Say you had a son between the ages of eight and eighteen; would you prefer he be more rugged and aggressive in personality, or that he be more sensitive and peaceful? If you had to choose between those two opposite extremes.

The latter, I'm not hoping to raise Rambo Jr.

Chris wrote:

Say you had a son between the ages of eight and eighteen; would you prefer he be more rugged and aggressive in personality, or that he be more sensitive and peaceful? If you had to choose between those two opposite extremes.

Sensitive and peaceful but aggressive when necessary.

Don't have any kids, but I've already have a brother that's very aggressive, so I'd shoot for one that's more sensitive, see how that goes.

My brother's aggressiveness has come in handy though.

Sensitive and peaceful, like his old man! lol Although ideally, I'd like him to be sensitive and peaceful, but with a more assertive personality to complement it.

Rugged (but clean) and aggressive. Sensitive and peaceful is alright too so long as he wasn't my only son.

The question was that we only have one choice. Isn't just about everyone going to say they prefer a mix of the two traits? No, I don't want some double Y chromosome alpha male bully but I'd rather try to curb him than have a son that lets himself be used as the world's door mate. And this goes for daughters too.

AtownPeep wrote:

Rugged (but clean) and aggressive.

I want my son to be a boy. Being rugged and aggressive doesn't mean they would have bad personalities or be a bad person.

Nystyle709 wrote:

I want my son to be a boy. Being rugged and aggressive doesn't mean they would have bad personalities or be a bad person.

If it's born with a penis, it is a boy no matter if he's rugged or not.

I would want a mix of the 2, but if I could only have one then probably sensitive. If only so that he'd be easier to raise. When I think of rugged & aggressive boys, I think of boys who're a handful by age 10.

CatEyes10736 wrote:

I would want a mix of the 2, but if I could only have one then probably sensitive. If only so that he'd be easier to raise. When I think of rugged & aggressive boys, I think of boys who're a handful by age 10.

Of course in MY case it would be a case of the boy taking after his mother, which is NOT necessarily a bad thing, but I think it would be better if the boy was NOT as aggressive as his mother.

My nephew is both. He was sooo sweet and sensitive that when he was 3yrs old, he stole 3 pieces of candy from the grocery store while we were standing in line-- for him and his bros to share!

However, the same kid found out that his cousin stole money from the house, and he chased him up the street with a baseball bat, and jumped in front of the kids car to stop him!

so i like both... he's sweet but wont take any crap

Unfortunately if they are sensitive they are sitting ducks for bullies.

Suzi wrote:

Unfortunately if they are sensitive they are sitting ducks for bullies.

And if they're aggressive, they get in trouble for being mean to the bullies.

Nystyle709 wrote:

If he's born with a penis, he's male. Boys are different. Don't expect you to know the difference.

A boy is a boy is a boy, that didn't change 200 years ago when they wore nightgowns, it didn't change 100 years ago when fathers referred to them as dearest and darling, and it doesn't change because they don't beat up anything that moves.

Supernova wrote:

A boy is a boy is a boy, that didn't change 200 years ago when they wore nightgowns, it didn't change 100 years ago when fathers referred to them as dearest and darling, and it doesn't change because they don't beat up anything that moves.

What makes you think being rugged and aggressive means they automatically beat up anything that moves?

If I could only have one or the other, as opposed to a mix of the two (which would be more preferable), then I would go with aggressive; as I think it would better benefit him once he got out into the world and away from my rearing.

Nystyle709 wrote:

What makes you think being rugged and aggressive means they automatically beat up anything that moves?

What makes you think not being rugged and aggressive means they aren't boys? If a girl is aggressive we don't call her a boy so it stands to reason a boy isn't a girl either just because he's sensitive or passive.

Supernova wrote:

What makes you think not being rugged and aggressive means they aren't boys?

Where did I say that?

If a girl is aggressive we don't call her a boy s

o it stands to reason a boy isn't a girl either just because he's sensitive or passive.

It doesnt. However, my statement didn't imply that. While you prob would find it okay to have your son jumping into dresses and playing with Barbie dolls, I don't and I would PRAY he doesn't have any interest in things of that nature whatsoever. That's what I meant by being a boy.

Nystyle709 wrote:

It doesnt. However, my statement didn't imply that. While you prob would find it okay to have your son jumping into dresses and playing with Barbie dolls, I don't and I would PRAY he doesn't have any interest in things of that nature whatsoever. That's what I meant by being a boy.

Well I have 2 nephews who when they were little had me paint their nails and they did want to wear dresses, and the younger one put on a dress for Halloween one year and made a very convincing girl, and they grew up to be two perfectly normal testosterone filled boys.

Chris wrote:

Say you had a son between the ages of eight and eighteen; would you prefer he be more rugged and aggressive in personality, or that he be more sensitive and peaceful? If you had to choose between those two opposite extremes.

Sensitive and peaceful, like Jesus, Ghandi and Martin Luther King. Generally speaking the BEST men in our world's history demonstrated qualities of the latter, while some of the worst men in our world's history had qualities of the former.

captainbryce wrote:

Sensitive and peaceful, like Jesus, Ghandi and Martin Luther King. Generally speaking the BEST men in our world's history demonstrated qualities of the latter, while some of the worst men in our world's history had qualities of the former.

Too true, too true. People would do well to remember this.