Drag Shows!!

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by bruto

Ah but he was careful to say "human" sexuality, so the rutting critters don't count.

I accounted for that and stand by what I said

Originally Posted by bruto

You can guess where this is going, I'm sure, but if objectionable human sexual activity is defined by appearance alone, then we're logically headed for the hijab.

US Conservative Morality Police coming soon to a street corner near you!

[Lrrr]

Originally Posted by deadrose

And we PNW people would never have had the pleasure of Gertrude the clown, girlfriend of J.P. Patches. J. P. and Gertrude raised both boomer and GenX kids around here, our constant companions both before & after school. We have a statue dedicated to them. Did I mention Gertrude was a Marine before her TV career?

I know I'm waaaaay late to this, but JP Patches was a huge part of my youth growing up in Vancouver and getting KIRO from Seattle.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Because I’m old enough to remember the gay moral panic of the 80s-ish. This is identical.

It's like clothing - the fashion of attacking anything remotely gay by attempting to link it to paedophila comes around the trend of wearing leg-warmers or flares.

The one thing you'll find lacking from the homophobes' repertoire is statistics, because they show there has been no increase in sexual abuse of children since the relaxation of sodomy laws.

Boring, repetitive, and further evidence that homophobia is driven by internal guilt over their own sexual desires.

We even have the classic example in NZ of an extremely famous preacher who led the anti-gay movement, started a political party based around it, and who was unsurprisingly, a paedophile: Graham Capill.

[Carrot Flower King]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

It's like clothing - the fashion of attacking anything remotely gay by attempting to link it to paedophila comes around the trend of wearing leg-warmers or flares.

The one thing you'll find lacking from the homophobes' repertoire is statistics, because they show there has been no increase in sexual abuse of children since the relaxation of sodomy laws.

Boring, repetitive, and further evidence that homophobia is driven by internal guilt over their own sexual desires.

We even have the classic example in NZ of an extremely famous preacher who led the anti-gay movement, started a political party based around it, and who was unsurprisingly, a paedophile: Graham Capill.

Moving off topic a touch - or are we? - I remember some research conducted in Oxford, which looked at records from social services, CAMHS, paediatrics, police and education and tied around 75% of known child sexual abuse in the area to 4 extended family groups...

This accorded with my (oh, most definitely anecdotal) experience in CAMHS in several parts of England. Families were where you needed to look for the perpetrators...Churches next...Not satanists or in drag clubs...

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I'd say less, since animals do not particularly care when or where they get a little frisky and often engage in a similar form of sexuality to humans.

I have a friend whose dog would bring his bed out for company and then proceed to hump it for his audience. I would argue that drag queen story times have far less than that.

Male spiders tie their mates, female snakes have clitorises....

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

It's like clothing - the fashion of attacking anything remotely gay by attempting to link it to paedophila comes around the trend of wearing leg-warmers or flares.

The one thing you'll find lacking from the homophobes' repertoire is statistics, because they show there has been no increase in sexual abuse of children since the relaxation of sodomy laws.

Boring, repetitive, and further evidence that homophobia is driven by internal guilt over their own sexual desires.

We even have the classic example in NZ of an extremely famous preacher who led the anti-gay movement, started a political party based around it, and who was unsurprisingly, a paedophile: Graham Capill.

And Hillsong in Australia.


BTW I recommend the later, after 29JUN2020, posts of the webcomic Real Life for one perspective o M2F transition.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Resume

I dunno, I wonder about what kind of man (using the term very lightly) refers to women as split tails and thinks when they say no, they really mean yes. I have a hard time believing such a man (again, loosely) understands the meaning of the word consensual.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Robin

I mean seriously, is being read to by a man in a Frick really going to turn a generation of American kids into drag queens?

I think what really keeps right wingers awake at night is the terrifying prospect that their kids might not grow up to be right wing.

Or anything but cisgendered heterosexual.

[mgidm86]

Originally Posted by Resume

I dunno, I wonder about what kind of man (using the term very lightly) refers to women as split tails and thinks when they say no, they really mean yes. I have a hard time believing such a man (again, loosely) understands the meaning of the word consensual.

The kind that should be ignored completely. In real life I would not engage with such a person and I see no reason to do so here (whoever you are talking about).

Skepticism/critical thinking is supposed to be kinda like science. You accept facts, learn from mistakes and you do not repeat them. You move on.

Fact:
I see a thread was closed today. Wonder why that happened?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why a person reading children's books to children may or may not be appropriate, depending on what kind of clothes that person is wearing.

So, let me help with this...

Originally Posted by Liberal Mindset

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why a person reading children's books to children may or may not be appropriate, depending on whether their dick is hanging out of their shorts.

