Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

Options
1…4344464849…88

Comments

  • Options
    #1352
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Drag is sexualised. I've yet to see a sexualised pantomime performance.
    That is not in any way relevant to what I posted.

    Like I say, if one believes that the plan was for a drag act to appear in the library with a sexually explicit performance for kids, then one is a moron. No other way to put it.


  • Options
    #1353
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Patty Hearst wrote: »
    'Gay Witches for Abortion AKA 'Fianna Fellatio'
    thats either some biting satire or some end of days , fall of the roman empire shit


  • Options
    #1354
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    seamus wrote: »
    That is not in any way relevant to what I posted.

    Like I say, if one believes that the plan was for a drag act to appear in the library with a sexually explicit performance for kids, then one is a moron. No other way to put it.

    Neither of us are psychic so we don't know what kind of performance was planned for the kids. We can both surmise but that's it.

    I wonder were the parents in the clip that was posted expecting yer man to get down on all fours and twerk?

    I'm not saying that would have happened in the library but if the drag artists are used to performing risqué performances for adults, it would be hard for them to make it 100% child friendly.


  • Options
    #1355
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Neither of us are psychic so we don't know what kind of performance was planned for the kids. We can both surmise but that's it.

    I wonder were the parents in the clip that was posted expecting yer man to get down on all fours and twerk?

    I'm not saying that would have happened in the library but if the drag artists are used to performing risqué performances for adults, it would be hard for them to make it 100% child friendly.
    Gotcha.
    giphy.gif


  • Options
    #1356
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,015 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Drag is sexualised. I've yet to see a sexualised pantomime performance.

    Have a look at this.

    https://imgur.com/a/mjuhThk

    Again: is that what you actually believe is going to happen at the library? Yes or no?

    If your answer is "yes" then it contradicts your first sentence: you accept that non-sexualised pantomime exists., and I'd agree with Seamus - you'd be an idiot.

    If your answer is "no" then it contradicts your claim that "it would be hard for them to make it 100% child friendly."

    If your answer is "I don't know" then wouldn't it be wise to hold off judgement until you DID know?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1357
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    you wouldnt really want pole dancers giving pole dancing fitness classes to young girls, why would you want adult entertainers doing similar?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #1358
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Zorya


    People calling other posters idiots.

    I suppose they are the same people who also run to moderators regarding ''attack the poster'' posts?

    :rolleyes:

    I offer no counter-argument as my previous statement stands on its merits, and likewise other people's posts will display their opinions clearly.
    (Though I had to look up Helen Lovejoy - I found the Simpsons irritating the few times I saw it so didn't know the name. It sounded like a reformed porn star name. :pac:)


  • Options
    #1359
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    silverharp wrote: »
    why would you want adult entertainers doing similar?
    because it is progressive and inclusive.


  • Options
    #1360
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,015 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Zorya wrote: »
    People calling other posters idiots.

    I suppose they are the same people who also run to moderators regarding ''attack the poster'' posts?

    :rolleyes:

    Except that's not what happened, is it?
    I offer no counter-argument as my previous statement stands on its merits, and likewise other people's posts will display their opinions clearly.
    (Though I had to look up Helen Lovejoy - I found the Simpsons irritating the few times I saw it so didn't know the name. It sounded like a reformed porn star name. :pac:)

    You said, "The problem is the inevitable sexualised element" which has failed to stand, as I asked if said element was in your head or the kids heads.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #1361
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    Ok. Is the content going to be the same for the kids and will the kids get the innuendo?
    seamus wrote: »
    Inevitable for whom?
    Drag is in effect just pantomime for adults. Anyone who believed that a drag act was going to read stories to kids in a sexually charged way and sprinkled with innuendo, is an idiot.

    Wait... would there be innuendo or not?
    If drag is "just pantomime for adults", why is there a need for it at a book reading for 3-7 yr old kids...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1362
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,015 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Wait... would there be innuendo or not?
    If drag is "just pantomime for adults", why is there a need for it at a book reading for 3-7 yr old kids...

    I'm guessing not.

    Why? Why not? Kids like pantomine, kids like costumes. Why dress up for Halloween? Why dress up for a Paddy's Day parade? Why get dressed up at all? Why have cosrtume parties? Why have fancy dress?

