Drag Shows!!

[Robin]

I still can't see the problem. I would have been happy for my kids to go to a drag show, as long as it wasn't obscene.

Shouldn't parents be allowed to decide what their kids see?

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Robin

I still can't see the problem. I would have been happy for my kids to go to a drag show, as long as it wasn't obscene.

Shouldn't parents be allowed to decide what their kids see?

IMO the reasoning goes something like.....

Any parent who would allow their child to be exposed to something as depraved as a Drag Show is unfit to make a decision like this on behalf of their child. Because of this, "responsible" adults need to protect children from the poor decisions that their parents make.

For example, a parent may decide that it's fine to give their 7 year old a glass of whiskey and a cigarette but there are laws in place to protect their child - this is the same kind of thing.

Utter nonsense IMO but that's what I think the justification is.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Robin

I still can't see the problem. I would have been happy for my kids to go to a drag show, as long as it wasn't obscene.

Shouldn't parents be allowed to decide what their kids see?

Only if those parents agree with the GOP Karens' ideas of what's appropriate. Otherwise, no.

Parental rights are 'fine for me but not for thee'.

[The Great Zaganza]

All of Conservative Morals are based on the principle of the Frankfurter Case: You're free to chose as long as you chose what we want you to.

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Also, I am not sure about every library's policies for children. But I can tell you, by age 8 I was a "latch-key" kid. Meaning, I had a house key and was unattended for much of the day. So, many kids like that might just wind up at the library, I imagine. So, you know, I think the discussion of age-appropriate restrictions is very relevant to this topic.

Or at least a relevant concern for parents.

Deadbeat parents who abrogate their responsibility to care for their offspring and rely on the school of life to bring them up can't complain if life decides to teach them things (like accepting people for who they are and tolerance) that they hate.

Where this group are going wrong is trying to fix the world in a way so they can neglect their children and hope they will be brought up by society in a way they would like.

The big problem with that is people believe in different things. Only one worldview can prevail, everything else is banned. There is no parental choice.

If you want to have choice you need people to be able to choose. These people don't want any choice. They have no interest in helping their children learn to make sensible choices they don't want to spend time with their children.

They are pathetic snowflakes complaining that they are being forced to parent properly. Twats.

[Carrot Flower King]

I wonder what some folk make of Tom of Finland...I mean, all those very butch, muscly, hyper-masculine men...OK, most of them have their knobs out, so you are in no doubt that they are MEN, but all very masculine and manly...Just ask Rob Halford.

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

I wonder what some folk make of Tom of Finland...I mean, all those very butch, muscly, hyper-masculine men...OK, most of them have their knobs out, but all very masculine and manly...Just ask Rob Halford.

Can't deny that I'm struggling to see how a leading creator of gay pornographic images and "out" Judas Priests lead singer manifesting them in his stage attire fits into a discussion about drag artists reading to children.

[Carrot Flower King]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

Can't deny that I'm struggling to see how a leading creator of gay pornographic images and "out" Judas Priests lead singer manifesting them in his stage attire fits into a discussion about drag artists reading to children.

A tangent relating to exaggerated depictions of gender stereotypes...

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Robin

I still can't see the problem. I would have been happy for my kids to go to a drag show, as long as it wasn't obscene.

Shouldn't parents be allowed to decide what their kids see?

Of course.

But some liberals seem to be against that very notion. Hence they shun of the idea of age-appropriate restrictions on events such as DSH.

Also, it doesn't matter whether you can see the problem or not. We aren't just talking about your kids. "I don't see a problem with kids being exposed to xyz", is not a valid argument that it should be acceptable to everyone, or even the default.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Yes. Did I claim otherwise? Not sure where you got that from. The point was that referring to Drag Queens as a slight variation of clowns is, imo, a very simplistic analysis. Perhaps even disingenuous. Especially based on some of the "mission-statements" I've read.

I have repeatedly stated that my primary concern is the voices of concerned parents being silenced. This is a common trend with liberals, these days. To downplay, discredit, and flat-out try to take away the voices of conservative parents. As usual, it is front-and-center in this thread, too.

We know - but you are quite happy for the voices of the non-concerned parents to be silenced.

That you only want to silence those that disagree with you, doesn't make it virtuous.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

You can't imagine how funny that sounds, considering the consensus in this thread, and the overall venue.