This is a bizarre non-sequitur and I will not be dignifying it with an answer.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Are you saying that there is no more human sexuality involved in Drag, than what children might experience at a petting zoo, for example?

It's very clear that you have absolutely no experience with drag. Why are you so resistant to learning something new?

Drag is defined by a person wearing the clothes traditionally associated with a different gender for the purposes of entertainment. By that definition, there is no more human sexuality involved in drag than what children might experience at a petting zoo.

Some drag shows are intended for an adult audience, and may include sexual content to varying degrees. It is absolutely not inherent to the idea of drag. In particular there is absolutely no sexual content in drag story time, which is intended for children.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Robin

I mean seriously, is being read to by a man in a Frick really going to turn a generation of American kids into drag queens?

I.

And, more importantly, so what if it does?

Still waiting to hear what is actually wrong with drag....

[bruto]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

This is a bizarre non-sequitur and I will not be dignifying it with an answer.

It is indeed a bizarre non-sequitur not only for the obvious irrelevancy of it but because of all bizarre comparisons this seems like about the worst choice. That is, although my experience in this area is admittedly very limited, it's my general sense that the effective concealment of male genitalia is pretty high on the list of things that drag queens aspire to.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by bruto

It is indeed a bizarre non-sequitur not only for the obvious irrelevancy of it but because of all bizarre comparisons this seems like about the worst choice. That is, although my experience in this area is admittedly very limited, it's my general sense that the effective concealment of male genitalia is pretty high on the list of things that drag queens aspire to.

I don't consider it a non-sequitur. The point is to say, the way someone presents themselves does matter, potentially influence, and does have consequence.

Imagine someone reading a nursery rhyme to children, in blood-soaked clothes. The reading material is not the issue.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't consider it a non-sequitur. The point is to say, the way someone presents themselves does matter, potentially influence, and does have consequence.

Imagine someone reading a nursery rhyme to children, in blood-soaked clothes. The reading material is not the issue.

How does reading in blood-soaked clothes relate to drag ?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't consider it a non-sequitur. The point is to say, the way someone presents themselves does matter, potentially influence, and does have consequence.

Imagine someone reading a nursery rhyme to children, in blood-soaked clothes. The reading material is not the issue.

As a Halloween themed reading that would be awesome!

An example of a non-drag dress-up for Halloween by a public library employee

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Should her costume also be verboten?

[WWBDD]

Normally, I'd ignore a post like this. There's no argument here. Most of it is off topic. The reasoning is so poor, it's obviously not the work of someone to be taken seriously. I'm responding because I want you to know that I know that you think you're very clever, enlightened, and virtuous, clearly superior barely sentient malicious bigot far-right prudes while I publicly disabuse you of that fanciful notion.

Originally Posted by acbytesla

But it is ok for children to be exposed to violence?

I won't defend a position I don't hold, or an assertion I haven't made. You're not good at this

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Are you up in arms over movies and TV showing killing after killing?

No. So? How is fantasy violence depicted on a screen relevant to the topic at hand?

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I would rather my children seeing two people making love than two people trying to kill each other.

Who cares? I certainly don't. We're not discussing your children, what you'd rather they see, or sex and violence in media. I'm assuming you wouldn't take your children to a live sex show, strip club, drag show or your local gladiatorial games as none of them are appropriate for children.

Originally Posted by acbytesla

BTW,
What makes you think drag shows necessarily portray anyone engaged in sexual behavior?

Lack of naivete and abundant photo/video evidence. Are you claiming that drag shows are not burlesque shows hence not inherently sexual, therefore appropriate for children? Implying I'm imagining behavior that doesn't occur due to my tiny, feeble, morally panicked mind which is riddled with cishetoronormative isms, phobias and repressed sexual urges? Why are you talking about portrayal of sexual behavior and media depictions of violence? No one knows what you're trying to say because you haven't typed a single coherent sentence here.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Warp12

I don't consider it a non-sequitur. The point is to say, the way someone presents themselves does matter, potentially influence, and does have consequence.

Imagine someone reading a nursery rhyme to children, in blood-soaked clothes. The reading material is not the issue.

It's not the only issue, but it is the issue unless something that warrants argument occurs. We have established the fact that it would be inappropriate for a person to read to children in blood soaked clothes, or with their junk hanging out - things that would be largely unacceptable just about anywhere in public - but we have not, it seems, found a good enough argument for why it would be inappropriate in this case - except, of course, for the overall issue of who and what is acceptable to whom.

