. They belong to the genre that Plummer names as the 'collective story', a genre that traces its history from slave narratives through more recent collections of women's, lesbians' and gays' and other postcolonial lives. These testimonies enable people to give meaning to their lives, to affirm relationships, and to identify and counter oppression (Plummer 2001, Weeks et al. 2001). The young people make clear that telling their stories involves acts of interpreting and reinterpreting the present and the past. The published account does not represent the unchanging 'truth', rather a particular version of events that they chose to share and construct with the person listening at that moment.

Content analysis

Content analysis describes a group of methods for systematically analysing recorded communication, including transcripts of interviews and published text (Mayring 2000). Qualitative or interpretative content analysis is used to interpret both explicit and latent meanings from texts (Reinharz 1992, Mayring 2000). Hsieh & Shannon (2005) distinguish between three types of qualitative content analysis. Two of these were used in this analysis: conventional (akin to grounded analysis), where the codes emerge from analysis of the text itself, and directed, where the codes are established beforehand through existing theory or prior research. Some initial research questions were drawn from an analysis of relevant literature, personal reflection and discussion with colleagues. A template was developed that gathered information about the source of the story, the life circumstances of the young person and particular references to positive or negative experiences of family life. This was used to generate themes in a sample of 20 stories. As these emerged, the research questions were refined and a second template to categorise the text was devised. Key categories included emotional and attitudinal responses to their parents' sexuality, their experiences of homophobia and the factors that helped them survive this, the decision about whether to be open about their family situation, and the impact on the young person's identity. The data in these categories were then further analysed to identify underlying patterns. Although this proved to be a fruitful method of analysis, there was a loss in reducing these rich and often humorous, dramatic or moving accounts, so embedded in contextual meanings, to categories.

The texts analysed consist of four anthologies of stories (Rafkin 1990, Saffron 1996, Hauschild & Rosier 1999, Snow 2004) and three stories from a special edition including young people's perspectives in a magazine for lesbian and gay parents and their children (PinkParents 2003). One anthology was specifically from children with lesbian mothers, another from children who had experienced parental divorce or separation. The accounts were published in the USA, the UK and New Zealand. The texts by Rafkin, Saffron and Snow are recommended by COLAGE, a well-respected support and advocacy organisation run by and for those with lesbian and gay parents, as providing valid representations of their lives.

Stories of young people aged 13 and above were used. Adolescence is understood to be a time of increasing awareness of sexuality and exposure to environments outside of parental control (Coleman & Hendry 1999). Older children and young adults would have had a breadth of experience and time to reflect on this. However, this was not intended to discount what younger children had to say.

Sixty-seven accounts were analysed. Of these, 47 were from young women, 20 from young men, 51 had a lesbian mother, 19 a gay father and 3 had both. Forty-six had experienced parental separation or divorce, 31 reported having a significant relationship with a parent's same-sex partner, five that they were adopted or being raised by a non-biological parent and one that he had been conceived by donor insemination.

Many of the young people did not identify themselves in terms of ethnicity and 'race'. It may be that many of these were white indicating, perhaps, an unquestioned assumption of the normality of being white. Four described themselves as being black or African American and nine as having a mixed heritage, including biracial black and white, black/Greek, Hispanic/white, Chinese/white, Japanese/Irish and Maori/white. Most did not state their religious affiliation, although a significant number of the young people described themselves as Christian or as coming from a Christian background, even if they themselves were no longer practising. Two indicated that they were Jewish, and none that they were from another faith background.

There are strengths and limitations in using these life stories. By using accounts that had already been published, the research was able to access the varied experiences of young people from a diverse range of family circumstances, backgrounds and geographical locations. The ethical difficulties connected with interviewing children and young people were minimised as their stories were already in the public domain. These young people had already chosen to speak about their experiences. By using these sources, the research was also able to draw on contacts and forms of knowledge generated by activists, practitioners and writers working with ?#8220; and within ?#8220; lesbian and gay communities.

However, it was not always possible to ascertain from these stories how the young people were recruited, the interviews conducted and their stories written up. They may not be representative of all young people with a lesbian or gay parent. Fish (2006) examines the formidable difficulties of carrying out probability sampling with lesbian and gay populations. Little is known about the characteristics of children with lesbian and gay parents as a whole. In some crude ways this sample does reflect US findings that suggest that lesbian women are twice as likely as gay men to have children, and US and UK findings that between 10% and 14% of same-sex couples were from black or ethnic minority backgrounds (Fish 2006). These young people have elected to tell their stories and it is not known how this or other factors will have influenced what they had to say. Nonetheless, recognising that these accounts may be partial does not invalidate them (Hicks 2005).

