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

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote: »

Posters have a phobia about a man wearing a dress reading a book, they get upset and offended at an item of clothing!

Should there be a dress code for such events? Perhaps the male should be banned from wearing anything pink as it would upset the old-fashioned "traditionalists"?!!

youll frame it your way but i dunno what youre getting out of it.

no phobias, probably a dress code for a library isnt an unusual thing and im not sure anyone has raised an issue with a fella wearing a nice pink shirt or whatever

if you believed in whatever your point was youd probably just make it, idk.

a lot of this stuff is ppl looking to get good and angry at whoever is in front of them not cheering them on. its not healthy folks!

dalyboy

Tiny kids the same age as my kids listening to stories told by adult men dressed up as women and the name of the performance group is “GLITTER HOLE” . Not in a month of Sunday’s would my children be attending!!!. This entire thing of jack and jack and Jill and Jill has gone far enough. I’m delighted this thing was cancelled. Shows people are not accepting our kids being further indoctrinated

baby and crumble

Zorya wrote: »

It's about sex and sexual politics. Kids with gay parents don't need drag queens to normalise them. The kids know it's perfectly grand, at least the children of my sister and her wife never seemed to need a man in drag to celebrate their family. Odd that.

I’m not saying all families do. I’m simply saying for some, their identity as a member of the LGBTQ community is an important part of themselves, just like for many their Irish identity will be the same. Just like some families look forward to the St. Patrick’s Day parade and celebratory week every year, so do some LGBTQ families. I think st. Patrick’s Day is a nonsense but I’m not going around telling people that dressing up as a leprechaun is messed up or that peddling the tale of Patrick getting rid of snakes in Ireland is stupid. Why is it so hard for so many people to dismiss other people’s views and preferences?

Zorya

baby and crumble wrote: »

I’m not saying all families do. I’m simply saying for some, their identity as a member of the LGBTQ community is an important part of themselves, just like for many their Irish identity will be the same. Just like some families look forward to the St. Patrick’s Day parade and celebratory week every year, so do some LGBTQ families. I think st. Patrick’s Day is a nonsense but I’m not going around telling people that dressing up as a leprechaun is messed up or that peddling the tale of Patrick getting rid of snakes in Ireland is stupid. Why is it so hard for so many people to dismiss other people’s views and preferences?

So a man playing with gender fluidity dramatically helps a toddler celebrate that Mammy / Daddy is gay? What has gender fluidity or cross dressing got to do with sexual preferences for ordinary families? What have their parents sexual preferences got to do with children, gay, straight or anywhere in between?

baby and crumble

Zorya wrote: »

So a man playing with gender fluidity dramatically helps a toddler celebrate that Mammy / Daddy is gay? What has gender fluidity or cross dressing got to do with sexual preferences for ordinary families? What have their parents sexual preferences got to do with children, gay, straight or anywhere in between?

Like I said for some people it’s a part of their identity. Why are you so worried about what other people decide to do or not in their own family? Nobody is forcing attendance on anyone.

It makes me uncomfortable in the same way Peter Stringfellow reading to kids would make me uncomfortable (not because he's dead ,but that would really make me uncomfortable, though kinda cool).

People just don't like their sex worlds mixing with their kids worlds. You can argue drag is sexualised, you can state with certainty that "Glitter Hole" is.

Let kids be kids

Beechwoodspark

The whole idea is off the charts crazy.

For the sake of keeping the peace Let’s just forget it ever happened

padd b1975

Zorya wrote: »

It's about sex and sexual politics. Kids with gay parents don't need drag queens to normalise them. The kids know it's perfectly grand, at least the children of my sister and her wife never seemed to need a man in drag to celebrate their family. Odd that.

They did however need a man to create part of it.

Nothing whatsoever odd about that.

Annasopra

Kenna Fresh Teflon wrote: »

Baby and crumble, I would hate for you to think that all of us who have reservations about such an event are having a go at the LGBT community. Certainly not. And I certainly don't think it's to sexualise children or that it's dangerous for them or that those involved are predatory to children, but I just can't get my head around an adults only act (whether gay or straight - for me it is simply not about sexual preference) with an adult name and logo, and shows and published material featuring very raunchy stuff, giving a talk - under the same name - to children. Can you not see how that could be deemed inappropriate?