Of course if you have an issue with drag queens and their acceptance, it spills over into all activities they will engage in, but if you don't, then the argument evaporates. It is true that appearance can have a consequence, but we see little evidence in this particular issue that the consequence of such an appearance is harmful, unless you consider acceptance as harmful.

If you think about it, let us imagine that we did find a valid reason to reject an activity in a library or a paid entertainment because it exposes children to harm. Those children are, to a great extent selected and protected by parents, or should be. If your reason is valid, then would it not be reasonable also to bar such people from appearing in public at all (or to allow them to be publicly ridiculed and attacked if they do appear), because the harm they cause cannot otherwise be controlled by reasonable parents in a reasonable society?

Arguments about this sort of thing tend to occur every time some existing social norm is dropped or expanded, or some once-marginalized minority moves into the main stream. The trappings of orthodox religions, gay teachers, and so forth. We have a fear that accepting something will allow it to flourish, that some imagined purity we now have will be corrupted, and that some unwanted sin will tempt people away from the good. And sure, no doubt there are limits to what we should accept. There are real crimes and real perversions that do not belong in a civil society, but when there are, we need to deal with them thoughtfully each time. We need to evaluate what really is the threat, what really is the sin, and what really is the net loss or gain from what we do.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by WWBDD

Lack of naivete and abundant photo/video evidence. Are you claiming that drag shows are not burlesque shows hence not inherently sexual, therefore appropriate for children?

I'll claim that. Sure. Especially since we've been talking about the story hours, which aren't sexual at all.

Originally Posted by WWBDD

Implying I'm imagining behavior that doesn't occur due to my tiny, feeble, morally panicked mind which is riddled with cishetoronormative isms, phobias and repressed sexual urges?

Your words.

Originally Posted by WWBDD

Why are you talking about portrayal of sexual behavior and media depictions of violence? No one knows what you're trying to say because you haven't typed a single coherent sentence here.

I understood pretty well. Perhaps it's user error?

I can help you out though. They're called "comparisons".

[WWBDD]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Sorry, are you claiming that drag is a paraphilia?

Because...no.

No, I'm discussing transvestic fetishism, which is a paraphilia. That's not a controversial statement. If you'd like to dispute that fact, take it up with the appropriate DSM-6 working group. I doubt they'll find "Because...no." convincing.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by WWBDD

...abundant photo/video evidence.

Let's see this abundant evidence then.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by WWBDD

Are you claiming that drag shows are not burlesque shows hence not inherently sexual, therefore appropriate for children? Implying I'm imagining behavior that doesn't occur due to my tiny, feeble, morally panicked mind which is riddled with cishetoronormative isms, phobias and repressed sexual urges?

In the particular case of drag queen story hours, yes, you are imagining things that are not happening due to media driven moral panic.

Originally Posted by WWBDD

Why are you talking about portrayal of sexual behavior and media depictions of violence? No one knows what you're trying to say because you haven't typed a single coherent sentence here.

I understand. Those are two of the three things our culture feels we need to protect children from. The third is obscene language.

Not to speak for other people, but when people go all in on trying to stop one of the three, usually the sexuality, it is to the neglect of one or both of the other two. People who balk at their imagined vision of drag queen story hour think nothing of walking around armed. I believe there was even a protest mentioned up-thread on that point.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by WWBDD

No, I'm discussing transvestic fetishism, which is a paraphilia. That's not a controversial statement. If you'd like to dispute that fact, take it up with the appropriate DSM-6 working group. I doubt they'll find "Because...no." convincing.

But drag isn't necessarily a fetish. It might just be gender fluidity. Or, it could even be a performance art. You can't just assume its fetishism.

[tyr_13]

The existence of sexually charged drag no more means that drag is inherently sexual and must be kept from anyone under the age of eighteen than the existence of lap dances means that ballet is inherently sexual and must be kept from anyone under the age of eighteen. (Yes, I'm aware that ballet also has a sexually charged history.)

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

The existence of sexually charged drag no more means that drag is inherently sexual and must be kept from anyone under the age of eighteen than the existence of lap dances means that ballet is inherently sexual and must be kept from anyone under the age of eighteen. (Yes, I'm aware that ballet also has a sexually charged history.)

I feel the the plot of Footloose starting to form from this discussion.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I feel the the plot of Footloose starting to form from this discussion.

Does that give this thread a Bacon number?

[Thermal]

If this is not supposed to be fetishized, why is it a Drag Story Hour at all? Do they also sponsor Mom Jeans Story Hours? Three Seasons Ago Unfashionable Dad Story Hours?

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Thermal

If this is not supposed to be fetishized, why is it a Drag Story Hour at all? Do they also sponsor Mom Jeans Story Hours? Three Seasons Ago Unfashionable Dad Story Hours?