Findings

Young people's responses to their parents' sexuality

The stories were assigned to one of four categories: predominantly positive (31 accounts), neutral (6), ambivalent (27) and somewhat negative (3). The young people themselves distinguished their views about their parents' behaviour from their views about their parents' sexuality. For example, Carla described how she had been 'hurt by my mother not because she was a lesbian, but because she loved me, and herself, so badly'. Stories were also distinguished by their length, complexity and how far the young person's responses had changed over time.

The young people in the predominately positive group reported generally positive responses to their lesbian or gay parent, to their upbringing and to their parent's sexuality. Mostly, they did not express adverse reactions on learning about their parent's sexuality and, if they did, these were short lived. Although almost all of the young people identified that others' negative reactions were sometimes a problem, this did not lead to major struggles or unhappiness. Fiona put it like this:

I understood deep inside he was gay and I totally accepted it. The disadvantage is that others don't accept it.

Many of these young people expressed respect for their lesbian or gay parent. Lydia says about her father: 'I think that being a gay man is what made him so incredibly wonderful.' Some admired their courage in surviving anti-lesbian and gay prejudice. Randi describes how 'growing up with my mother's openness about her lesbian lifestyle has encouraged me to become an open, honest and broad-minded person'.

Others felt their parents had an enhanced ability to empathise with others, including their children. This resonates with Tasker & Golombok's (1997) findings that over one-third of the young people they interviewed expressed pride in their lesbian mother. Many found their parents easy to talk to, sometimes like Rosie, comparing their families favourably to straight families that seemed 'repressed, not able to talk to each other'. Others, particularly those who had been raised always knowing about their parents' sexuality, were puzzled by other people's lack of familiarity with or antagonism to what was, for them, a normal family situation.

Some felt that their notions of family were different to children from heterosexual families and had gained extra parent(s) through their parents' lesbian and gay relationships. Many of the young people in this group expressed positive attitudes towards the lesbian and gay communities they had grown up in: they valued having an extended group of carers, found the lesbian and gay culture they had experienced to be fun, and appreciated the radical perspectives they had been exposed to. What Adam valued most was 'the exposure to different types of people'.

Although some people in this group did report painful experiences within their family that arose from their parent's disclosure ?#8220; for example, their parents' divorce ?#8220; because this had been handled well it did not leave them with lasting feelings of distress. Lydia described how she had learned from her mother that loving her (gay) father meant 'letting people be who they are, letting them go, even if that involves loss'.

The 'neutral' accounts were characterised by phrases such as 'it didn't bother me'. Their accounts were brief. They were distinguished from the first group in that they did not identify positive advantages of being raised by a lesbian or gay parent but neither did they identify disadvantages. These young people saw their parent's sexuality as not affecting them strongly; it was their parent's business and had had little impact on their life.

The 'ambivalent' young people expressed contradictory feelings. Typically they represented their story as a journey with their reactions changing over time. Generally their accounts were longer; many gave the impression that they had struggled with some difficult issues throughout their lives. They described a range of complex family situations. Like the predominantly positive group, the ambivalent group identified many positive features of the care they received from their lesbian and gay parent; however, these were combined with feelings of anger or distress that lasted some time.

Many young people described the characteristic emotional reactions to loss and change that have been identified in the literature (Sugarman 1986, Marris 1991). This was particularly true when the parent's disclosure had heralded an announcement that their parents were separating. Renee describes her reaction to her mother's disclosure like this:

I told her it wasn't normal. I felt angry, but I was more shocked; I just had a hard time believing it. I thought that maybe it was a phase and that it would pass. Then I thought, 'Now I won't be normal'.

For some the level of anti-lesbian and gay prejudice they had experienced was so devastating or extreme, that despite positive feelings towards their parents, negative experiences dominated their narratives. For those who had always been raised with lesbian or gay people, the gradual realisation that the rest of the world did not perceive their families in a positive way was distressing. Carey recounts how at one point in her life she began rebelling against her mother 'like many teenagers do ?#8220; but in another way as well. I began rejecting her identity as a lesbian ?#8220; I wanted nothing to do with it.'

