Drag Shows!!

[Upchurch]

LOL! I remember the D&D panic. I thought it was stupid then and I still do. Bunch of uptight religious nuts afraid the Devil was using D&D to get to their innocent children. Sound familiar?

I asked for my first Basic D&D set for Christmas when I was a kid during all that. I thought there was no way my parents would actually give it to me, let alone at my religious grandmother’s house that year. I was genuinely surprised to un-wrap both the first and second set that year and nobody batted an eye. That’s when I began to put together that “religious” does not mean completely stupid.

 

[Upchurch]

If it isn't sexual, it isn't 'stripping'; it's just dancing.

Now, do we get to cue "Footloose"?

 

[JoeMorgue]

A core of a lot backlash against non-traditional sexualities is the idea that they are more "sexual" than straight people, that everything they do is about sex.

It's why so much sexual bigotry is of the "I don't hate them, I just wish they would stop rubbing it in our faces" style where "rubbing it our faces" is them simply existing and acknowledging their sexuality to the same degree anyone does.

A non-traditionally sexual person simply existing is not sexual, anymore then a straight person simply existing is.

 

[plague311]

Did you just equate overweight females in generally acceptable modes of dress which you find distasteful to the intentionally sexually alluring outfits of strippers?

Acceptable to whom? To **** on your huge rant, I'm a fat guy. I'm about 290 lbs and about 5' 10" ish. Guess what I do? I don't ******* wear skin tight clothes everywhere I go because I realize it's not appealing to look at. It's called being respectful.

Fatty-fat-fats in leggings are gross to you, you find them "vomit inducing"... so they're the same as strippers?

Uhm, if that's how you see it. I never said that, but you do you.

I mean, WTAF dude? I don't know where to start with this. Do I start with the fat shaming in general, or do I start with the rather obvious fat shaming of females?

Dealers choice. Either\or, both? Although, I wouldn't call it shaming as much as I would call it constructive criticism.

Do we unpack the assumption that females should only wear clothing that males find them alluring in, because the value of females resides in how much males want to **** them?

Who said anything about alluring? You're taking this in a weird direction. My point being, it's not the sexualization of this that's bothering you or the clothing. See, you're making my point. You have no issues with clothing that shows every single curve and crater of a woman's body. You're, in fact, extremely offended that I've even implied there would be an issue. Meanwhile, these Drag Queens, who have all their bits and pieces covered, have really got you twisted.

And because of that, if a female is overweight, or if males find them unattractive, they should be ashamed of themselves and hide away so as not to interfere with the titillation of males?

LoL you have a very active imagination. The answer, though, is yes, for either males or females. Any person should wear clothing that is appropriate for their body size. If you find camel toe at a story hour to be acceptable, then again, you do you. I'd be more offended at that than having a drag queen read a book.

Do you turn that same censorious *gaze* on males who are obese, walking around with their 'apron' showing because their shirts aren't long enough to cover it?

Yes, you God damned right I do. As I said, I'm a big guy. You know what I do? I buy big and tall shirts, I have long undershirts I tuck in to spare other people, I have pants that cover-up my ass crack. I do this because it's appropriate and respectful to other people. So they don't have to see my fat ass belly, ass crack, or anything else stick out because I can't maintain a healthy body style.

Or those un-manscaped males at the beach in their speedos?

Especially them, yes.

Do you have the same degree of "vomit-induced" gross-out about males?

Let me make this easier. I'm grossed out by most, if not all, humans. Including my friends, and family, at most points in their lives.

Or is this reaction something specific to females who don't make your gaze happy? How often do you tell random females to "smile"?

I don't tell women to do ****. I don't start casual conversation because I'm a) a hermit so I don't go out and b) I don't talk to any people at work because that increases the chance they'll want me to fix their ****, since I work in IT.

Why would I care if some other idiot smiles? What does that do for me?

So what have we got here? You're wrong on literally everything. You went on a long rant and didn't hit a single ******* bullseye. I'd like to congratulate on somehow being more wrong than anyone I've communicated with so far.

 

[Thermal]

Now, do we get to cue "Footloose"?

There's really no comparison with Footloose, man. The DSH home page states big and bold that its intention is to provide "queer role models". Footloose was not promoting a social agenda under the guise of an unrelated activity.

The claim is that this is just like a princess story hour. Ok. Is the declared intent of a princess story hour to provide positive role models for Royals? Are 4 year olds supposed to walk away with more positive associations with members of the House of Windsor? I kind of doubt that. I further doubt that they would either understand what relevance a story reading princess would have in the real world, or remember any associations later in life.

