Drag Shows!!

[Upchurch]

Ah but he was careful to say "human" sexuality, so the rutting critters don't count.

I accounted for that and stand by what I said

You can guess where this is going, I'm sure, but if objectionable human sexual activity is defined by appearance alone, then we're logically headed for the hijab.

US Conservative Morality Police coming soon to a street corner near you!

 

[Lrrr]

And we PNW people would never have had the pleasure of Gertrude the clown, girlfriend of J.P. Patches. J. P. and Gertrude raised both boomer and GenX kids around here, our constant companions both before & after school. We have a statue dedicated to them. Did I mention Gertrude was a Marine before her TV career?

I know I'm waaaaay late to this, but JP Patches was a huge part of my youth growing up in Vancouver and getting KIRO from Seattle.

 

[The Atheist]

Because I’m old enough to remember the gay moral panic of the 80s-ish. This is identical.

It's like clothing - the fashion of attacking anything remotely gay by attempting to link it to paedophila comes around the trend of wearing leg-warmers or flares.

The one thing you'll find lacking from the homophobes' repertoire is statistics, because they show there has been no increase in sexual abuse of children since the relaxation of sodomy laws.

Boring, repetitive, and further evidence that homophobia is driven by internal guilt over their own sexual desires.

We even have the classic example in NZ of an extremely famous preacher who led the anti-gay movement, started a political party based around it, and who was unsurprisingly, a paedophile: Graham Capill.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

It's like clothing - the fashion of attacking anything remotely gay by attempting to link it to paedophila comes around the trend of wearing leg-warmers or flares.

The one thing you'll find lacking from the homophobes' repertoire is statistics, because they show there has been no increase in sexual abuse of children since the relaxation of sodomy laws.

Boring, repetitive, and further evidence that homophobia is driven by internal guilt over their own sexual desires.

We even have the classic example in NZ of an extremely famous preacher who led the anti-gay movement, started a political party based around it, and who was unsurprisingly, a paedophile: Graham Capill.

Moving off topic a touch - or are we? - I remember some research conducted in Oxford, which looked at records from social services, CAMHS, paediatrics, police and education and tied around 75% of known child sexual abuse in the area to 4 extended family groups...

This accorded with my (oh, most definitely anecdotal) experience in CAMHS in several parts of England. Families were where you needed to look for the perpetrators...Churches next...Not satanists or in drag clubs...

 

[catsmate]

I'd say less, since animals do not particularly care when or where they get a little frisky and often engage in a similar form of sexuality to humans.

I have a friend whose dog would bring his bed out for company and then proceed to hump it for his audience. I would argue that drag queen story times have far less than that.

Male spiders tie their mates, female snakes have clitorises....

 

[catsmate]

It's like clothing - the fashion of attacking anything remotely gay by attempting to link it to paedophila comes around the trend of wearing leg-warmers or flares.

The one thing you'll find lacking from the homophobes' repertoire is statistics, because they show there has been no increase in sexual abuse of children since the relaxation of sodomy laws.

Boring, repetitive, and further evidence that homophobia is driven by internal guilt over their own sexual desires.

We even have the classic example in NZ of an extremely famous preacher who led the anti-gay movement, started a political party based around it, and who was unsurprisingly, a paedophile: Graham Capill.

And Hillsong in Australia.


BTW I recommend the later, after 29JUN2020, posts of the webcomic Real Life for one perspective o M2F transition.

 

[Stacyhs]

I dunno, I wonder about what kind of man (using the term very lightly) refers to women as split tails and thinks when they say no, they really mean yes. I have a hard time believing such a man (again, loosely) understands the meaning of the word consensual.

 

[Stacyhs]

I mean seriously, is being read to by a man in a Frick really going to turn a generation of American kids into drag queens?

I think what really keeps right wingers awake at night is the terrifying prospect that their kids might not grow up to be right wing.

Or anything but cisgendered heterosexual.

 

[mgidm86]

I dunno, I wonder about what kind of man (using the term very lightly) refers to women as split tails and thinks when they say no, they really mean yes. I have a hard time believing such a man (again, loosely) understands the meaning of the word consensual.

The kind that should be ignored completely. In real life I would not engage with such a person and I see no reason to do so here (whoever you are talking about).

Skepticism/critical thinking is supposed to be kinda like science. You accept facts, learn from mistakes and you do not repeat them. You move on.

Fact:
I see a thread was closed today. Wonder why that happened?

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why a person reading children's books to children may or may not be appropriate, depending on what kind of clothes that person is wearing.

So, let me help with this...

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why a person reading children's books to children may or may not be appropriate, depending on whether their dick is hanging out of their shorts.

This is a bizarre non-sequitur and I will not be dignifying it with an answer.

 

[arthwollipot]

Are you saying that there is no more human sexuality involved in Drag, than what children might experience at a petting zoo, for example?

It's very clear that you have absolutely no experience with drag. Why are you so resistant to learning something new?

Drag is defined by a person wearing the clothes traditionally associated with a different gender for the purposes of entertainment. By that definition, there is no more human sexuality involved in drag than what children might experience at a petting zoo.

Some drag shows are intended for an adult audience, and may include sexual content to varying degrees. It is absolutely not inherent to the idea of drag. In particular there is absolutely no sexual content in drag story time, which is intended for children.

 

[pgwenthold]

I mean seriously, is being read to by a man in a Frick really going to turn a generation of American kids into drag queens?

I.

And, more importantly, so what if it does?

Still waiting to hear what is actually wrong with drag....

 

[bruto]

This is a bizarre non-sequitur and I will not be dignifying it with an answer.

