11 yr/old drag kid worshiped within LGBTQ community (Mod warning op)

klaaaz

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. Ireland (who overwhelmingly voted in favour of gay marriage and has a gay leader) is so regressive because they don't want children told stories by an adult drag act.

Nope, we still have a minority of people who lost both referendums and are trying their best to drag us back to the bad old days using scare tactics.

Nobody ever had an issue with likes of Danny La Rue who was deemed by broader society to be family friendly entertainment. Kiddies would laugh at a jolly man in a frock, adults would appreciate the more burlesque side. I haven’t seen Glitter Hole which is suggestive of “glory hole” and other baudy “hole” references, but if likes of Al Porter were to entertain your kids almost personally from a closer-up view than on a more distant pantomime stage, then you might think twice, of course knowing his history of “groping”. I doubt anybody in Glitter Hole are given to unwanted groping of any kind but I dare say they are further along the road to sexual titivation than an average pantomime dame.

Wibbs

Kenna Fresh Teflon wrote: »

Devastating comeback. Does she have a bare arse logo? Does she have a sexually suggestive name like Glitter Hole?

He for a start, it being Paul O'Grady in a frock. Glitter hole's other self applied labels are; Leather Daddies, Unabashedly Queer and Gay Witches for Abortion AKA Fianna Fellatio. Ahh I can just smell the culture...

seamus

Rennaws wrote: »

The thing is, he wouldn’t. It’s not his act. It just wouldn’t work and wouldn’t be funny. He’d have to completely reinvent his stage persona from scratch for it to be suitable for kids.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1217209/

Imagine that. An adult performer doing children's entertainment.

No doubt you'll have sorts of "buts" and claims that this is somehow different.

But it's not. Just because someone does adult performance, doesn't mean that they only ever do adult performance.

That is the nub of the issue here. "These guys do adult drag, therefore they must be planning on doing adult performances in front of kids".

It has no basis in reality. All hysteria.

klaaaz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

It's a simple enough question!

Why is he wearing a dress, while reading stories to kids in a library?

If you don't know the answer that's fine, I don't know myself, that's why I'm asking the question.

What is your objection to a man in a dress? Please explain why an item of clothing offends you.

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote:

Nope, we still have a minority of people who lost both referendums and are trying their best to drag us back to the bad old days using scare tactics.

Not in this case.

Gimme A Pound

Wibbs wrote: »

He for a start, it being Paul O'Grady in a frock.

Ah yeah but the character of Lily is a woman.

Gimme A Pound

seamus wrote: »

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1217209/

Imagine that. An adult performer doing children's entertainment.

No doubt you'll have sorts of "buts" and claims that this is somehow different.

But it's not. Just because someone does adult performance, doesn't mean that they only ever do adult performance.

That is the nub of the issue here. "These guys do adult drag, therefore they must be planning on doing adult performances in front of kids".

It has no basis in reality. All hysteria.

If they change their name to something less sexual than Glitter Hole, and their logo to something besides bare buttocks, cool.

But nah, it's not hysteria not to want the above diversifying as a children's act. And you know it.

sbsquarepants

klaaaz wrote: »

Nope, we still have a minority of people who lost both referendums and are trying their best to drag us back to the bad old days using scare tactics.

Bullshít.

I'm not one of those people, I voted yes in both. I'm all for equality, I'm all for sexual freedom and expression just not in a library full of kids!

Saying little klaaaz is turning 6, you're looking for kiddies entertainment, you'd tend to opt for bubbles the clown over the glitter hole drag troupe, would you not?

Gimme A Pound

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Bullshít.

I'm not one of those people, I voted yes in both.

The way some folk tell people what they think about certain issues without any evidence is despicable.

sbsquarepants

klaaaz wrote: »

What is your objection to a man in a dress? Please explain why an item of clothing offends you.

So I'm taking it that you have no idea why he's in a dress?

It adds nothing that I can see. It's not a character, it's nothing anything the kids might know from the telly or anything like that.

It's just a grown ass man in a nice dress.

Why?

Again, if you don't know - just say so. It's not homophobic, or clothesaphobic, or anyotherthingaphobic.

EmmetSpiceland

I don’t know anything about this “Glitter Hole” group but if their stage act is adult in nature then they really shouldn’t be doing kid’s parties.

It’s the same with children’s television presenters, they have to be squeaky clean to keep the job and as soon as one is found hogtied in some sex dungeon with a mound of coke under their nose the gig is up.