Why do you put flashing lights on movie marquees? To attract attention. According to wikipedia,

Quote:

Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH), Drag Queen Storytime, Drag Story Time, and Drag Story Hour are children's events first started in 2015 by author and activist Michelle Tea in San Francisco with the goals of promoting reading and diversity.

I guarantee you that young kids will pay more attention to the flashy drag queen putting on dramatic reading than the unfashionable dad.

eta: Was Monty Python fetishizing drag in their comedy sketches or was it just part of their performance?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Why do you put flashing lights on movie marquees? To attract attention. According to wikipedia,
I guarantee you that young kids will pay more attention to the flashy drag queen putting on dramatic reading than the unfashionable dad.

Sure, a dancing monkey is greatly entertaining. Then whenever you see a monkey, you expect it to dance for you.

Quote:

eta: Was Monty Python fetishizing drag in their comedy sketches or was it just part of their performance?

We could look at that, even setting aside that the Pythons were deliberately trying to be ridiculous.

Shall we start with the Lumberjack Skit?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by WWBDD

No, I'm discussing transvestic fetishism, which is a paraphilia. That's not a controversial statement. If you'd like to dispute that fact, take it up with the appropriate DSM-6 working group. I doubt they'll find "Because...no." convincing.

That would indicate you are in the wrong thread - the topic of this one is "Drag Shows" - not "transvestic fetishism, which is a paraphilia".

[Darat]

Originally Posted by WWBDD

No, I'm discussing transvestic fetishism, which is a paraphilia. That's not a controversial statement. If you'd like to dispute that fact, take it up with the appropriate DSM-6 working group. I doubt they'll find "Because...no." convincing.

That would indicate you are in the wrong thread - the topic of this one is "Drag Shows" - not "transvestic fetishism, which is a paraphilia".

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

If this is not supposed to be fetishized, why is it a Drag Story Hour at all? Do they also sponsor Mom Jeans Story Hours? Three Seasons Ago Unfashionable Dad Story Hours?

See the above example I gave of a public library employee dressing up for a reading/sing-a-long, it seems dressing up is not unusual in a library setting.

Making things more interesting for kids is generally a good pedagogical rule-of-thumb.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Sure, a dancing monkey is greatly entertaining. Then whenever you see a monkey, you expect it to dance for you.

So if you see a baseball player in a restaurant you expect him to start playing baseball for you?

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by Warp12

Again, there was nothing in your post that warranted a fresh answer. I'm not even sure where you came up with the government being involved part, tbh. I'm not really interested in debating any of it with you at this point.

“Silencing”
Your stupid word.

I hate your fascism, and say so, but I can not and do not try to silence you.
Only government action can realistically be called “attempt to silence parents’s voices.”

It is a fascist tactic to view any criticism as censorship.
You have that in common with Stalinists.

Wannabe dictators gonna dictate

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Thermal

If this is not supposed to be fetishized, why is it a Drag Story Hour at all? Do they also sponsor Mom Jeans Story Hours? Three Seasons Ago Unfashionable Dad Story Hours?

I have friends who do 'Princess Story Hour' and 'Super Hero Story Hour'. Do you think those are also done to be fetishized?

It is truly, deeply, funny how much trouble people have letting go of their initial preconceptions, in this case of drag.

EDIT: Like some people got half mast at Misses Doubtfire and it's everyone else's problem now for some reason.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Thermal

If this is not supposed to be fetishized, why is it a Drag Story Hour at all? Do they also sponsor Mom Jeans Story Hours? Three Seasons Ago Unfashionable Dad Story Hours?

Maybe nobody thought of it until you did. Get out your old leisure suit and call the library.

[Carrot Flower King]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

But drag isn't necessarily a fetish. It might just be gender fluidity. Or, it could even be a performance art. You can't just assume its fetishism.

Or even just, y'know, a bit of dressing up and playing with make up...

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

Or even just, y'know, a bit of dressing up and playing with make up...

#whenithinkaboutthemiItouchmyself

Get real.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by plague311

So if you see a baseball player in a restaurant you expect him to start playing baseball for you?

No, but I'm sure you'll find that recognizable celebrities are expected to pose for pictures and autographs pretty relentlessly, athletes included.

Do you think a kid who is young enough to attend a story hour would have any reservations about saying "there's the man who wears a dress!"

[Carrot Flower King]

Originally Posted by Warp12

#whenithinkaboutthemiItouchmyself

Get real.

Mebbe I will, but only after you stop throwing around ridiculous abuse like "unnatural freaks" and actually start to make a hint of a coherent argument. Which you haven't so far.

Meanwhile, I'm off to talk to my cats...