The Importance of Healthy Boundaries When Raising Boys: The Forgotten Wisdom of Traditional Parenting

Recently, I came across two videos that left me concerned about the way some parents are choosing to raise their sons.

In one, a boy of about ten years old is seen kissing and licking his mother's arm, beginning from the armpit and moving along the rest of her arm before kissing her cheek. The mother, who is recording the video herself, giggles throughout.

In another clip, a boy of roughly the same age embraces his mother from behind and places his hands on her chest as they sing and laugh together. The video was posted on the mother's Instagram account, where many viewers criticized what they considered inappropriate physical boundaries. She dismissed the criticism, arguing that people were simply jealous of the close bond she shared with her son.

These are only two examples among many similar videos circulating online, and they raise important questions about how we are raising boys.

Children eventually become aware of their bodies, personal boundaries, and relationships. As they mature, parents have a responsibility to model healthy affection while also teaching appropriate physical boundaries. Failing to do so may contribute to confusion about boundaries and attachment, which can later influence how children relate to their parents, future partners, members of the opposite sex, and eventually their own children.

Growing up in a traditional African community, particularly within my tribe, I often wondered why there was a noticeable social distance between mothers and sons once boys approached the age of ten. My parents and elders explained that this gradual change was intentional. It was not meant to reduce love or affection, but to help establish healthy boundaries as boys matured into adolescence. As I grew older, I came to appreciate the wisdom behind this practice.

Modern parenting has many strengths, but not every traditional practice should be discarded simply because it is old. Some customs existed because they reflected a deep understanding of human development and social responsibility. There is room to modernize parenting while still preserving principles that encourage respect, modesty, and appropriate boundaries.

Ultimately, parents are not merely raising children—they are shaping the adults who will one day become spouses, parents, colleagues, and members of society. Love and affection are essential, but so are healthy boundaries. The two should never be viewed as mutually exclusive.

It is equally important for children to benefit from the presence of both a mother figure and a father figure whenever possible. Each can provide unique perspectives, and together they can help balance one another's parenting approaches while modelling healthy relationships and reinforcing appropriate boundaries.

Religion May Decline. Humanity Must Not.

People are increasingly abandoning traditional religion, often because they wish to avoid feelings of guilt or personal responsibility for their actions, or because they find its claims incompatible with logic and evidence.

Regardless of the reasons, the prospect of a society without religion deeply concerns me. Religion has long provided shared moral standards that encourage individuals to treat others with greater decency and restraint. In its absence, I fear we risk eroding our shared humanity. Many people struggle to independently adopt coherent ethical frameworks, leaving "right and wrong" dangerously open to subjective interpretation—often untethered from common sense or consistent principles.

If religion continues to decline, we urgently need a robust alternative: a logical, evidence-based, and common-sense system capable of instilling order, curbing destructive impulses, and guiding society toward virtue and cooperation.

SIMPLIFIED: WHY THE MIDDLE EAST IS CONSTANTLY INVOLVED IN CONFLICT

The Middle East has a long history of conflict due to its strategic crossroads location, but populations there have often experienced extended periods of relative stability and pragmatic coexistence under strong, centralized empires, such as the Ottoman, Roman/Byzantine, or Abbasid eras, where overarching authority suppressed large-scale internal chaos, even amid occasional revolts, frontier wars, or repression. 

In contrast, the post-Ottoman fragmentation after World War I, with artificial borders drawn by European powers, has been marked by far more frequent interstate wars, civil conflicts, and instability, especially after the creation of modern day State of Israel.

Modern treaties and accords (like the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty, Jordan-Israel Treaty, or Abraham Accords) have delivered durable bilateral peace or normalization in specific cases when grounded in mutual interests, security needs, and power balances, but they have rarely produced broad, region-wide harmony, as core issues of identity, territory, and governance often persist. 

Nuclear Kindergarten: The Unfair Game of Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear weapons are a very unfair and dangerous invention. They are built to be used in war and to deter enemies, but their use in a war between two or more NUCLEAR states, who wins exactly?