Some identified ambivalent feelings about the lesbian or gay communities they knew. As well as the positive features identified by the first group, they identified some negative ones. A few boys reported that they had heard unpleasant comments from some lesbians about their sex or felt excluded from some parts of the lesbian community. Some girls identified a contradiction in their upbringing; on the one hand, they were being raised to challenge societal norms, but within the lesbian feminist community there seemed to be other norms, which were also difficult to challenge. Erin felt that: 'lately he [his dad] only wants to talk about gay stuff and he's been a little self-absorbed'.

Of the three that were categorised as somewhat negative, none identified positive advantages of being raised by lesbians or gay men and the young people focused on the difficulties that their parents' choices and behaviours had made for them. Two felt critical of their mother for having chosen an unstable and at times abusive partner. Another described a very neglectful mother who was unavailable to him emotionally and physically. Hence, he was left vulnerable to abuse by (heterosexual) men. His was the only account (of all 67) that spoke negatively of meeting other children who had a lesbian or gay parent. However, none of this group condemned their parents' sexuality per se. As Michael puts it:

Though my mother was a lesbian, her lesbianism had nothing to do with the way she raised me. She wasn't there for me when I needed discipline or parental support ... lesbianism was the excuse ... but not the cause.

Experiences of prejudice and negative treatment

What came over most strongly in the young people's accounts was that they identified that the problems they experienced with having a lesbian or gay parent arose almost entirely from other people's negative views about lesbian and gay people. Fifty-nine young people gave instances in one or more of three domains: the general or institutional, the family, and peers or friends. Only four young people stated that homophobic attitudes had not been a significant problem for them.

The general or institutional domain refers to the young people's experiences of living in a society where derogatory attitudes or institutional discrimination towards lesbian and gay people was routine. As Chris puts it: 'no matter how okay you are with it, there's always going to be someone who will dislike you because of it'.

Wright (1998), drawing an analogy with work by McAdoo (1997) on the stress faced by black families from racism, describes this as 'extreme mundane' stress from living in a heterosexual supremacist environment. Sometimes this stress involved particular incidents: receiving threatening phone calls, being thrown out of public places, being removed against their will from their lesbian or gay parent's care, their relationship with a lesbian or gay parent being obstructed or invalidated, or their parent losing their job. Frequently it arose from the widespread use of words associated with lesbian and gay sexuality as an insult, homophobic jokes, disparaging comments about individuals and from general anti-lesbian and gay sentiments voiced in the media and in the environments they lived in. Others experienced acute anxieties for the welfare of their parents, fearing that they might be victims of violence or other forms of homophobic prejudice such as losing their job. Others felt awkward about explaining their family circumstances and feared other people's anticipated ?#8220; and sometimes real ?#8220; hostile, embarrassed or confused reactions.

Several young people gave instances of where judges and court welfare officers made judgments based on homophobic stereotypes. Lewin (1993) reports how lesbian mothers often used strategies of appeasement in relation to their ex-partners: for example, by not applying for financial support, not challenging unacceptable behaviour or by hiding their sexuality. This was present in many of these young people's accounts. Although the young people sometimes had positive experiences of welfare professionals, others had negative ones; for instance, one disabled young person spoke of how his school 'helper' told him that lesbians were disgusting. Another spoke about how his social worker had presumed that his difficulties were related to his lesbian parents and not to the abuse he had experienced from his stepfather.

For some the hardest thing they had to contend with was their parents' own internalised homophobia. The stress of having to live with secrecy or being 'protected' from the truth was experienced as profoundly damaging. For one young man this lasted up until his father's death.

My father, I'm 90% certain, died of an AIDS-related illness ... He couldn't even be honest about what he eventually died of.

Many young people reported homophobic behaviours from a heterosexual parent, step-parent or other member of their extended family. These included rejection, unpleasant comments, the use of religion as a weapon, and actual or threatened use of the court welfare system to limit contact or challenge custody. Frequently they occurred in the context of a custody or contact dispute. One described her father trying to snatch her and the consequent devastating effects on her own and her mother's sense of security. Another reported that:

My mother would say, 'Of course you can love your father, even though he is a sinner and will go to hell.' As I look back I think that the message messed me up more than my dad being gay.

Many children of divorced parents have to negotiate hostility, blame and anger. However, in these situations one parent appeared to abuse the power they had from being heterosexual. What the young people seemed to be saying was that the pain of living with conflict between parents and within the extended family was intensified by homophobia. The young people identified that this was damaging both to their relationship with the lesbian and gay parent and, ultimately, with their heterosexual parent.