If it were a random dude in a dress and make-up, I wouldn't give a fiddler's. I know drag in and of itself is not sexual.

I dont understand your point at all. The performance planned in this case was designed to be age appropriate.

Calhoun

Lets not forget what started this thread off, an 11 year old American kid in drag dancing in front of men for money.

So of course there are going to be questions about lines being blurred, anyone aware of that case would have reservations.

Brian?

Zorya wrote: »

Why are children aged 3 to 7 considered to be an audience for a Pride event? They are not the target audience for events related to sexuality in the usual course of things.

Because the earlier you normalise sexuality the better. The earlier kids are taught that it’s perfectly acceptable to be gay, the less likely they are to struggle with accepting it as they grow up.

Hopefully it stops some teenagers committing suicide, which is a massive issue with LGBT teenagers.

You don’t have to teach them sex acts, no one is suggesting that. But I think it’s perfectly fine to teach kids they are free to love whoever they want? Don’t you?

Zorya

Brian? wrote: »

Because the earlier you normalise sexuality the better. The earlier kids are taught that it’s perfectly acceptable to be gay, the less likely they are to struggle with accepting it as they grow up.

Hopefully it stops some teenagers committing suicide, which is a massive issue with LGBT teenagers.

You don’t have to teach them sex acts, no one is suggesting that. But I think it’s perfectly fine to teach kids they are free to love whoever they want? Don’t you?

I disagree. Early sexualisation is not good for children, which is basically what is meant by normalising sexuality in your post. The hormones don't kick in till 8 and after, the secondary sexual characteristics are very muted if not dormant till then. Children can love whoever they want. It is usual that early love, affection, even adoration is same sex. This is a vital part of development, the awareness of the beauty and wonder of ones own gender. It has nothing to do with sex in this early time period, to introduce sex complicates an important development.

Overall my objection is to the early sexualisation of children, which is increasing all the time in society. Music, clothing, media, etc. There is a very long history of advocating the sexualisation of children in many psychological, sociological, and political theories. It's surprisingly common, I can give examples another time. I object to it. The child from infancy to pre-pubescence has a very short and vital window to develop without the press of sexuality.

Brian?

Zorya wrote: »

I disagree. Early sexualisation is not good for children, which is basically what is meant by normalising sexuality in your post. The hormones don't kick in till 8 and after, the secondary sexual characteristics are very muted if not dormant till then. Children can love whoever they want. It is usual that early love, affection, even adoration is same sex. This is a vital part of development, the awareness of the beauty and wonder of ones own gender. It has nothing to do with sex in this early time period, to introduce sex complicates an important development.

Overall my objection is to the early sexualisation of children, which is increasing all the time in society. Music, clothing, media, etc. There is a very long history of advocating the sexualisation of children in many psychological, sociological, and political theories. It's surprisingly common, I can give examples another time. I object to it. The child from infancy to pre-pubescence has a very short and vital window to develop without the press of sexuality.

It’s not early sexualisation. It’s normalisation or different sexualities. There’s a huge difference. You’re 100% it has nothing to do with sex. It has everything to do with normalising a way of life that has been taboo.

Kids see heterosexual role models constantly, if the alternative isn’t represented in anyway it will be see as abnormal and taboo. I think the sexualisation of children is wrong, but presenting them with examples of a homosexual/transgender way of life is not sexualisation.

Like: Hey kids, some men love men and some men enjoy dressing as women. It’s no big deal. Here’s a story about Rapunzel being locked in a tower.

What’s the problem with that.

sbsquarepants

klaaaz wrote: »

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

I have no problem with a man in a dress.

I have an issue with the man in a dress being around my kids.

My solution would be to not bring my kids to it.

I have no problem with a whole range of things I would still rather not expose my kids to, you know, cos they're kids!

klaaaz wrote: »

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.

I think you maybe misunderstand the word offended. Wear a dress if you like, wear a day glo gimp suit and bum a midget on stage for all I care - I just won't be booking you for my daughters 3rd birthday party next week.

I'd rather clown who can make nice balloon animals, maybe a face painter. I'm wild like that!

klaaaz wrote: »

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

I see no reason for kids to be exposed to shít like this, there's plenty time enough when they're a bit older.
I've no problem with nudity - but there's no way I'm going to bring my kids to a strip club either, for that very same reason.