Same rules apply.

klaaaz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Bullshít.

I'm not one of those people, I voted yes in both. I'm all for equality, I'm all for sexual freedom and expression just not in a library full of kids!

Saying little klaaaz is turning 6, you're looking for kiddies entertainment, you'd tend to opt for bubbles the clown over the glitter hole drag troupe, would you not?

Bullsh1t back to you, if there was equality you'd have no problem with a man in a dress!

6 year old klaaaz has no objection to what a person dresses as, 6 year old sbsquarepants hasn't a clue why they object and will not explain why they get offended at an item of clothing.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

So I'm taking it that you have no idea why he's in a dress?

It adds nothing that I can see. It's not a character, it's nothing anything the kids might know from the telly or anything like that.

It's just a grown ass man in a nice dress.

Why?

Why not? You have not answered why you object to a man in a dress?

Gimme A Pound

Wouldn't care about a guy in a dress giving children a talk tbh - drag has always been around as mainstream entertainment, including for children. They'd just see it as funny.

"Adult only" groups with sexual names and logos and published sexual content though - nope.

Roger Hassenforder

seamus wrote: »

Nobody said they weren't. Though it's not necessarily a legal requirement in all cases, and definitely not a legal requirement for irregular performances.

IIRC, the vetting bureau won't even accept an application for an irregular event.
Why did forty coats wear forty coats? Does it matter?

No way!
Imagine then if you're attending a one-off public event where your kids remain entirely in your own care and - get this - the performers aren't Garda vetted! GASP!

Seriously, drop the Garda vetting bit. You're just embarrassing yourself.

Theres only one person embarrassing themselves Helen. We all know who it is.


But lets say i was a principal of a kids entertainment group, catering for book readings etc in libraries. I'd ensure my group members were all Garda vetted.
But i wouldnt do it because the law demanded it, i'd do it because its the right thing to do, to obviate suspicion , to provide comfort to my patrons and customers.

And i certainly wouldnt embarrass myself by not doing it, because i "didnt have to".

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Well, ones who can read, yes I believe they're quite few and far between!

... so why thye suden insistance on REAL?

Wibbs wrote: »

He for a start, it being Paul O'Grady in a frock. Glitter hole's other self applied labels are; Leather Daddies, Unabashedly Queer and Gay Witches for Abortion AKA Fianna Fellatio. Ahh I can just smell the culture...

True, but some of the objections here are to men in frocks.

Kenna Fresh Teflon wrote: »

Wouldn't care about a guy in a dress giving children a talk tbh - drag has always been around as mainstream entertainment, including for children. They'd just see it as funny.

"Adult only" groups with sexual names and logos and published sexual content though - nope.

Then in what way do you see Lily Savagae as being sexual?

Cards on the table: Is your objection to this specific to Glitter Hole, or ALL drag artists?

At what point - to you - does it stop being a man in a frock and start being sexual? Or is it automatically sexual for you?

suicide_circus

i would concede that a drag queen is much like a clown in that they are both tragic figures playing for laughs

Zorya

The history of drag is interesting, the first males who pantomimed women on stage did so to be derogatory, it was also associated with blackface. Later it came to be associated with gay clubs and outre queer culture, and now the performance is being used in public relations to normalise gender fluidity. People are entitled to think what they like about any of these evolutions of drag culture, love them, hate them, and consider it unsuitable for small children without being charged as homophobic. Like I said earlier the "agin the gays" schtick is beyond dumb.

Roger Hassenforder

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

... so why thye suden insistance on REAL?

True, but some of the objections here are to men in frocks.

Then in what way do you see Lily Savagae as being sexual?

Cards on the table: Is your objection to this specific to Glitter Hole, or ALL drag artists?

At what point - to you - does it stop being a man in a frock and start being sexual? Or is it automatically sexual for you?

Why is the man in the frock though?

TBH, i probably wouldnt mind a chap in a nice Laura Ashley number, if he came from an established childrens entertainment group, that can provide satisfactory credentials.

The more this goes on, the more of a Belfast cake it becomes.

suicide_circus

Zorya wrote: »

and now the performance is being used in public relations to normalise gender fluidity.

cant help feeling this is at the bottom of this. drag culture has been around for decades yet now a group whose usual act is based on provocative "outrageous" obscenity wants to read to kids. no, sorry, not buying it. parents objected, event was cancelled, democracy in action.