Nearly half of the young people said that they had heard homophobic comments or experienced homophobic abuse, either verbal or physical, from other children at school or, occasionally, from other parents. As in Bozett (1987) and the Lesbian Mothers' Group (1989), many young people tried to avoid other children finding out about their parents' sexuality. If this did happen some did lose friends or found that friends betrayed their confidence, and this was particularly painful when it happened; however, others found that friends did not reject them. In some instances the young person himself or herself was also called 'fag' or a 'lezzy' or was accused of having AIDS. Some believed that if they were seen to 'stick up' for lesbian or gay people this would arouse suspicion. This prevented alliances being made between children of lesbian and gay people and young lesbian and gay people. A few described serious physical abuse and other forms of physical harassment from peers. Like Garner (2005), these young people sometimes spoke about not telling their parents about the abuse they were experiencing. One said:

I learnt that people could and would be cruel. I had to learn to protect my mother and myself from the harsh reality of the world's prejudice.

Summary

These findings both converge and diverge with previous research. They converge in the conclusion that children themselves do not feel they are damaged by having a lesbian or gay parent. They speak of many different experiences and different responses, both positive and negative. Fundamentally what these young people communicated was that a parent's sexuality does not determine parenting ability. Even Michael who reported much continuing anger and distress at the enduring consequences of the poor parenting he received did not attribute this directly to his mother's sexuality.

However, this study converges from much quantitative literature in the emphasis that the young people put on the stress of living in a homophobic environment. As argued earlier, many such studies have taken the experiences of children with heterosexual parents as the norm against which children with lesbian and gay parents were compared. The starting point of this study is how children with lesbian and gay parents themselves name and understand their experiences.

Researchers have tended to conceptualise the discriminatory experiences described by these young people as 'bullying'. However, there are two main difficulties with this. First, the notion of bullying does not fully encompass the range of different experiences in the different domains that these young people described. Second, it suggests that the problem is located on an individual level, not in social, cultural and institutional attitudes and behaviours. For example, when Tasker & Golombok (1997, p. 150) conclude that 'fear of peer group stigmatisation and the experience of being bullied or teased are central elements in how children feel about growing up in lesbian mother family', they do not consider the homophobic environment that creates these fears.

Two situations made it particularly difficult for the young people to manage living in a homophobic environment. First, when a heterosexual parent used homophobia to attack the lesbian or gay parent and, secondly, as in Lewis (1980) and the Lesbian Mothers' Group (1989), when the young person was isolated from others in a similar situation. The study lends support to the view that children are best able to deal with homophobia or negative reactions from others when their parents are open with them about their sexuality (Lott-Whitehead & Tulley 1992, Patterson 1992). Although responses were not always negative, the young people were also clear that they wanted to decide when and how information about their family life is made public. Many reported that when support from adults was available and they knew other children in the same situation, they were more able to deal with negative experiences.

Implications for practice in the UK

These children's accounts come from the USA, New Zealand as well as the UK. While there are undoubtedly local and national differences between children's experiences in these different countries, some clear over-arching themes emerged in the analysis. Except for Brown's (1998) classic social work text on working with lesbians and gay men, the needs of this group of children have rarely been addressed in the British social work and social care literature. For example, a recent text (Featherstone 2004) on family support from a feminist perspective does not acknowledge their existence.

Child welfare agencies need to identify children with lesbian and gay parents that are using their services and to evaluate the appropriateness of these services. In developing non-stigmatising services, the complexities of children and young people's decision-making around being open about their family situation needs to be sensitively acknowledged. This study points to the need for practitioners to understand the varied responses that young people have to their lesbian and gay parents and the factors that interact to influence this. It is vital to appreciate the profoundly harmful effects that homophobic discrimination can have on children and young people raised in such families. It is, however, important not to assume that any difficulties that children are experiencing must be related to their parent's sexuality. Young people and their lesbian and gay parents have developed strategies and resources to support each other (Saffron 1996, Wright 1998); services can usefully learn from and build on these. Assessments and interventions need to challenge heteronormative assumptions; these children frequently describe relationships that demonstrate the transformation of intimacies (Giddens 1992) in postfamilial families (Beck-Gernsheim 1998) scholars have discussed.

In England and Wales, as part of the changes in Children's Services brought about across the UK in the Children Act 2004, the initiative 'Every Child Matters' aims to promote an integrated response of all agencies providing services to children and their families. Two key desired outcomes of this initiative are helping children and young people to 'stay safe' and 'enjoy and achieve'. The views of children and young people are intended to be central to this. This research suggests that unless homophobic practices in institutions, families and communities are combated, we are not supporting children and young people with a lesbian and gay parent to achieve these outcomes. The new Safeguarding Boards (statutory multidisciplinary bodies charged with responsibilities for protecting children) have a real opportunity to create holistic responses to all forms of mistreatment of children based on discrimination.

