Drag Shows!!

[Robin]

I think a source of confusion is this term "adult entertainer"

Drag queens are entertainers whose audience are usually adults. Like Bono, Sting, Billy Connolly, John Cleese etc.

They are not adult entertainers in the sense that strippers, pole dancers are adult entertainers.

The distinction is that the main, perhaps only aim of the latter group is to sexually arouse.

It is not any part of a drag act to sexually arouse.

Comparisons with strippers and the like are obviously absurd.

 

[The Don]

I think a source of confusion is this term "adult entertainer"

Drag queens are entertainers whose audience are usually adults. Like Bono, Sting, Billy Connolly, John Cleese etc.

They are not adult entertainers in the sense that strippers, pole dancers are adult entertainers.

The distinction is that the main, perhaps only aim of the latter group is to sexually arouse.

It is not any part of a drag act to sexually arouse.

Comparisons with strippers and the like are obviously absurd.

...but quite deliberate.

 

[Upchurch]

We are not talking about anything remotely like that.

Well, of course you are. How else does one know the effect of an action if not through scientific testing and research?

I'm asking. How do you truly answer your question about the effectiveness of exposure to drag queens on early childhood social development without a long-term psychological or sociological study? Please, explain to me what you are asking for here.

 

[plague311]

...and the hosts thought it was ok to allow children in. And the Garden of Eden performers thought it was great for kids too. And the other parents certainly didn't lodge any objections that I saw. And of course Mr **** Me All Night gyrated in his underwear in front of his child audience.

Say, what other ridiculously lewd behaviors do you champion for performing in front of children? Cuz I don't make excuses to do so because the parents allowed it. If these parents allowed public spanking, would you spank their children onstage?

Guess what? It doesn't ******* matter what the parents allowed. All the other adults saw the children, and let 'er rip anyway. They raised not a single objection.

This was one individual show. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. No one is saying children should attend lewd drag shows. I don't think anyone here is making that argument, let alone "championing" it.

This sounds like blaming the performers for the actions of the parents. I'm not sure why.

With regards to seeing those underwear vs. a cheerleader, feel free to look at these images of the Heat dancers. It's very, very little more than a bra and underwear. In fact, my wife wears something similar and refers to them as "boy shorts". It's almost an exact replica.

They perform anywhere between 2-4 times a game. For your enjoyment, or displeasure, I'll include a youtube link to their show. If anyone says the two aren't comparable then you haven't watched a ******* halftime dance show at a basketball game in....******* forever lol.

 

[wareyin]

I think a source of confusion is this term "adult entertainer"

Drag queens are entertainers whose audience are usually adults. Like Bono, Sting, Billy Connolly, John Cleese etc.

They are not adult entertainers in the sense that strippers, pole dancers are adult entertainers.

The distinction is that the main, perhaps only aim of the latter group is to sexually arouse.

It is not any part of a drag act to sexually arouse.

Comparisons with strippers and the like are obviously absurd.

...but quite deliberate.

Indeed. Conflating Drag Story Hour with strippers pole dancing, or porno performances, or even calling it a fetish are all deliberate attempts to muddy the waters. These aren't just a mistake in terminology used.

 

[Thermal]

Well, of course you are. How else does one know the effect of an action if not through scientific testing and research?

I'm asking. How do you truly answer your question about the effectiveness of exposure to drag queens on early childhood social development without a long-term psychological or sociological study? Please, explain to me what you are asking for here.

Well, Upchurch, what many of us do is what we call "utilizing an existing body of knowledge". What does this mean, you ask? If for example, I wind kanthal wire into a springy shape, ground one end of it and connect the other to a power source, I do not need to commence expensive research to find out what it will do. I know from an existing body of knowledge that I have created an electrical heating coil, which will get very hot.

How does this apply here, you ask? Well, we already have an ample body of knowledge regarding children's stages of cognitive development. A three year old, for example, is only a few months past leading object ******* permanence, and is just entering the preoperational stage. Cutting to the chase: they are little nitwits that likely have not developed the capacity to understand the complexities of gender presentation. They actually believe in Santa Claus and monsters under their beds.

As you have taken the time to snip out the rest of my replies, I take it that you are satisfied with my argumentation, and explaining all this to you is our final sticking point?

 

[wareyin]

Well, Upchurch, what many of us do is what we call "utilizing an existing body of knowledge". What does this mean, you ask? If for example, I wind kanthal wire into a springy shape, ground one end of it and connect the other to a power source, I do not need to commence expensive research to find out what it will do. I know from an existing body of knowledge that I have created an electrical heating coil, which will get very hot.