    Because it's (non-sexual, because the point apparently needs to be made) fun.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #1363
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    Again: is that what you actually believe is going to happen at the library? Yes or no?

    If your answer is "yes" then it contradicts your first sentence: you accept that non-sexualised pantomime exists., and I'd agree with Seamus - you'd be an idiot.

    If your answer is "no" then it contradicts your claim that "it would be hard for them to make it 100% child friendly."

    If your answer is "I don't know" then wouldn't it be wise to hold off judgement until you DID know?

    Eh yeah, I wouldn't consider myself an idiot but hey, that's at least one person who doesn't consider me an idiot. :)

    I see nothing contradictory in my statement. I've seen non-sexualised pantomime but haven't seen non-sexualised drag shows. I think that is clear enough.

    Do I think that the drag artists would behave in an age appropriate way, I don't know. I have my doubts that everything they would do would be age appropriate. Have I proof of that, no. Have I proof that they won't, no.

    I'm not saying that the drag artists are going to start dry humping 3 year olds in the library, not at all. But it's very hard to behave in a way suitable for a 3 - 7 year old audience when you are used to behaving erotically with adults.

    I'll use myself as an example. I tend to swear sometimes and I know it's not appropriate to swear in front of children, but I sometimes do.

    It's very hard to not behave in some way sexual if you are used to behaving in that way. It's difficult to change habits.


  • Options
    #1364
    GinAndBitter
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 746 ✭✭✭GinAndBitter


    https://twitter.com/GlitterHoleDub/status/1117702595240501248?s=19

    It's homophobic to not want drag queens in the same room as your 5 year old child, apparently.

    Sick people.


  • Options
    #1365
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,015 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Eh yeah, I wouldn't consider myself an idiot but hey, that's at least one person who doesn't consider me an idiot. :)

    I see nothing contradictory in my statement. I've seen non-sexualised pantomime but haven't seen non-sexualised drag shows. I think that is clear enough.

    Do I think that the drag artists would behave in an age appropriate way, I don't know. I have my doubts that everything they would do would be age appropriate. Have I proof of that, no. Have I proof that they won't, no.

    I'm not saying that the drag artists are going to start dry humping 3 year olds in the library, not at all. But it's very hard to behave in a way suitable for a 3 - 7 year old audience when you are used to behaving erotically with adults.

    It's very hard to not behave in some way sexual if you are used to behaving in that way. It's difficult to change habits.

    I'll use myself as an example. I tend to swear sometimes and I know it's not appropriate to swear in front of children, but I sometimes do.

    Swearing is different because it's an impulsive act, whereas acting sexually is an act.

    I just find absolutely no basis on which to assume that someone who performs drag is suddenly not going to be able to act in a non-sexual way in front of kids. Most actors/performers can and do tailor their performances to their audience.

    Shirley Temple-Bar did telly-bingo for years on daytime RTE both in and out of drag for years without any problems.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #1366
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    I'm guessing not.

    Why? Why not? Kids like pantomine, kids like costumes. Why dress up for Halloween? Why dress up for a Paddy's Day parade? Why get dressed up at all? Why have cosrtume parties? Why have fancy dress?

    Because it's (non-sexual, because the point apparently needs to be made) fun.

    Earlier you said there would be innuendo..anyway...

    Ah heor, bit of a difference between a green hat and a shamrock, or a princess dress, or a witches outfit for kids dressing up to adult men in dresses reading books to kids in a public library.
    Unless of course you cant see the difference, and dont get how some might find it uncomfortable, intolerant of others "intolerance"

    So If its to be "non sexual" whats the point of it at a kids bok reading?
    Isnt the whole point of drag, voluntary dressing up for adult "fun", for risgué titillation and sexual innuendo? Hillarious and fabulous. Fun. If its your thing?


  • Options
    #1367
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,015 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Earlier you said there would be innuendo..anyway...
    Think your confusing me with someone slse.
    Ah heor, bit of a difference between a green hat and a shamrock, or a princess dress, or a witches outfit for kids dressing up to adult men in dresses reading books to kids in a public library.

    i.e. pantomime?
    Unless of course you cant see the difference, and dont get how some might find it uncomfortable, intolerant of others "intolerance"

    If you're not comfortable, then don't go. I'm okay with that. How is this intolerence on my part? What am I intolerant of?
    So If its to be "non sexual" whats the point of it at a kids bok reading?
    Isnt the whole point of drag, voluntary dressing up for adult "fun", for risgué titillation and sexual innuendo? Hillarious and fabulous. Fun. If its your thing?