Conclusion

Three landmark pieces of legislation in the UK have brought recognition to lesbian and gay people and their families: the Civil Partnership Act (2004) that confers similar rights and responsibilities of marriage to lesbian and gay people, the Adoption & Children Act (2002 and 2007 in Scotland) and the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007 that outlaws sexual orientation discrimination in the provision of goods and services. Increasingly, courts have been persuaded that beliefs in the unsuitability of lesbian and gay people to be parents are not borne out by the research evidence. These changes have undoubtedly made families with lesbian and gay parents more visible. It could be argued that this increasingly liberal policy framework in the UK means that we no longer need be concerned about children with lesbian and gay parents experiencing homophobic discrimination. However, a number of ethnographic studies about life in UK schools (Nayak & Kehily 1997, Ali 2003, Renold 2005) paint a grim picture of routine homophobia in the children's cultures they studied. Young people themselves tell us of the importance of challenging the homophobia they experience and supporting policy changes that recognise and support their families. Only by doing so will we help remove the barriers they face to 'staying safe' and 'enjoying and achieving'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OT; Hvordan skal man egentlig vurdere hvem som "ytrer" sin mening best? Eller hvilke meninger som fortjener rampelyset? Skal man prise de ytringer som går på populistiske meningsmålinger, og dermed representerer flertallet, eller skal man berømme de som tør å gå imot massene og risikerer å få mye hets på grunn av det? Er disse modige, eller bare ignorante?

Hadde Nina gått ut med at homofile foreldre førte til langt større mobbing av barn med bakgrunn i en undersøkelse, så hadde jeg hatt et helt annet syn på saken. Men hun gir blanke i alt holdbart materiale og prøver ikke støtte opp om de som blir mobbet, men går til direkte angrep på en del av befolkningen hun holder en "grudge" mot. For at det skulle vært hold i halvparten av det hun sier, så måtte det jo nesten forekommet undersøkelser. Og for alt jeg vet kan det godt hende barn som har vokst opp i et hjem med 2 mammaer eller 2 pappaer får psykiske problemer, men måten hun fremmer budskapet er så totalt håpløs!

jeg visste at det å fjerne steining av kvinner var en dårlig ide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eller kanskje ikke siden man kan finne debattanter som holder et adskillig høyere nivå enn gjennomsnittet her i sandkasser rundtom i landet :boxed:

Der fins noen ytterst få som klarer å si noe, de kan telles på fingrene. Resten er bare "what he said" "qft" eller oneliners.

qft

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eller kanskje ikke siden man kan finne debattanter som holder et adskillig høyere nivå enn gjennomsnittet her i sandkasser rundtom i landet :boxed:

Der fins noen ytterst få som klarer å si noe, de kan telles på fingrene. Resten er bare "what he said" "qft" eller oneliners.

qft

what he said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Er litt careface ovenfor hele prisen. Den er jo ikke verdt squat, ikkesant?

Kommer jo litt ann på hvilke verdier man selv har..

Antar Nina Karin har blitt rimelig mye mer kjent.. Det har nok en del å gjøre med uttalelser i ettertid enn prisen selv (tidligere prisvinnere hadde jeg hørt lite om hadde fått en pris..) Dog er hun ihvertfall blitt kjent! :boxed:

I tillegg mottar man jo den nette sum av 10 000,-?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tuller du?

Christ.. tihi, jaja, Nina sa nå at hu skulle gi tilbake alt sammen..

Edit: ugh, nå tuller jeg igjen her.. Det var hu som reagerte så gale på at Nina fikk prisen som skulle gi alt tilbake. Hu lesbiske..

Gimme a second to look it up!

Edit2: Sånn.. Kim friele var det selvsagt

http://www.vl.no/samfunn/article4283019.ece

Snasen dame, eller hur? :boxed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahaha, ikke alltid lett å holde styr på ting i så rotete saker som det her :boxed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blir helt tullete...

Og ikke nok med at det er en rotete sak.. Sitter jo med bachelor hvor det kun er leting etter sider jeg skal referere til akkurat nå.. Dag ut dag inn er det å skrive inn referanser på alt og alle.. Gooood, rart jeg surner til innvendig? :boxed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...