I admit, I don't like drag, I just don't get it, I don't find it funny, provocative, arousing or whatever the hell it's supposed to be- I think it's largely just vulgar, cringey and irritating. But that in no way means I'm offended by it - I couldn't care less what others get up to.

There's a world of difference between not liking something and wanting to oppress it.

Zorya

Brian? wrote: »

It’s not early sexualisation. It’s normalisation or different sexualities. There’s a huge difference. You’re 100% it has nothing to do with sex. It has everything to do with normalising a way of life that has been taboo.

Kids see heterosexual role models constantly, if the alternative isn’t represented in anyway it will be see as abnormal and taboo. I think the sexualisation of children is wrong, but presenting them with examples of a homosexual/transgender way of life is not sexualisation.

Like: Hey kids, some men love men and some men enjoy dressing as women. It’s no big deal. Here’s a story about Rapunzel being locked in a tower.

What’s the problem with that.

There is no need to normalise different sexualities for pre pubescent children - to do so is in its essence sexualisation of children. Hetero couples do not - unless they're a bit fcuked up - normalise their sexuality for their children because they don't put it in their face. People have sex privately, they don't make out heavily in front of their small kids or wear sexualised clothing or talk dirty or make innuendo or ape sex acts, or do anything at all really to draw their children's attention to their private sexual lives. Because it is not relevant for small children in any way to see or think about such matters.
And after that kids just gag to think of their parents having sex. What you are talking about is not how ''normalising'' works.

How do drag queens normalise butch gay Moms or demure gay Dads? How do they act as role models for anypne but a niche few?

Normalising gay Mammys and Daddys does not require drag queens which is essentially a fetish act, even if they don a floral gown and adopt the facsimile of a mumsy librarian. It surely does not represent the vast majority of gay parents. It is not a useful representation of an example of a homosexual / transgender way of life to present to small children. It's underlying cachet - indeed, raison d'etre - is queer sexuality and sex. That's cool. But not relevant for children.

Lillyfae

Brian? wrote: »

It’s not early sexualisation. It’s normalisation or different sexualities. There’s a huge difference. You’re 100% it has nothing to do with sex. It has everything to do with normalising a way of life that has been taboo.

Kids see heterosexual role models constantly, if the alternative isn’t represented in anyway it will be see as abnormal and taboo. I think the sexualisation of children is wrong, but presenting them with examples of a homosexual/transgender way of life is not sexualisation.

Like: Hey kids, some men love men and some men enjoy dressing as women. It’s no big deal. Here’s a story about Rapunzel being locked in a tower.

What’s the problem with that.

The problem is not with the group cross dressing, it's with the fact that they are a predominantly sexual performance group who use sexual imagery that is easily accessible to the public. I'd also have a problem with a Burlesque troupe or the Chippendales having a children's book reading. It has nothing to do with gender or sexuality- it has to do with their sexual overtones in general which in my opinion should stay within the realm of adult entertainment.

For what it's worth, I love Pride and will most probably take my daughter to appropriate events (again) this year if we don't have any plans. There are definitely more suitable ways to celebrate acceptance.

seamus

Zorya wrote: »

Hetero couples do not - unless they're a bit fcuked up - normalise their sexuality for their children

Uh. Yes they do. Children as young as two will be asked if they have a boyfriend/girlfriend. They will see TV shows where there's a Mummy and a Daddy, and where characters have boyfriends or girlfriends. That's normalising heterosexuality.

You just don't even see it that way because it's so normal. Yet if if a children's show was to feature a character with two fathers, you'd be complaining about "gay sexuality being shoved in kids faces".

It's not though. It's just normalisation. Making it so that kids don't even blink when a classmate has two fathers (or two mothers), so that when their 13 year old mate says they're gay, they just say, "So what, do you want a medal or something?".

Zorya

seamus wrote: »

Uh. Yes they do. Children as young as two will be asked if they have a boyfriend/girlfriend. They will see TV shows where there's a Mummy and a Daddy, and where characters have boyfriends or girlfriends. That's normalising heterosexuality.

You just don't even see it that way because it's so normal. Yet if if a children's show was to feature a character with two fathers, you'd be complaining about "gay sexuality being shoved in kids faces".