Look, it does not matter where Drag Queens fall in The Pocket Guide to Freaks, Geeks, and Fetishes. What matters is that liberals stop trying discredit, minimize, and silence conservative parents and their concerns.

The fact that I consider Drag Queens weirdos, freaks, or whatever...I have a right to that opinion. Just like someone who feels the opposite has a right to theirs.

But it doesn't matter to you if conservatives try to discredit, minimize, and silence liberal parents and their concerns.

(Please note I am using your incoherent definitions for conservatives and liberal)

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Of course.

But some liberals seem to be against that very notion. Hence they shun of the idea of age-appropriate restrictions on events such as DSH.

.

How does banning people from attending ,= choice.

This is rightwing snowflakes trying to ban events to stop other people's children attending events.

Is is very disappointing that someone who claims to be pro parental choice is supporting a group that is looking to ban events and remove choice.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Yes, I am intentionally not taking the conversation there. It is a waste of time.

I have earlier stated that I am not suggesting an outright ban. But rather age-appropriate restrictions. It should be enough for me to say I don't want my young child to have access to it; whether or not I can be standing over them at every moment of the day, or at every venue such an event might be presented.

Parents have a legitimate right to these concerns.

Enforced by?

[The Great Zaganza]

I think there is a simple solution that will satisfy Warp: have every minor implanted with a chip on which the parents can encode what they can and cannot do on their own. A sensor to every shop or public building can read it and act accordingly.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Yes, I am intentionally not taking the conversation there. It is a waste of time.

I have earlier stated that I am not suggesting an outright ban. But rather age-appropriate restrictions. It should be enough for me to say I don't want my young child to have access to it; whether or not I can be standing over them at every moment of the day, or at every venue such an event might be presented.

Parents have a legitimate right to these concerns.

Are there other areas that you want parents stripped of their rights and their responsibilities to be removed and given to the state?

[Warp12]

Found this related to the group in the OP.

Quote:

“This is something that was overtly sexual. They clearly said, ‘All ages welcome.’ And now, apparently the left is gaslighting me into thinking that I’m somehow the crazy one for having a problem with this,” Gonzales told Carlson

https://texasscorecard.com/state/def...n-of-children/

And the NSFW Drag video, on twitter (also viewable in the linked article):

https://twitter.com/SaraGonzalesTX/s...of-children%2F


Honestly, I don't see how anyone can expect all parents to be OK with this?

[3point14]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Of course.

But some liberals seem to be against that very notion. Hence they shun of the idea of age-appropriate restrictions on events such as DSH.

Also, it doesn't matter whether you can see the problem or not. We aren't just talking about your kids. "I don't see a problem with kids being exposed to xyz", is not a valid argument that it should be acceptable to everyone, or even the default.

We're talking about kids. Their parents are in control of where they go and what they see.

Parents who are not in control of where their kids go and what they see are, quite frankly, ******* awful parents, and the solution for this is not to ban everything that those who cannot parent their own children effectively don't want their kids to see, but for those parents to be better.


Bottom line - If you don't want your kids to see a thing, simply don't let them see it. It's not a tricky concept.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Of course.

But some liberals seem to be against that very notion.

You are against that very notion.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Found this related to the group in the OP.



https://texasscorecard.com/state/def...n-of-children/

And the NSFW Drag video, on twitter (also viewable in the linked article):

https://twitter.com/SaraGonzalesTX/s...of-children%2F


Honestly, I don't see how anyone can expect all parents to be OK with this?

I just had to scroll down a few replies to find out that it was not marked as "All ages welcome". In fact it was marked:

"This event contains strong language and suggestive dialogue and may not be appropriate for all ages. Viewer discretion is advised."

"If you would not allow your children to see a Rated R movie, this is not the event for them."

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

I just had to scroll down a few replies to find out that it was not marked as "All ages welcome". In fact it was marked:

"This event contains strong language and suggestive dialogue and may not be appropriate for all ages. Viewer discretion is advised."

"If you would not allow your children to see a Rated R movie, this is not the event for them."

Odd. I just scrolled through like 100 comments and didn't find anything like that.

Either way, it sure is touching seeing that small child watch this, I'll tell you.

https://twitter.com/SaraGonzalesTX/s...of-children%2F

It is easily understandable why many parents would consider this abusive to children. It's just not a good look.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Odd. I just scrolled through like 100 comments and didn't find anything like that.