    Not nessecraily.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #1368
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    Think your confusing me with someone slse.

    i.e. pantomime?

    If you're not comfortable, then don't go. I'm okay with that. How is this intolerence on my part? What am I intolerant of? The idea that something isn't sexual?

    Not nessecraily.

    Nope.
    Quoted you earlier.


    You dont seem to get why people would be uncomfortable exposing their kids to this.
    Decrying their intolerance, intolerant of their view. Hypocrisy.

    Even reading some of the glitter hole twitter commemts "bigots.. homophobic...denying LGBT agency" trying to "dress" this up as an attack on the LGBT community. Its not.
    This wasnt gay people banned from reading a book.

    Theres nothing homophobic in not wanting grown men in wigs, make up and dresses (or whatever) reading books to kids in a library.


  • Options
    #1369
    Charles Ingles
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,181 ✭✭✭Charles Ingles


    GinAndBitter wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/GlitterHoleDub/status/1117702595240501248?s=19

    It's homophobic to not want drag queens in the same room as your 5 year old child, apparently.

    Sick people.
    I'm glad I've no children still in school absolutely shocking this was even considered to allowed in schools


  • Options
    #1370
    BattleCorp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,758 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    Once again I'm not saying that this is what would have happened in the library but who thinks this is appropriate for kids?

    https://imgur.com/a/mjuhThk


  • Options
    #1371
    GinAndBitter
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 746 ✭✭✭GinAndBitter


    BattleCorp wrote: »
    Once again I'm not saying that this is what would have happened in the library but who thinks this is appropriate for kids?

    https://imgur.com/a/mjuhThk

    Depraved behaviour, any parent allowing their kids to take part in that should be locked up.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1372
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Zorya


    Look sideways at Desmond is Amazing and you are agin the gays!

    Look sideways at Drag Queen Story time and you are agin the gays!

    Look sideways at the hormonal interference with 8 years old children and you are agin the gays!

    Yawn. The argument is moronic and boring at the stage.


  • Options
    #1373
    Sardonicat
    Registered Users Posts: 12,378 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    Charles Ingles wrote: »
    GinAndBitter wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/GlitterHoleDub/status/1117702595240501248?s=19

    It's homophobic to not want drag queens in the same room as your 5 year old child, apparently.

    Sick people.
    I'm glad I've no children still in school absolutely shocking this was even considered to allowed in schools
    It wasn't.


  • Options
    #1374
    AllForIt
    Registered Users Posts: 8,269 ✭✭✭AllForIt


    Never heard of this Glitter HOLE group, not surprisingly cause I've never been into Drag as a form of entertainment having seen quite a few drag acts myself in gay bars over the years. I'd prefer karaoke if trashy is the theme for the evening. As far as what they do in ADULT bars I can't imagine what they do is high-level "filthy" or "disgusting" as some twitter commentators describe them, it's not like they are performing live sex acts on stage or anything on that level, so I think some are being a bit prudish and judgmental in respect of their act.

    However I do think that THEY as a group ARE the reason that makes THEM inappropriate to do the library show for the only reason that they are associated with their adult act. Not that they would do anything age inappropriate at the reading itself i'm sure.


  • Options
    #1375
    Irish Praetorian
    Registered Users Posts: 1,745 ✭✭✭Irish Praetorian


    Zorya wrote: »
    Look sideways at Desmond is Amazing and you are agin the gays!

    Look sideways at Drag Queen Story time and you are agin the gays!

    Look sideways at the hormonal interference with 8 years old children and you are agin the gays!

    Yawn. The argument is moronic and boring at the stage.


    Be fair, from what I've seen of the comment sections of various gay websites, support for this 'act' is fractured at best. Now don't get me wrong, I think there might be stronger case for this being troublesome if it wasn't coming from the land of gaudy beauty pageants and child stars, but this is hardly a case of 'de geys' v 'de rest'.


  • Options
    #1376
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Zorya


    Irish Praetorian wrote: »
    Be fair, from what I've seen of the comment sections of various gay websites, support for this 'act' is fractured at best. Now don't get me wrong, I think there might be stronger case for this being troublesome if it wasn't coming from the land of gaudy beauty pageants and child stars, but this is hardly a case of 'de geys' v 'de rest'.