I think it's fair to drop any pretense that this has anything to do with the kids. The Houston Library being discussed doesn't offer any other themed story readings. Just the Drag one. The DSH is adults using the kids to push a social agenda. So what other social agendas would we applaud being funded by a Texan library? I bet posters here could tick off a long line of social agendas they would not want funded by their tax dollars (whether you choose to attend or not is irrelevant to your taxes being used for it). How would y'all feel about a Barefoot and Pregnant Story Hour, to encourage women being in their place and make positive associations with that?

 

[JoeMorgue]

How is providing gay role models more of an "agenda" (sinister scare cord music sting) then straight role models?

Much like the mythology that everything non-traditional sexual people do is about sex, everything they do seems to have "an agenda."

"Hello. I exist. I deserve the right to exist without hiding what I am" is not an agenda.

 

[Thermal]

How is providing gay role models more of an "agenda" (sinister scare cord music sting) then straight role models?

When taxes are used to push the CisHet Only Story Hour, you'll have a point.

Much like the mythology that everything non-traditional sexual people do is about sex, everything they do seems to have "an agenda."

The DHS says quite openly that it is their declared agenda. Not much by way of mind reading going on here.

"Hello. I exist. I deserve the right to exist without hiding what I am" is not an agenda.

"Existing" is not the issue. 4year olds have no flipping idea what a man in drag is, or even if they would think that it was anyone other than some lady.

Would you object to your taxes being used to fund the CisHet Story Hour, or the Barefoot and Prego Story Hour? Why or why not?

 

[Darat]

When taxes are used to push the CisHet Only Story Hour, you'll have a point.

They already do.

 

[Thermal]

They already do.

Really? There is a Story Hour where storytellers are restricted by CisHet sexual orientation? Might I trouble you for a link?

 

[Foster Zygote]

How is providing gay role models more of an "agenda" (sinister scare cord music sting) then straight role models?

I think the assumption is that the "agenda" is to somehow "turn kids gay". But the fact that it's about showing kids who are already gay that they can feel good about themselves, and showing kids who aren't gay that gay people can be seen as normal human beings doesn't inspire the sinister music sting the way that the aforementioned assumption does.

Much like the mythology that everything non-traditional sexual people do is about sex, everything they do seems to have "an agenda."

"Hello. I exist. I deserve the right to exist without hiding what I am" is not an agenda.

Unfortunately, "agenda" has been turned into a word with a sinister connotation by homophobes and other bigots. There's nothing intrinsically sinister about the formal definition of the word. Sure, your agenda could be to steal your mom's appliances and sell them for crack money, but there's nothing about the word itself that implies a base intent - unless you're talking about a group that frightens you, and that you're trying to inspire others to be frightened of.

Say, "we are working to address racial inequality in the U.S.", and it sounds downright heroic. But call it the "BLM Agenda" and you can make it sound all sorts of scary to a certain crowd. "Gay agenda" has, from a certain perspective, the advantage of ambiguity that allows a particular implication to be made, and to which actually describing said agenda doesn't lend itself.

 

[Darat]

Really? There is a Story Hour where storytellers are restricted by CisHet sexual orientation? Might I trouble you for a link?

Crafty move of the goal posts there.

 

[Tero]

Having escaped the Twitter world, I will probably never discuss drag queens of "grooming" again. They were all grooming their kids to be guns lovers, but that seems to be OK and patriotic.

 

[Thermal]

Crafty move of the goal posts there.

What moved? You made a claim that the CisHet Story Hour is already there. If you didn't expect to be taken seriously, fine, but that's hardly on me.

 

[Thermal]

Having escaped the Twitter world, I will probably never discuss drag queens of "grooming" again. They were all grooming their kids to be guns lovers, but that seems to be OK and patriotic.

Exactly. If the library was hosting a Yosemite Sam Gun Nut Story Hour, my arguments would be exactly the same.

 

[bruto]

How is providing gay role models more of an "agenda" (sinister scare cord music sting) then straight role models?

Much like the mythology that everything non-traditional sexual people do is about sex, everything they do seems to have "an agenda."

"Hello. I exist. I deserve the right to exist without hiding what I am" is not an agenda.

Well, an agenda is any list of things to do, including those you must do or should do, so maybe it is, really. It's just not a wrong one.

It's just one of those words that's been given a bad connotation by people who want to screw with our lives and tell us that who and what we are is wrong. Not only should we be blind to social injustice and signal our vices, but we should go through life without any idea what the **** we're doing.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Unfortunately, "agenda" has been turned into a word with a sinister connotation by homophobes and other bigots. There's nothing intrinsically sinister about the formal definition of the word.

Well, an agenda is any list of things to do, including those you must do or should do, so maybe it is, really. It's just not a wrong one.