It is indeed a bizarre non-sequitur not only for the obvious irrelevancy of it but because of all bizarre comparisons this seems like about the worst choice. That is, although my experience in this area is admittedly very limited, it's my general sense that the effective concealment of male genitalia is pretty high on the list of things that drag queens aspire to.

 

[Warp12]

It is indeed a bizarre non-sequitur not only for the obvious irrelevancy of it but because of all bizarre comparisons this seems like about the worst choice. That is, although my experience in this area is admittedly very limited, it's my general sense that the effective concealment of male genitalia is pretty high on the list of things that drag queens aspire to.

I don't consider it a non-sequitur. The point is to say, the way someone presents themselves does matter, potentially influence, and does have consequence.

Imagine someone reading a nursery rhyme to children, in blood-soaked clothes. The reading material is not the issue.

 

[The Don]

I don't consider it a non-sequitur. The point is to say, the way someone presents themselves does matter, potentially influence, and does have consequence.

Imagine someone reading a nursery rhyme to children, in blood-soaked clothes. The reading material is not the issue.

How does reading in blood-soaked clothes relate to drag ?

 

[Darat]

I don't consider it a non-sequitur. The point is to say, the way someone presents themselves does matter, potentially influence, and does have consequence.

Imagine someone reading a nursery rhyme to children, in blood-soaked clothes. The reading material is not the issue.

As a Halloween themed reading that would be awesome!

An example of a non-drag dress-up for Halloween by a public library employee



Should her costume also be verboten?

 

[WWBDD]

Normally, I'd ignore a post like this. There's no argument here. Most of it is off topic. The reasoning is so poor, it's obviously not the work of someone to be taken seriously. I'm responding because I want you to know that I know that you think you're very clever, enlightened, and virtuous, clearly superior barely sentient malicious bigot far-right prudes while I publicly disabuse you of that fanciful notion.

But it is ok for children to be exposed to violence?

I won't defend a position I don't hold, or an assertion I haven't made. You're not good at this

Are you up in arms over movies and TV showing killing after killing?

No. So? How is fantasy violence depicted on a screen relevant to the topic at hand?

I would rather my children seeing two people making love than two people trying to kill each other.

Who cares? I certainly don't. We're not discussing your children, what you'd rather they see, or sex and violence in media. I'm assuming you wouldn't take your children to a live sex show, strip club, drag show or your local gladiatorial games as none of them are appropriate for children.

BTW,
What makes you think drag shows necessarily portray anyone engaged in sexual behavior?

Lack of naivete and abundant photo/video evidence. Are you claiming that drag shows are not burlesque shows hence not inherently sexual, therefore appropriate for children? Implying I'm imagining behavior that doesn't occur due to my tiny, feeble, morally panicked mind which is riddled with cishetoronormative isms, phobias and repressed sexual urges? Why are you talking about portrayal of sexual behavior and media depictions of violence? No one knows what you're trying to say because you haven't typed a single coherent sentence here.

 

[bruto]

I don't consider it a non-sequitur. The point is to say, the way someone presents themselves does matter, potentially influence, and does have consequence.

Imagine someone reading a nursery rhyme to children, in blood-soaked clothes. The reading material is not the issue.

It's not the only issue, but it is the issue unless something that warrants argument occurs. We have established the fact that it would be inappropriate for a person to read to children in blood soaked clothes, or with their junk hanging out - things that would be largely unacceptable just about anywhere in public - but we have not, it seems, found a good enough argument for why it would be inappropriate in this case - except, of course, for the overall issue of who and what is acceptable to whom.

Of course if you have an issue with drag queens and their acceptance, it spills over into all activities they will engage in, but if you don't, then the argument evaporates. It is true that appearance can have a consequence, but we see little evidence in this particular issue that the consequence of such an appearance is harmful, unless you consider acceptance as harmful.

If you think about it, let us imagine that we did find a valid reason to reject an activity in a library or a paid entertainment because it exposes children to harm. Those children are, to a great extent selected and protected by parents, or should be. If your reason is valid, then would it not be reasonable also to bar such people from appearing in public at all (or to allow them to be publicly ridiculed and attacked if they do appear), because the harm they cause cannot otherwise be controlled by reasonable parents in a reasonable society?

Arguments about this sort of thing tend to occur every time some existing social norm is dropped or expanded, or some once-marginalized minority moves into the main stream. The trappings of orthodox religions, gay teachers, and so forth. We have a fear that accepting something will allow it to flourish, that some imagined purity we now have will be corrupted, and that some unwanted sin will tempt people away from the good. And sure, no doubt there are limits to what we should accept. There are real crimes and real perversions that do not belong in a civil society, but when there are, we need to deal with them thoughtfully each time. We need to evaluate what really is the threat, what really is the sin, and what really is the net loss or gain from what we do.

 

[plague311]

Lack of naivete and abundant photo/video evidence. Are you claiming that drag shows are not burlesque shows hence not inherently sexual, therefore appropriate for children?

I'll claim that. Sure. Especially since we've been talking about the story hours, which aren't sexual at all.

Implying I'm imagining behavior that doesn't occur due to my tiny, feeble, morally panicked mind which is riddled with cishetoronormative isms, phobias and repressed sexual urges?

Your words.

Why are you talking about portrayal of sexual behavior and media depictions of violence? No one knows what you're trying to say because you haven't typed a single coherent sentence here.

I understood pretty well. Perhaps it's user error?

I can help you out though. They're called "comparisons".

 

[WWBDD]

Sorry, are you claiming that drag is a paraphilia?

Because...no.

No, I'm discussing transvestic fetishism, which is a paraphilia. That's not a controversial statement. If you'd like to dispute that fact, take it up with the appropriate DSM-6 working group. I doubt they'll find "Because...no." convincing.