It's not though. It's just normalisation. Making it so that kids don't even blink when a classmate has two fathers (or two mothers), so that when their 13 year old mate says they're gay, they just say, "So what, do you want a medal or something?".

Asking small kids about their girlfriend or boyfriend has always seemed silly to me.

If a show featured gay parents, I would not do as you have accused me. At all. We have gay parents in our inner family circle - it's always been normal to us. Didn't need tv.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Zorya wrote: »

There is no need to normalise different sexualities for pre pubescent children - to do so is in its essence sexualisation of children. Hetero couples do not - unless they're a bit fcuked up - normalise their sexuality for their children because they don't put it in their face. People have sex privately, they don't make out heavily in front of their small kids or wear sexualised clothing or talk dirty or make innuendo or ape sex acts, or do anything at all really to draw their children's attention to their private sexual lives. Because it is not relevant for small children in any way to see or think about such matters.
And after that kids just gag to think of their parents having sex. What you are talking about is not how ''normalising'' works.

How do drag queens normalise butch gay Moms or demure gay Dads? How do they act as role models for anypne but a niche few?

Normalising gay Mammys and Daddys does not require drag queens which is essentially a fetish act, even if they don a floral gown and adopt the facsimile of a mumsy librarian. It surely does not represent the vast majority of gay parents. It is not a useful representation of an example of a homosexual / transgender way of life to present to small children. It's underlying cachet - indeed, raison d'etre - is queer sexuality and sex. That's cool. But not relevant for children.

Neither here nor there given the topic, but children develop a sexuality and even a sexual identity long before you seem to think they do. They don't need it "noramlised" (tlhough I think what you're doing here is appealing to tradition, rather than normality). I'm not saying this should be encouraged, but I am saying people need to be aware of it and certain that they shouldn't be denying it just because it makes their view of innocent childhoods a little more uncomfortable. It's the natural reality of human nature.

Check out the work of SHere Hite, Alfred Kinsey and Sigmund Freud for some interesting aspects.

seamus

Zorya wrote: »

Asking small kids about their girlfriend or boyfriend has always seemed silly to me.

If a show featured gay parents, I would not do as you have accused me. At all. We have gay parents in our inner family circle - it's always been normal to us. Didn't need tv.

Yet you would claim that normalising "different" sexualities is sexualising children.

There is no need to normalise different sexualities for pre pubescent children - to do so is in its essence sexualisation of children

So have the children in your inner circle been protected from the truth of the gay parents until an appropriate age, or have your family been "sexualising" (your words, not mine) the pre-pubescent children in it?

The Bishop Basher

seamus wrote: »

so that when their 13 year old mate says they're gay, they just say, "So what, do you want a medal or something?".

In my experience this is already the case but maybe i'm just lucky with my kids and their peer group of which many are openly gay and perfectly happy.

it seems like you're searching for answers to problems that don't exist anymore.

Of course there are bigots. There always will be.

But any significant pockets of bigotry that are left will naturally disappear as the knuckledraggers are so overwhelmingly outnumbered.

Zorya

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Neither here nor there given the topic, but children develop a sexuality and even a sexual identity long before you seem to think they do. They don't need it "noramlised" (tlhough I think what you're doing here is appealing to tradition, rather than normality).

Check out the work of SHere Hite, Alfred Kinsey and Sigmund Freud for some interesting aspects.

Quoting Alfred Kinsey about sexuality - what an utterly debased, degenerate monstrous attempt at a human being he was.

You would have many wayfarers when it comes to people who speak of children's early sexualisation. From the back to nature 'sexual innocence' prelapsarian mythology types right up to the organised promotors of pedophilia as normal. James Cantor, well known modern sexologist, recently advocated the LGB movement not forget its pedophilic comrades.

https://twitter.com/JamesCantorPhD/status/1081657375122227200

The people who are sincere in such fields have been co-opted by those with paraphilia for scores of years. I have no time for this type of psycho-babble sh!te.

jimgoose

I don't think much of this kind of carry-on, and if it isn't technically illegal it probably should be. Lately I'm having difficulty telling where genuine gender/sexuality issues end and attention-seeking begins.

Zorya

seamus wrote: »

So have the children in your inner circle been protected from the truth of the gay parents until an appropriate age, or have your family been "sexualising" (your words, not mine) the pre-pubescent children in it?