It's just one of those words that's been given a bad connotation by people who want to screw with our lives and tell us that who and what we are is wrong. Not only should we be blind to social injustice and signal our vices, but we should go through life without any idea what the **** we're doing.

I'm aware guys, hence my putting scare chords around agenda.

 

[tyr_13]

There's really no comparison with Footloose, man. The DSH home page states big and bold that its intention is to provide "queer role models". Footloose was not promoting a social agenda under the guise of an unrelated activity.

The claim is that this is just like a princess story hour. Ok. Is the declared intent of a princess story hour to provide positive role models for Royals? Are 4 year olds supposed to walk away with more positive associations with members of the House of Windsor? I kind of doubt that. I further doubt that they would either understand what relevance a story reading princess would have in the real world, or remember any associations later in life.

I think it's fair to drop any pretense that this has anything to do with the kids. The Houston Library being discussed doesn't offer any other themed story readings. Just the Drag one. The DSH is adults using the kids to push a social agenda. So what other social agendas would we applaud being funded by a Texan library? I bet posters here could tick off a long line of social agendas they would not want funded by their tax dollars (whether you choose to attend or not is irrelevant to your taxes being used for it). How would y'all feel about a Barefoot and Pregnant Story Hour, to encourage women being in their place and make positive associations with that?

How is providing gay role models more of an "agenda" (sinister scare cord music sting) then straight role models?

Much like the mythology that everything non-traditional sexual people do is about sex, everything they do seems to have "an agenda."

"Hello. I exist. I deserve the right to exist without hiding what I am" is not an agenda.

When taxes are used to push the CisHet Only Story Hour, you'll have a point.



The DHS says quite openly that it is their declared agenda. Not much by way of mind reading going on here.



"Existing" is not the issue. 4year olds have no flipping idea what a man in drag is, or even if they would think that it was anyone other than some lady.

Would you object to your taxes being used to fund the CisHet Story Hour, or the Barefoot and Prego Story Hour? Why or why not?

Wait, so they have an agenda, which is bad. They aren't effective at pushing this agenda because the kids are young, which is also bad? And providing queer role models is about sex, which isn't the same as them existing being sexual even though that's literally the only way queer role models could inherently be about sex...

And church readings are already a thing. Again, what are you on about? The Footloose reference was how Emily's Cat talked herself into dancers being inherently sexual and thus not suitable for reading to children after an earlier reference to this overall moral panic leading to the plot of the movie. It's funny how people with objections to these readings keep talking themselves into either thinking that common things don't already exist, or common things being nefarious.

And not realizing that things like Princess story hour isn't inevitably cishet...wow.

 

[Thermal]

Wait, so they have an agenda, which is bad. They aren't effective at pushing this agenda because the kids are young, which is also bad? And providing queer role models is about sex, which isn't the same as them existing being sexual even though that's literally the only way queer role models could inherently be about sex...

And church readings are already a thing. Again, what are you on about? The Footloose reference was how Emily's Cat talked herself into dancers being inherently sexual and thus not suitable for reading to children after an earlier reference to this overall moral panic leading to the plot of the movie. It's funny how people with objections to these readings keep talking themselves into either thinking that common things don't already exist, or common things being nefarious.

And not realizing that things like Princess story hour isn't inevitably cishet...wow.

Would you object to the Barefoot and Pregnant Story Hour being paid out of tax dollars to role model for children? Simple question, yes? I would object with the same arguments I pose here.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is the sexuality version of "I can't be racist because I don't see color."

Everything happens under the assumption that it's coming from a traditionally sexual person, but when a disenfranchised group does anything other then stay in the closest, they get accused of... something via the falsehood that the traditionally sexual people never had to do it which is missing the point so much it has to be an intentional "Lookit me miss the point, dare you do something about it" flex.

"Why they get their own reading group when straight/cis/whatever people don't" is just my grandpa doing his "Why ain't der no White People History Month?" routine with the nouns swapped out, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[plague311]

Would you object to the Barefoot and Pregnant Story Hour being paid out of tax dollars to role model for children? Simple question, yes? I would object with the same arguments I pose here.

Can you explain to me how those two things are comparable? This is like, the definition of false equivalence.

Also, about your "Houston Libraries only do this one story hour" thing, the Houston Public Library appears to disagree that there is "only this one" Story Hour:

The Houston Public Library offers four different literacy programs for families to take advantage of: Baby Time with books, songs and fingerplays for 6-18 months; Toddler Times with stories, songs and crafts for tots 18-36 months; Preschool Storytime for ages 3-5; and Playgroup which includes stories, songs and activities for babies up to 4 year olds. Check your local branch to find a time! Some programs are also offered in Spanish.

Did you see the last part? IN SPANISH?!?!?! HARUMPF, HARUMPF.