Drag Shows!!

[Emily's Cat]

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.

This isn't providing "gay role models". This is providing presumably gay males in exaggerated and caricatured womanface as "role models".

What exactly makes an adult male who dresses up in a negative and hyperbolic parody of females a good choice for a "role model", regardless of their sexual orientation?

 

[plague311]

I haven't read them but what I'm getting from it is that Foster said "openly welcomed". All of your links appear to be showing LGBTQ+ organizations doing everything they can to expel those groups, not include them further.

 

[Stacyhs]

In the highly unlikely event that Stormy Daniels did do a book reading at a public library, why would kids be any more likely to be curious about her sex life than that of a mainstream actress? Are you advocating such prudish standards that people have to maintain a certain "purity standard" in order to be allowed to interact with people in public?

Again, you're demonstrating an inability to see certain people as anything but their sex lives. A drag performer, who might not even be gay, might have a rather pedestrian sex life compared to a librarian, who might like to dress in dominatrix gear and chain her husband to the wall in gimp suit. And I'm not saying that should disqualify her from interacting with children at work.

Reminds me of the Billions husband and wife characters Chuck and Wendy Rhoades: Attorney General of NY and psychiatrist by day, slave and dominatrix by night.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I question your assumption that children well before puberty actually have anything resembling a sexual orientation in the first place.

I also question your assumption that males performing a mockery of females really represents "normal human beings", anymore than one would think that white people performing a mockery of black people should be held forth as "normal human beings" when teaching children.

 

[plague311]

Speaking of stupidity and childishness, the thread seems long past anything resembling good faith discussion. Feel free to join plague and some others here in making up random bigoted bull **** to project while you pine the loss of Warp.

That's about the truest thing you've said in this entire thread, no doubt about that.

Besides, we haven't lost Warp. He's everywhere, just read the thread.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Nah bro, you're not getting it. Don't ascribe yourself winning points when you're playing a game all by yourself.

Dancers are not inherently sexual. STRIPPERS are inherently sexual.

Hosting an event aimed at children, with the intention of "inclusiveness and diversity" by showcasing a person as a representative of that diversity... where the person being showcased is a STRIPPER... is a problem for me, in a way that a ballroom dancer, a ballerina, a backup dancer, or even a street crew would absolutely not be a problem.

Because at that point, what is being NORMALIZED for children is not "dancing", it is specifically STRIPPING. And that is not an appropriate topic for young children.

 

[bruto]

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.

The Cishet story hour is there by default. Nobody finds it exceptional, or notices, but we who live in the default zone seem often to forget that we are just as much what we are as those who aren't.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What makes a Drag Queen more sexual than Mr. John Straight Cis Smith Esq?

What makes it more sexual? The fact that a large number of drag acts (not all of them, certainly) are adult entertainment using sexualized themes, performed for adults, while wearing costumes that feature overtly hyperbolic sexual features in an exaggerated and borderline mocking fashion. Many drag performers have overtly sexualized stage names at that.

Seriously, go back and give just a little bit of thought to why parents and adults might object to Stormy Daniels being featured to read to children as a "role model", but would not object to Sandra Bullock. I don't think this is all that complicated.

Well, unless people can't separate their political activism from their common sense. Like Thermal said, this isn't about the kids - this is about adults using children as a means by which to further their political beliefs.

 

[Emily's Cat]

When superheroes come out, are they introduced by their ******* superhero name? Their real name? The superheroes real name? They don't bring up that he's a man in a superhero uniform and that's ok. Jesus Christ. Common sense ain't all that common sometimes.

Look at the poster about the guy that had a background you're bitching about, does the poster show his real name or his character name? Glad I could help.

Nah, you're right - when the drag performer Flow Job does a DQSH, they're introduced as "Flow Job". Do the kids understand that it's a play on "Blow Job"? No, they don't.

But their parent's 100% get the reference, the double entendre, and the implicitly sexual nature of the name that their children are being introduced to as a "role model".

Do you understand how that could make many parents uncomfortable? Even gay parents could be made uncomfortable by that - in fact I know a handful of lesbian parents who are absolutely uncomfortable with it.

 

[plague311]

Well, unless people can't separate their political activism from their common sense. Like Thermal said, this isn't about the kids - this is about adults using children as a means by which to further their political beliefs.

This is just...*chef's kiss*

 

[Emily's Cat]

Kids wouldn't have any idea who Stormy Daniels is or what porn is, for that matter. To them, she'd just be a lady reading them a story.

That's not the question I asked. I didn't ask whether it would bother the kids. I asked whether you could understand why some parents would object.

 

[plague311]

Nah, you're right - when the drag performer Flow Job does a DQSH, they're introduced as "Flow Job". Do the kids understand that it's a play on "Blow Job"? No, they don't.

But their parent's 100% get the reference, the double entendre, and the implicitly sexual nature of the name that their children are being introduced to as a "role model".

Do you understand how that could make many parents uncomfortable? Even gay parents could be made uncomfortable by that - in fact I know a handful of lesbian parents who are absolutely uncomfortable with it.

Good for you, them and all the others. You know what they can do? I'll give you an extremely simple resolution:

DON'T TAKE YOUR ******* KIDS TO THE GOD DAMN EVENT.

There it is. So simple. Especially considering the fliers that went out, as we saw in this thread, explicitly state what it is, where it is, and who's going to be there.

Problem solved, give me a Nobel.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If the performer is a young woman dressed as Elsa from Frozen, do we really need to tell the kids that she's not really a magical princess?