Sorry, can't make head nor tail of what you're trying to say there, Seamus. We are just normal people generally, who don't talk to toddlers about sex.

seamus

Rennaws wrote: »

In my experience this is already the case but maybe i'm just lucky with my kids and their peer group of which many are openly gay and perfectly happy.

it seems like you're searching for answers to problems that don't exist anymore.

Of course there are bigots. There always will be.

Given that a children's book reading was cancelled because of threats, it seems necessary to remain vigilant about knuckledraggers rather than hope they just go away.

Zorya wrote: »

Sorry, can't make head nor tail of what you're trying to say there, Seamus. We are just normal people generally, who don't talk to toddlers about sex.

Right. Just like this book reading.

You were the one who said that normalising same-sex relationships was sexualising children. And then in the next breath you admitted that you have normalised same-sex relationships within your family. Talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Wibbs

Zorya wrote: »

Quoting Alfred Kinsey about sexuality - what an utterly debased, degenerate monstrous attempt at a human being he was.

Woefully bad researcher too. About the only thing he did for the field was help promote it so actual research could begin. Hite and Freud? Eh... yeah. Princess Consuela would have been hard pressed to name bigger eejits in the field. One is mostly discounted on the sexuality front, the other Hite's "findings" decidedly ropey with not a little of her own bias attached. One of her "studies" concluded that something like 95% of married women were dissatisfied in the marriage and 80% had had affairs, yet only 5% of those approached had actually responded to the survey. Referencing that trio on human sexuality would be akin to asking an astrologist about the Big Bang.

Zorya

seamus wrote: »

You were the one who said that normalising same-sex relationships was sexualising children. And then in the next breath you admitted that you have normalised same-sex relationships within your family. Talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Incorrect.


I said using drag queen acts for events with small children inevitably brings sexualisation into the picture because drag acts are fundamentally linked to sexuality, the queer scene, fetish, and so on. It is inappropriate. It's pretty easy to understand. If a gay lad wants to read to children, go for it, just leave the night job out of it. Same with burlesque ladies or male strippers or pro porn advocates or sex workers or big boobed models*.


Normalising same sex relationships is easy. In fact, it's done.


* Edit - though of course the buxom ladies could wear a nice cardigan over their big boobs if they want to play at librarians and maybe leave me a tip where to find ones that don't gape

Zorya

Wibbs wrote: »

Woefully bad researcher too. About the only thing he did for the field was help promote it so actual research could begin. Hite and Freud? Eh... yeah. Princess Consuela would have been hard pressed to name bigger eejits in the field. One is mostly discounted on the sexuality front, the other Hite's "findings" decidedly ropey with not a little of her own bias attached. One of her "studies" concluded that something like 95% of married women were dissatisfied in the marriage and 80% had had affairs, yet only 5% of those approached had actually responded to the survey. Referencing that trio on human sexuality would be akin to asking an astrologist about the Big Bang.

Yeah, next thing we'll be on to Margaret Mead and her sexy Samoan kids. :rolleyes:

seamus

seamus wrote:

They will see TV shows where there's a Mummy and a Daddy, and where characters have boyfriends or girlfriends. That's normalising heterosexuality.

I hate to break it to you, but heterosexuality is the norm.

And shoes come in pairs, because most people have two feet. Not everyone does though and that's ok.

I don't make it a point to sit my daughter down and explain to her that some people have one leg. I waited until she noticed it herself, asked me why it was that that person had one leg and I explained some people are different.

I didn't need to make a huge song and dance about it.

Zorya

I should probably have googled Glitter hole before making comments, I feel I haven't done due diligence.

According to Urban Dictionary Glitter Hole means a ''homosexual male's anus''.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=glitter%20hole

I didn't actually know that.

Anyways. They seem like a child-friendly act.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DkqYanoXgAAkVI1.jpg

But there is a dreadful (though unconfirmed!) rumour going round that the reader from Glitter Hole's library act...


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4WdZwoWwAA6x0B.jpg

is also this lady.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4WdZwuWsAAo5fz.jpg

Oddly Glitter Hole have removed that image from their own Twitter account, but you know the Internet..

Anwyays lovely bunch of performers. Perfect for children's birthdays and garden fetes.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DrLmrQPWoAMP1aA.jpg