How does this apply here, you ask? Well, we already have an ample body of knowledge regarding children's stages of cognitive development. A three year old, for example, is only a few months past leading object ******* permanence, and is just entering the preoperational stage. Cutting to the chase: they are little nitwits that likely have not developed the capacity to understand the complexities of gender presentation. They actually believe in Santa Claus and monsters under their beds.

As you have taken the time to snip out the rest of my replies, I take it that you are satisfied with my argumentation, and explaining all this to you is our final sticking point?

You do realize that you have refuted your own claims, right? ...

Right?

No?

Dude, how the **** do you think these 3 year olds know about Santa Claus to believe in him? From what their parents and other authority figures tell and show them. And yet, you maintain that these 3 year olds can't learn that people in drag aren't clowns or perverts based on what their parents and other authority figures tell and show them.

 

[Thermal]

This was one individual show. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Not at all. It's the illustrative example presented by the OP story. It shows exactly the kind of thing that can go wrong when you try to mix adult entertainment with the kiddies.

No one is saying children should attend lewd drag shows. I don't think anyone here is making that argument, let alone "championing" it.

This sounds like blaming the performers for the actions of the parents. I'm not sure why.

Then let me ask you a serious question: what do you think would happen if, in a school playground, a man in a dress lifted it up, exposing his underwear to young girls, while singing "**** me all night"? That's how close we are to the criminal offense of performing lewd and lacivious acts in front of a child. Yes, it's not exactly the same, but it's pretty far away from handwaving and saying "the parents were vaguely warned that the performers had potty mouths."

With regards to seeing those underwear vs. a cheerleader, feel free to look at these images of the Heat dancers.

First off: thanks for that!

It's very, very little more than a bra and underwear. In fact, my wife wears something similar and refers to them as "boy shorts". It's almost an exact replica.

Those outfits are about as revealing as a 1950's bathing suit. I have some very bad news for you: women and exotic dancers wear a hell of a lot less nowadays. We have these things called "thongs" and "G-Strings", and the bikini tops I see all day long in the summer are little more than dental floss with two halves of a golf ball worth of fabric.

ETA: the reason those are called "boy shorts" is that they are closer to being what guys wear than traditional women's underwear or swimsuits. You know, more like shorts a boy would wear? No?

They perform anywhere between 2-4 times a game. For your enjoyment, or displeasure, I'll include a youtube link to their show. If anyone says the two aren't comparable then you haven't watched a ******* halftime dance show at a basketball game in....******* forever lol.

Again: good looking out, brah!

But if you think that was in any way comparable to the suggestiveness of an exotic dancer's performance, I gotta take you out to the clubs.

 

[Thermal]

You do realize that you have refuted your own claims, right? ...

Right?

No?

Dude, how the **** do you think these 3 year olds know about Santa Claus to believe in him? From what their parents and other authority figures tell and show them. And yet, you maintain that these 3 year olds can't learn that people in drag aren't clowns or perverts based on what their parents and other authority figures tell and show them.

As I said, the stage of cognitive development for believing in magical creatures is appropriate for a three year old, who has not reached the stage of formal reasoning and the ability to consider more complex societal representation.

However, when you descend to posting childish lies like this about another poster:

Does your extensive experience of having a spouse lead you to think kids will look for ways to mock minorities? Or could it be that, as a father who mocks minorities on the regular (on this board at least), you have kids who also lean towards mockery as a way to deal with minorities? Shouldn't that tell you that kids learn how to treat others by watching their parents, and kids whose parents are trying to teach tolerance and acceptance by example will have the same success you did teaching your kids to mock and belittle?

...then you really shouldn't expect replies.

 

[Thermal]

I think a source of confusion is this term "adult entertainer"

Drag queens are entertainers whose audience are usually adults. Like Bono, Sting, Billy Connolly, John Cleese etc.

There is no confusion about what an adult entertainer is. You're just playing cheap word games.

 

[Upchurch]

How does this apply here, you ask? Well, we already have an ample body of knowledge regarding children's stages of cognitive development. A three year old, for example, is only a few months past leading object ******* permanence, and is just entering the preoperational stage. Cutting to the chase: they are little nitwits that likely have not developed the capacity to understand the complexities of gender presentation. They actually believe in Santa Claus and monsters under their beds.

This is 100% a special pleading argument.

You are arguing that we can't possibly know how effective DSH will be on reducing bigotry early childhood but we absolutely can know that they will equate "drag" with clown because .... well, no reason provided. That's the problem.

