Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Weird how those horrible conservatives didn't care until groomers went after the children.
Weird how many of those "horrible conservatives" are liberal females who have children.
Weird how those horrible conservatives didn't care until groomers went after the children.
Exactly. What does being made up like little sex dolls and vying to be judged the 'prettiest' do to the thinking of little pre-pubescent girls about their worth? I'd rather have taken my daughter to a drag queen story hour than a child 'beauty' pageant.
Not here to defend these pageants, but the girls are not sexualized. The audience is other moms, not men.
The children are dressed up in scanty clothing, and made-up as if they're adults. Many of the chosen songs and the dances performed are not what I would consider appropriate for children. Seriously, the young females in beauty pageants are being portrayed as sexy little kids. It's definitely the sexualization of children, the sex of those in the audience doesn't change that.Oh come on. "Drag" has not been going on for five centuries. Not all cases of cross dressing are drag. And you certainly shouldn't be including stage actors in eras where FEMALES WERE NOT ALLOWED TO ACT AT ALL in your loosey-goosey definition of drag.
For the most part, instances of actors playing a role almost never count as drag. A female playing Peter Pan is not drag. Robin Williams in Mrs. Doubtfire is not drag.
John Leguizamo playing a drag queen in To Wong Foo might actually count as drag... but in that situation it should be noted that Leguizamo is NOT a drag queen - they were playing the role of a drag queen in a movie.
Drag has nothing to do with transgenderism. With the notable exception of Drag Queen Story Hour being used as a vehicle by which to promote transgenderism to children.
Have you looked through the books being read? Many of them are everyday kids books, no big deal. But many of them are intentionally chosen to normalize sexual orientation and gender identity themes to very young children. There's a nuance in there that gets crossed for me, personally. I would have no problem with books that promote the idea that little Johnny likes to wear frilly dresses and tiaras, and that's okay - because little male children can wear whatever they want and still be little male children. I do have a problem with books that promote the idea that because little Johnny likes to wear frilly dresses and tiaras, it means that Johnny is actually a little female child.
I WANT children and adults to feel free to wear whatever style of clothing they like (with bounds of decency and appropriateness for venue), without judgement, without harassment. I want to decouple sex from the absurd social expectations placed upon us. What I don't want, however, is to instill in children the idea that they get to "choose" what sex they are, or the idea that they have the "wrong body".
I certainly don't look at it necessarily as something horrific. I need more context.
Better than children playing with guns and first shooter video games.
Have you looked through the books being read? Many of them are everyday kids books, no big deal. But many of them are intentionally chosen to normalize sexual orientation and gender identity themes to very young children.
It's the textbook example of sexualizing children. What it didn't do for you is highly irrelevant.In fairness, the beauty pageant seemed completely un-sexual, unless the one kid in a two piece got your motor running. Did nothing for me.
No it's not cool, regardless that she is a she. I don't understand how people think that's cool/normal.The pic shown had a guy in translucent panties (full crack in view); and a young child stuffing a dollar in them. That's.....not cool. And color me prudish for thinking so.
I have big problems with anything that tries to normalize the presence of children in adult situations. There's a big difference between not being ashamed that adults have sex, and kids being aware of basic body parts... and exposing young children to sexually-charged adult entertainment.
Normalizing the inclusion of children into adult sexual interactions is not okay, straight off the top.
Normalizing the inclusion of children into adult objectification of females for the purpose of male sexual titillation and gratification is a step beyond that for me.
It's the textbook example of sexualizing children. What it didn't do for you is highly irrelevant.
No it's not cool, regardless that she is a she. I don't understand how people think that's cool/normal.
I think it's naive to think we can hide adult situations from children. IMV, thinking we can protect children by sheilding them is a horrible mistake. I worry about adults preying on children but I'm not concerned about them being exposed to reality.
In fairness, the beauty pageant seemed completely un-sexual, unless the one kid in a two piece got your motor running. Did nothing for me.
The pic shown had a guy in translucent panties (full crack in view); and a young child stuffing a dollar in them. That's.....not cool. And color me prudish for thinking so.
No... as in you think it's just fine for young children to be stuffing dollar bills into the undergarments of a half-naked adult?
Perhaps go back in the thread and see drag entertainers are on mainstream prime time TV in the UK now. There is of course some drag entertainment which is adults only, but there is also family-friendly drag entertainment as well.I wouldn't say that drag shows are the cause of rapid onset gender dysphoria; that's a bit of a stretch. But comparing drags shows of the past - which were adults only - with this predator-like insistence to sexually gyrate in front of kids seems disingenuious. Why would an adult want to do that in front of children?
Of course it's different... One is entertainment that doesn't sexualise children, the drag shows, and the other is the child beauty pageants that are all about sexualisation of children. Have a look at the photos I linked to, many of those costumes wouldn't be out of place in a gentleman's club or a burlesque show.Beauty pagents are a whole different ball of wax; moms trying to live vicariously through their daughters. If the young girls do poll dancing, you'd have a point.
Because the old folk don't want stories read to them, however a game of bingo andLOL, why don't they want to read in nursing homes?
...snip...
Of course it's different... One is entertainment that doesn't sexualise children, the drag shows, and the other is the child beauty pageants that are all about sexualisation of children. Have a look at the photos I linked to, many of those costumes wouldn't be out of place in a gentleman's club or a burlesque show.
Thankfully I don't find any child sexually attractive, but that is not what sexualisation means. In the photo of the drag performer the child is not being sexualised, i.e. made to act or appear like a sexually mature female, in the beauty pageant photos children are being made to appear as what passes for adult females who are dressing "sexy" and also act as an sexually mature female does when they are meant to be being sexy.In fairness, the beauty pageant seemed completely un-sexual, unless the one kid in a two piece got your motor running. Did nothing for me.
The pic shown had a guy in translucent panties (full crack in view); and a young child stuffing a dollar in them. That's.....not cool. And color me prudish for thinking so.