Either way, it sure is touching seeing that small child watch this, I'll tell you.

https://twitter.com/SaraGonzalesTX/s...of-children%2F

It is easily understandable why many parents would consider this abusive to children. It's just not a good look.

Then they shouldn't have taken their child to what was obviously an adult-oriented event. It's hardly fair to blame the performer for that.

Oh, and here's the reply:

https://twitter.com/MacPena/status/1582532523766095872

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Found this related to the group in the OP.



https://texasscorecard.com/state/def...n-of-children/

And the NSFW Drag video, on twitter (also viewable in the linked article):

https://twitter.com/SaraGonzalesTX/s...of-children%2F


Honestly, I don't see how anyone can expect all parents to be OK with this?

No one expects all parents to be Ok. What everyone here is saying is that there needs to be parental discretion. Everyone that is apart from you. You and your ilk in the OP want to refuse parental choice and have the state control entry.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Yes, I am intentionally not taking the conversation there. It is a waste of time.

It is not a waste of time. In fact, it is the fundamental question that underlies the whole discussion.

If you cannot explain why drag shows are inappropriate, there is no reason talking about any of this.

So, what is inappropriate about the objective listed above? Either put up or, as they say, shut up. Because if you can't put up here, then everything is, indeed, a waste of time.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Odd. I just scrolled through like 100 comments and didn't find anything like that.

Either way, it sure is touching seeing that small child watch this, I'll tell you.

https://twitter.com/SaraGonzalesTX/s...of-children%2F

It is easily understandable why many parents would consider this abusive to children. It's just not a good look.

You really do want to take control of what their child sees out of the hands of the parents.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Please quote the section which says that they're going to teach kids to dress in drag.

Bah, nonsense.

Let's grant for the sake of argument that they do.

And? So the heck what?

You know, if you accept the premise that "drag is bad" the whole house of cards falls.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Honestly, I don't see how anyone can expect all parents to be OK with this?

No one is asking them to.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Of course.

But some liberals seem to be against that very notion. Hence they shun of the idea of age-appropriate restrictions on events such as DSH.

Also, it doesn't matter whether you can see the problem or not. We aren't just talking about your kids. "I don't see a problem with kids being exposed to xyz", is not a valid argument that it should be acceptable to everyone, or even the default.

That word right there. You just said that parents should be allowed to decide what their kids see, and then used the exact word which exactly means exactly the opposite. "Restrict" and "allow" do not play well together.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by bruto

That word right there. You just said that parents should be allowed to decide what their kids see, and then used the exact word which exactly means exactly the opposite. "Restrict" and "allow" do not play well together.

Age-appropriate restrictions. Like requiring a parent or legal guardian to accompany certain ages. Come on, Bruto.

Or are you going be the next to demand zero measures?

Because if that is the game, I guess I would have to side with those who want to ban the events.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by bruto

That word right there. You just said that parents should be allowed to decide what their kids see, and then used the exact word which exactly means exactly the opposite. "Restrict" and "allow" do not play well together.

Warp12 has been very clear in this thread that he supports the silencing of parent voices and he supports parental responsibility being curtailed (he does not believe that parents should be able to choose what their child sees).

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

...snip...

Because if that is the game, I guess I would have to side with those who want to ban the events.

Ban what events?

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Age-appropriate restrictions. Like requiring a parent or legal guardian to accompany certain ages. Come on, Bruto.

Or are you going be the next to demand zero measures?

Because if that is the game, I guess I would have to side with those who want to ban the events.

There it is. It was never about concerned parents. It was about imposing on parents.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Darat

Ban what events?

And, maybe more important, what does he think is happening at those events?

If it is a man in a dress doing nothing more than reading a children's book to children, what is the objection?

ETA: And maybe even more important than that, why do parents with an objection get to make the decision to go to those events for parents who do not have an objection?

[Lothian]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

There it is. It was never about concerned parents. It was about imposing on parents.

Somehow he has ended up defending and arguing for something he hates. Muppet.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Age-appropriate restrictions. Like requiring a parent or legal guardian to accompany certain ages. Come on, Bruto.

Or are you going be the next to demand zero measures?

Because if that is the game, I guess I would have to side with those who want to ban the events.

What makes you think all drag shows are sexual and actually deserve parental discretion?

Seriously, exactly what about these shows are so evil that children need protection from?

Have you ever been to a Drag Show? I would bet money you haven’t.