Appealing to "ample body of knowledge" without any specific reference to early childhood reactions to new stimuli is, at best, an appeal to authority. At worst, you are relying on "common sense", which is the most overused logical dodge to proving a point there is. The question is about how we judge the effectiveness of DSH. Replying "I just know without really checking" isn't an answer.

And, to mix in your straw man. No one is saying a 3 year old has to understand the complexities of gender presentation. All they are doing is being introduced that this person in the dress is not scary. It's a starting point, not the end.

 

[wareyin]

As I said, the stage of cognitive development for believing in magical creatures is appropriate for a three year old, who has not reached the stage of formal reasoning and the ability to consider more complex societal representation.

The stage of cognitive development for believing your parents about magical creatures is there, but that exact same stage of development applied to believing your parents that drag performers aren't perverts isn't? Exactly how tight of a knot must you tie yourself into to perpetuate this bigoted stance?

However, when you descend to posting childish lies like this about another poster:




...then you really shouldn't expect replies.

Are you now pretending that you didn't/don't routinely portray minorities in the worst possible light in every argument? Whether a black man who is being prevented from entering his own front door by a neighbor who has decided she's the building's gatekeeper is a big black linebacker barreling her over (as he steps past her without making physical contact), or a drag story hour reader is just a pervert who gets off on lewd acts in front of children, or whether a black man who has been running for his life for 10 minutes from 3 armed rednecks in vehicles was the aggressor who was stupidly playing with the people who shot him, if it's not a straight white guy then you're mocking or denigrating them.

 

[Thermal]

This is 100% a special pleading argument.

You are arguing that we can't possibly know how effective DSH will be on reducing bigotry early childhood but we absolutely can know that they will equate "drag" with clown because .... well, no reason provided. That's the problem.

You are either being disingenuous, or possibly a little slow today. Let's assume the latter.

You are using absolutist language here that I do not use. I have said, quite clearly and dear God repeatedly, that I do not know how the children would take it. And neither do you (and others), yet it doesn't stop you from making repeated bald assertions.

Actually, there's no more wiggle room on that. You are being dishonest in putting words in my mouth.

Appealing to "ample body of knowledge" without any specific reference to early childhood reactions to new stimuli is, at best, an appeal to authority. At worst, you are relying on "common sense", which is the most overused logical dodge to proving a point there is. The question is about how we judge the effectiveness of DSH. Replying "I just know without really checking" isn't an answer.

Nor are your repeated bald assertions. It's your claim being questioned. Perhaps you have the relevant research you demand of others at the ready? Why not present it instead of implying?

And, to mix in your straw man. No one is saying a 3 year old has to understand the complexities of gender presentation. All they are doing is being introduced that this person in the dress is not scary. It's a starting point, not the end.

You continue to assume the three year old even knows it's a man in drag. I don't have that confidence.

 

[Upchurch]

Nor are your repeated bald assertions. It's your claim being questioned. Perhaps you have the relevant research you demand of others at the ready? Why not present it instead of implying?

That's why, earlier, I said:

Yes, it would be lovely if we had the money, time, and resources to research every question under the sun.

As far as I looked, I have found no formal research on this topic. Such research takes money, time, and resources, of which the world has only a limited supply. You are asking a question that has no formal answer and, in my opinion, really doesn't matter all that much.

I know you say it matters to you, but I have yet to see any suggestions from you about how we might realistically answer your question, beyond an appeal to an "existing body of knowledge" that, as far as I can see, doesn't really answer the question.

To quote myself: "If no one is being hurt and maybe some good comes from it, what is the harm in trying? Worse case scenario, some kids get read a story." Your counter was laughable. We can't assume they understand someone in a dress, but we can assume they understand clowns?

 

[plague311]

Not at all. It's the illustrative example presented by the OP story. It shows exactly the kind of thing that can go wrong when you try to mix adult entertainment with the kiddies.

Right, but again, the show wasn't intended for kiddies. It was intended to be a rated R\MA show for those with the maturity to attend. This was stated in multiple places and, as you pointed out, left out in many places; however, it was stated at the door as well. Before people walked in they were told and I would bet that the parents of the individual in question were told with even more clarity.

Then let me ask you a serious question: what do you think would happen if, in a school playground, a man in a dress lifted it up, exposing his underwear to young girls, while singing "**** me all night"? That's how close we are to the criminal offense of performing lewd and lacivious acts in front of a child. Yes, it's not exactly the same, but it's pretty far away from handwaving and saying "the parents were vaguely warned that the performers had potty mouths."