Lux23

Rennaws wrote: »

The thing is, he wouldn’t. It’s not his act. It just wouldn’t work and wouldn’t be funny. He’d have to completely reinvent his stage persona from scratch for it to be suitable for kids.

Which makes me ask myself what glitter hole get out of all of this apart from the obvious publicity.

An audience? They are performers after all, and maybe they're interested in branching out into different shows. It won't all be **** on stage.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Why is the man in the frock though?

TBH, i probably wouldnt mind a chap in a nice Laura Ashley number, if he came from an established childrens entertainment group, that can provide satisfactory credentials.

The more this goes on, the more of a Belfast cake it becomes.

Costume, expression, why not? Why would soemone dress up as a robot or an animal? Or a pirate? Or an alien? Or a teletubby?

Why does it HAVE to be done in traditional, conservative clothing? And if your answer is "it doesn't" then you've answered your own question.

Gimme A Pound

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Then in what way do you see Lily Savagae as being sexual?

Cards on the table: Is your objection to this specific to Glitter Hole, or ALL drag artists?

At what point - to you - does it stop being a man in a frock and start being sexual? Or is it automatically sexual for you?

In the name of god, I said I didn't see an issue with a man in a dress giving a talk to children, and your question to me is "is your objection to this specific to Glitter Hole or ALL drag artists?" when I just said I don't see an issue with a man in a dress giving a talk to children.

Earlier I said I WOULDN'T have a problem with Lily Savage reading to kids - you're not even reading stuff properly! And Seamus said Lily Savage DOES have sexually explicit shows (doubt they're on a par with Glitter Hole).

Where did I imply it might be automatically sexual to me? Oh yeah that's right, nowhere. You are tangling yourself up in knots to find bigotry in what I said - to the point of reading what you want to read/implying things I never said.

And the intellectually dishonest "At what point does it become xyz for you" clincher - maybe where I said repeatedly: having a bare butt for a logo, being called Glitter Hole, publishing sexually suggestive social media content, having an adults only sexually explicit bar and nightclub act. Yeah, that's the one.

Stop being obtuse.

baby and crumble

suicide_circus wrote: »

cant help feeling this is at the bottom of this. drag culture has been around for decades yet now a group whose usual act is based on provocative "outrageous" obscenity wants to read to kids. no, sorry, not buying it. parents objected, event was cancelled, democracy in action.

They were contacted by the library to do a reading as part of Pride in the library. The library contacted THEM.

suicide_circus

baby and crumble wrote: »

They were contacted by the library to do a reading as part of Pride in the library. The library contacted THEM.

well then the event organiser is to blame.

baby and crumble

suicide_circus wrote: »

well then the event organiser is to blame.

For what? This isn't even the first time the group has been invited and done a reading in the same place. Never any other issues with age appropriateness or safety concerns raised by attending parents/ guardians - by all accounts it was a hugely popular and successful event. Why all of a sudden is it a problem?

Will I Am Not

Replace Glitter Hole in this scenario with band members from Cannibal Corpse or Murder Junkies. Bands that “sing” about glorifying drugs and rape and what not. Probably a lovely bunch of guys outside of their act though...
Would there be the same outrage if they were booked but the venue reconsidered after some pressure?

Zorya

suicide_circus wrote: »

well then the event organiser is to blame.

Jacinta, check out this bunch, Glitter Hole they're called, look at that awesome logo, they'd be perfect for the toddlers.

splashuum

The fact that a convicted child rapist was allowed perform “drag queen story time” at a library in the states is pretty telling.

Allowing this to go on is creating an open door for paedo’s to embrace and get close to their sick fantasy’s with no consequences.

baby and crumble

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Replace Glitter Hole in this scenario with band members from Cannibal Corpse or Murder Junkies. Bands that “sing” about glorifying drugs and rape and what not. Probably a lovely bunch of guys outside of their act though...
Would there be the same outrage if they were booked but the venue reconsidered after some pressure?

If they were going to sing those same songs then fair. But if they were happy to create age appropriate entertainment what's the big deal?

People are freaking about the fact they are called Glitter Hole. Adults are putting meaning to the name that kids won't. Their logo is a glittery bum. Not like kids think bums are funny or silly or anything. :rolleyes:

Do you all really think that the performers are stupid or insensitive or inappropriate enough to do their acts that are for adults at a childrens story reading session???? FFS lads cop on.