Should your kids be protected from seeing Mrs Doubtfire? How about Charlie's Aunt? Bosom Buddies? Some Like it Hot? As I mentioned it before. In Elizabethen times there was no such thing as actresses. Men played all the female roles.

What horrible fate is to become of these children by seeing a man dressed up as a woman or a woman dressed up as man?

You think my experience watching Corporal Klinger in a dress made me want to put one on? Or Jack Benny, John Travolta, Tony Curtis, Jack Lemon, Billy Crystal, Dustin Hoffman, Patrick Swayze etc etc.

[MarkCorrigan]

You keep saying that these parents have a right to their concerns. Based upon what, exactly?

There are valid reasons for restricting alcohol or drugs from children (although I agree with demystifying alcohol) because they are harmful. What harm comes from drag shows?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Age-appropriate restrictions. Like requiring a parent or legal guardian to accompany certain ages. Come on, Bruto.

Or are you going be the next to demand zero measures?

Because if that is the game, I guess I would have to side with those who want to ban the events.

Zero measures and zero laws are not the same thing. First it would help to know if an actual problem exists. All we know so far is that people whose language makes it plain that they consider anything of that nature abhorrent abhor it.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Lothian

Somehow he has ended up defending and arguing for something he hates. Muppet.

Give someone enough rope........

[bruto]

A database error interrupted my response here, so I will add it here, though it might be a bit late:

The website in question contains no evidence that a problem actually exists, and contains abundant evidence that the person running it considers the events in question inherently abhorrent and degenerate, and openly denigrates not only those but all who disagree with her political slant.

And yet, you jump at the opportunity to empower people whose own writings drip with bigotry and intolerance to formulate the laws by which we all live. People whose expressed and open intent is to deprive us all of choice; not to oppose but to combat political dissent; and whose almost certain further intent is to marginalize or even criminalize not just some abstract people but people you yourself have loved and respected; to forbid and reject not just the things you reject, but those you don't; to outlaw behavior you yourself have enjoyed.

I think too many people are willing to give up too much to serve principles so vague they have difficulty even defining them.

I repeat what I think I said before. Whatever it seems to purport, this website is not about controlling a problem (whose very existence is uncertain). It is about suppressing and eradicating, reversing what some see as social progress and others see as sin. If you let people like that make the laws, you're inviting a whole lot more than you think you're after. You'll get their laws as well as yours, and they'll bowl you over once more with their all-or-nothing false dichotomy. Burn the village to save it. Fine if you are happy with that, but a big mistake if you are not.

[mgidm86]

Kids are not walking around the city freely with their house keys anymore. Those days are long gone. I can't remember the last time I saw a child in their front yard playing.

That same mythical kid can walk into a theater, buy a ticket for Bambi and walk into 50 Shades Of Gray. No law broken. Most theaters don't care nor would most even notice.

Go to a library and tell me how many unattended 8 year-olds you see. You will see zero. One place I never ever ever went when I had the freedom to ride my bike wherever I wanted was the library, at any age.

"Hey dudes, wanna go check out porn at the library?" Never said by anyone.

As stated above not all drag shows are sexual.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by bruto

A database error interrupted my response here, so I will add it here, though it might be a bit late:

The website in question contains no evidence that a problem actually exists, and contains abundant evidence that the person running it considers the events in question inherently abhorrent and degenerate, and openly denigrates not only those but all who disagree with her political slant.

And yet, you jump at the opportunity to empower people whose own writings drip with bigotry and intolerance to formulate the laws by which we all live. People whose expressed and open intent is to deprive us all of choice; not to oppose but to combat political dissent; and whose almost certain further intent is to marginalize or even criminalize not just some abstract people but people you yourself have loved and respected; to forbid and reject not just the things you reject, but those you don't; to outlaw behavior you yourself have enjoyed.

I think too many people are willing to give up too much to serve principles so vague they have difficulty even defining them.

I repeat what I think I said before. Whatever it seems to purport, this website is not about controlling a problem (whose very existence is uncertain). It is about suppressing and eradicating, reversing what some see as social progress and others see as sin. If you let people like that make the laws, you're inviting a whole lot more than you think you're after. You'll get their laws as well as yours, and they'll bowl you over once more with their all-or-nothing false dichotomy. Burn the village to save it. Fine if you are happy with that, but a big mistake if you are not.

Well said as usual.