I'm sure it won't be surprising to you when I say, I don't find these two examples equivalent. In your scenario the individual wasn't invited, it wasn't an audience intended for him, and it would be completely and entirely unsolicited. A school is also not a venue to do such things. In the actual event it was all of those things. That was the point of the show. It was by design. The people rehearsed, it was an act that many people attended to see exactly the actions they saw.

Those outfits are about as revealing as a 1950's bathing suit. I have some very bad news for you: women and exotic dancers wear a hell of a lot less nowadays. We have these things called "thongs" and "G-Strings", and the bikini tops I see all day long in the summer are little more than dental floss with two halves of a golf ball worth of fabric.

I'm glad you brought that up. You see all of those things in public, right? Do children as young as 3 see that as well? Are the cops called? Are there protestors there? Are organizations forming and sending out requests to stop such action? Are these really the same? You're kind of making the point that lewdness, mostly naked bodies, and the like are things kids run into pretty regularly, at least where you're at. That's definitely not the case where I am, but we live in vastly different climates.

ETA: the reason those are called "boy shorts" is that they are closer to being what guys wear than traditional women's underwear or swimsuits. You know, more like shorts a boy would wear? No?

I don't really pay attention or care, if I'm being honest. My knowledge of women's underwear starts and stops at "wear what you want, I don't want to hear about it.". Other people's underwear grosses me out, wife included. That's why I don't do other people's laundry.

But if you think that was in any way comparable to the suggestiveness of an exotic dancer's performance, I gotta take you out to the clubs.

I wasn't comparing the two. I was saying that they dance erotically in small amounts of clothing in front of a large amount of children every single day with not even a shoulder shrug from most people.

I've seen a few performances with the same exact moves pole dancers and strippers use. The only difference is the amount of clothing.

 

[tyr_13]

A gentle reminder that reducing the set of children under discussion to three year olds when the events are (generally) for the ages of 3-10 is really blatant cherry picking. It's really empty reasoning to pretend that if three year olds possibly might not grasp all the ideas that the events are useless or counterproductive.

 

[Thermal]

That's why, earlier, I said:

​

As far as I looked, I have found no formal research on this topic. Such research takes money, time, and resources, of which the world has only a limited supply. You are asking a question that has no formal answer and, in my opinion, really doesn't matter all that much.

And that's why, rather than go through dozens of pages of argumentation, that when someone asks "you pretty sure about that?", it is much faster to say "no, I don't know and I don't care". Brevity is indeed the art of effective communication.

I know you say it matters to you, but I have yet to see any suggestions from you about how we might realistically answer your question, beyond an appeal to an "existing body of knowledge" that, as far as I can see, doesn't really answer the question.

To quote myself: "If no one is being hurt and maybe some good comes from it, what is the harm in trying? Worse case scenario, some kids get read a story." Your counter was laughable. We can't assume they understand someone in a dress, but we can assume they understand clowns?

My question, for the umpteenth time is:

"Men in dresses and children seem like an odd pairing. Is there some kind of reason for this?"

And ultimately the answer is:

"No. We don't know and we don't care".

Viva la Skepticism!

 

[Upchurch]

My question, for the umpteenth time is:

"Men in dresses and children seem like an odd pairing. Is there some kind of reason for this?"

And ultimately the answer is:

"No. We don't know and we don't care".

Well, that's not accurate at all.

There is some kind of reason for it. That reason has been explained to you many times. What we don't know is if it is proven to work. And what I don't care about is proving that it works before giving it a try, as the risk-benefit ratio is pretty low.

If trying it for a while and we see negative results, I will absolutely be in favor of modifying or stopping DSH.

 

[Thermal]

Well, that's not accurate at all.

There is some kind of reason for it. That reason has been explained to you many times.

And found wanting multiple times, yes

What we don't know is if it is proven to work. And what I don't care about is proving that it works before giving it a try, as the risk-benefit ratio is pretty low.

If trying it for a while and we see negative results, I will absolutely be in favor of modifying or stopping DSH.

LMFAO

"Ya lets just roll this out and if we see any negative effects on the children then we'll stop."

I love Pol posters. Since you're down to repeating and requoting yourself, while handwaving away everything I pose, we can probably call it a day. Thanks.

 

[wareyin]

And found wanting multiple times, yes

Well of course you found the explanations wanting! They made the drag story hours seem to be normal entertainment in line with the other story hours the libraries are also putting on, rather than your preferred 'they're all perverts with a lewd acts in front of kids fetish (that somehow isn't supposed to be taken as meaning sexual, somehow)' explanation.

If you don't come at with with a bias against any and all minorities, it's a compelling explanation.