Nuclear weapons are not only dangerous, but also very expensive to build and maintain, usually to the detriment of government services that would have benefitted tax payers of that nuclear state.

Since we are already have nine nuclear states, it is crucial that we look at the existence and control practically.

Of the 9 states, the 5 declared nuclear states (NWS) are seemingly responsible, with organized nuclear doctrines and political stability which somehow assure the rest of us earthlings that there wouldn't be a nuclear war when mutual respect is maintained between these countries.

The 4 remaining nuclear armed states i.e. DPRK, Israel, Pakistan and India are where our biggest nightnare could come from, not mentioning a possible new kid on the block, Iran - who are trying to enrich uranium to weapons grade.

These countries have proven rather irresponsible in their conduct, suggesting the use of nuclear weapons at any aggression, except of course Israel who have never accepted or denied having them.

I believe it was a huge mistake to allow these countries to have these weapons considering the leadership of these countries tend to act like kids at times. 

To put this into perspective, imagine the chaos in a kindergarten. What if there was no teacher there? 

We'd be looking at children assaulting each other over toys, for instance, instead of sharing them. 

Now imagine giving AR15's to such children? Instead of assaulting each other, we'll be looking at death every time a child picks a toy being claimed by another child.

Due to the seemingly responsible nature of the declared NWS who are signatories to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), based upon three main things; preventing non nuclear states from acquiring nuclear weapons, ensuring nuclear disarmament and cooperation on peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

The NWS (the responsible 5) have failed in this, considering some of their hard headed allies have nukes already. They have also failed to uphold disarmament and keep talking about modernizing instead of relinquishing stockpiles and repurposing the nuclear material.

I find it prudent, for humanity's sake, that the responsible five objectively ensure they stick to the pillars of the NPT.

Understanding Donald Trump

During his first presidency, I was irked by almost everything he said. Little did I know that the liberal-leaning media's representation of Donald Trump had given me a rather distorted image of who he truly is.

Fast forward to 2024: I withdrew from mainstream media (MSM) as my primary news source, and that shift provided a sense of clarity I wish I'd had 20 years earlier.

Critics, including the MSM, have painted Trump as an authoritarian, incompetent child, among other unwarranted labels. However, what I now see is a businessman who relies on shock value and grandiosity to achieve his goals.

Case in point: As the Russo-Ukrainian war raged on from 2022, Trump criticized Europe's defense efforts, highlighting their low expenditures on military capabilities. His persistent pressure convinced many European nations to ramp up their defense budgets. This contributed to NATO's historic commitment in 2025 to increase overall defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, enhancing the alliance's ability to defend itself against adversaries like Russia.

In the ongoing scramble for the Arctic Circle—where Russia has established a stronger presence than other bordering nations—Trump revived his interest in acquiring Greenland from Denmark in late 2024. 

He emphasized its importance for U.S. national security and initially refused to rule out forceful options, famously implying he'd pursue it "the easy way or the hard way." This provoked a strong backlash across Europe, with leaders rebuking the idea and pledging to defend Greenland's sovereignty. Denmark responded by expanding its military presence on the island in 2025, deploying additional troops and inviting allied support from nations like Germany, France, and Norway. 

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte met with Trump several times that year to discuss Arctic security, leading to a "framework" agreement by early 2026. Consequently, Trump toned down his rhetoric, explicitly ruling out the use of force and withdrawing threats of tariffs on opposing allies. 

He has employed tariffs in a similar fashion throughout his career, though their long-term effectiveness remains debatable.

Most MSM outlets and critics genuinely believed Trump had overreached with these actions, viewing them as reckless. But I see this as his consistent modus operandi: Start with something shocking to provoke a reaction that ultimately favors your position. By disrupting the status quo, he often extracts concessions that more conventional approaches might not yield.

This realization has reshaped my perspective—from frustration to appreciation for a strategy that's as bold as it is effective in a world of entrenched interests.