...

Well, kids are taken by their parents to see someone dressed in a costume read a story to them.

If the entire raison d'etre of having the person in that specific costume read to children is to teach children to be accepting of people in that specific costume... I think that ought to at least be considered as a salient element of the situation.

If the purpose of having a person in a princess costume is to teach children to be inclusive of people in princess costumes... maybe that needs a bit of thought? Is there an innate tendency of children to reject or mistreat people in princess costumes?

Do children have an innate dislike of people in bear costumes that needs to be overcome by showcasing people in bear costumes?

Because let's be real here, this isn't about increasing acceptance of princesses or bears or females, and it's not at all about increasing acceptance by children. It's about using kids as wedge by which to compel greater acceptance of PEOPLE IN COSTUMES by adults.

 

[Stacyhs]

I question your assumption that children well before puberty actually have anything resembling a sexual orientation in the first place.

I question you assumption that they don't. The general consensus among scientists is that we are born with our sexual orientation already established.

I also question your assumption that males performing a mockery of females really represents "normal human beings", anymore than one would think that white people performing a mockery of black people should be held forth as "normal human beings" when teaching children.

I question your assumption that drag queens are 'performing a mockery of females'. That's your interpretation, not necessarily theirs. As RuPaul said "Gay men don’t do drag to mock women, we do drag to mock the cultural concept of identity. If you don’t get irony, you don’t get drag."

Exactly what is a 'normal human being'? Someone who conforms to your ideas of what 'normal' is?

People in blackface is another false equivalence. Drag queens are not trying to insult and disparage women.

 

[Thermal]

The Cishet story hour is there by default. Nobody finds it exceptional, or notices, but we who live in the default zone seem often to forget that we are just as much what we are as those who aren't.

Pretty sure about that, are you? It wouldn't occur to me to identify whether a storyteller was het or not, assuming I even could. I mean, do you look at children's storytellers and wonder which way they swing? Pretty far down on my list, if I'm being honest. Gay, straight, bi, gender fluid, otherkin...who cares? Oh, that's right. DSH cares. But they say they want to expose children to queer folk (their words), yet market themselves as Drag Story Hour, and I think we have been all over how a man in a dress is not queer. Unless Tom Hanks and Robin Williams and Tony Curtis were all queer? I wonder if I spotted some yoga pants and a bikini top, if I could get in on this gig. Bit cold outside for working.

 

[plague311]

I wonder if I spotted some yoga pants and a bikini top, if I could get in on this gig. Bit cold outside for working.

If you did, would that make you a worse person? Would you be unqualified to be a father, storyteller, legal guardian, or anything else?

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's about using kids as wedge by which to compel greater acceptance of PEOPLE IN COSTUMES by adults.

I wondered how long it would take to reveal that all along it's really all about That Topic.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I wondered how long it would take to reveal that all along it's really all about That Topic.

It's not about "that topic". Drag performers are not transgender.

FFS, if they actually had transgender people doing story hour for kids, I'd have a LOT less objection to it! Bring on Caitlyn Jenner to read to kids, I'm all for it.

 

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Kids wouldn't have any idea who Stormy Daniels is or what porn is, for that matter. To them, she'd just be a lady reading them a story.

That's not the question I asked. I didn't ask whether it would bother the kids. I asked whether you could understand why some parents would object.

OK...I thought my reply did answer your question but apparently it needs to be spelled out: "No, I don't understand why some parents would object BECAUSE kids wouldn't have any idea who Stormy Daniels is or what porn is, for that matter. To them, she'd just be a lady reading them a story.

Better?

 

[tyr_13]

Nah bro, you're not getting it. Don't ascribe yourself winning points when you're playing a game all by yourself.

Dancers are not inherently sexual. STRIPPERS are inherently sexual.

Hosting an event aimed at children, with the intention of "inclusiveness and diversity" by showcasing a person as a representative of that diversity... where the person being showcased is a STRIPPER... is a problem for me, in a way that a ballroom dancer, a ballerina, a backup dancer, or even a street crew would absolutely not be a problem.

Because at that point, what is being NORMALIZED for children is not "dancing", it is specifically STRIPPING. And that is not an appropriate topic for young children.

What makes it more sexual? The fact that a large number of drag acts (not all of them, certainly) are adult entertainment using sexualized themes, performed for adults, while wearing costumes that feature overtly hyperbolic sexual features in an exaggerated and borderline mocking fashion. Many drag performers have overtly sexualized stage names at that.

Seriously, go back and give just a little bit of thought to why parents and adults might object to Stormy Daniels being featured to read to children as a "role model", but would not object to Sandra Bullock. I don't think this is all that complicated.

Well, unless people can't separate their political activism from their common sense. Like Thermal said, this isn't about the kids - this is about adults using children as a means by which to further their political beliefs.

These posts are at odds with themselves.

You're claiming that strippers are always sexual, no matter what else they are doing. Even if they're doing any of the other dance styles listed, they're still strippers and forever tainted. You also claim that because some drag is sexual, all drag is sexual enough for the same to apply to drag artists.

But stripping is dance and you explicitly don't extend the same reasoning to dance. Some dance is sexual, but you don't argue that all dancers are sexual enough to be barred from reading to kids.

This is because your standard is nonsense rationalizations. Drag is no more inherently sexual than dance. Or acting.

I'm not 'winning'; you're failing to support your arguments. Maybe give them some actual thought rather than aiming for the outcome you want.