    Must admit I have not looked any where else about this story, so I don't know. It's the general thrust that I am referencing. I don't see the ladies from burlesque troupes rushing to libraries to tell stories, promising that they will keep their cardigans buttoned. It would be silly and inappropriate and they are far too sensible for that.


  • Options
    #1377
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,015 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Nope.
    Quoted you earlier.

    If you're going to quote me, quote me in context: pretty obvious I was refering to the name of the group.


    Kenna Fresh Teflon wrote: »
    Yes when it's an adult (as in its performances are for adults at bars and nightclubs) drag act called Glitter Hole.
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    Ok. Is the content going to be the same for the kids and will the kids get the innuendo?



    You dont seem to get why people would be uncomfortable exposing their kids to this.
    Decrying their intolerance, intolerant of their view. Hypocrisy.
    [/QUOTE]
    YOu seem to oblivious to the difference between disagreement and intolerance.

    I disagree that this reading would be sexualised and inapporriate. How is this intolerant?
    Even reading some of the glitter hole twitter commemts "bigots.. homophobic...denying LGBT agency" trying to "dress" this up as an attack on the LGBT community. Its not.
    This wasnt gay people banned from reading a book.

    Theres nothing homophobic in not wanting grown men in wigs, make up and dresses (or whatever) reading books to kids in a library.

    Never said there was.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #1378
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    If you're going to quote me, quote me in context: pretty obvious I was refering to the name of the group.

    Quoted your entire post. There's nothing obvious, or something I missed, especially context. You just failed to make whatever point you were trying to make.

    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    YOu seem to oblivious to the difference between disagreement and intolerance.

    I disagree that this reading would be sexualised and inapporriate. How is this intolerant?

    Never said there was, and I agree with you here. If you're not comfortable, don't go.

    You're condescending tone towards those with whom you disagree with, smacks of intolerance of their position. An unwillingness to see things from the others side. (Thats the intolerance bit- you keep missing it)

    This isnt a case of prudish greys staying away from a risqué event. Its parents concerned as to what their kids are being exposed to, by a troupe of drag performers not renowned for children's entertainment.

    Whether its sexualized or not is moot, no one knows. It might be laden with innuendo, or the most chaste reading ever. Probably somewhere in between.

    Its either going to be sexualized or not.
    If yes, theres a self evident problem.
    If not, why have drag artists from ""glitter hole". Fcuk it, they could even do it under a different name if it was actually about reading kids stories while dressed up, having fun etc as you would have us believe. Set up a kids specific group, get Garda vetted etc. But no, we have a rather outre group of adult entertainers, reading kids books, bereft of a modicum of Garda vetting. And the people who have an issue with this are somehow out of order...

    In fairness, going by your early work in this thread, you're consistent.


  • Options
    #1379
    Will I Am Not
    Registered Users Posts: 3,495 ✭✭✭Will I Am Not


    AllForIt wrote: »
    However I do think that THEY as a group ARE the reason that makes THEM inappropriate to do the library show for the only reason that they are associated with their adult act. Not that they would do anything age inappropriate at the reading itself i'm sure.

    Exactly. You wouldn’t want Ron Jeremy and Jenna Jameson giving your kids sex ed...


  • Options
    #1380
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Will I Am Not wrote: »
    Exactly. You wouldn’t want Ron Jeremy and Jenna Jameson giving your kids sex ed...

    Im sure they could do it in a non sexualized way...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1381
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,015 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    (For the sake of brevity, I'm not replying to the points that are not relevant to arguments I've made, apart from the opening one, which, I agree was a bit unclear. But to clarify: I was refer only to innunendo only in the name of the group)
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    You're condescending tone towards those with whom you disagree with, smacks of intolerance of their position. An unwillingness to see things from the others side. (Thats the intolerance bit- you keep missing it)

    Ah, my tone. Of course. You're not actually reading the words then, or is this just an attempt at the moral highground?

    As I said, I find the idea that it's automatically going to sexualised because their only association of it is in risque nightclubs ignorant. You say yourself below, no one knows. That's not intolerance, that's just pointing out ignorance based on assumption.
    Whether its sexualized or not is moot, no one knows. It might be laden with innuendo, or the most chaste reading ever. Probably somewhere in between.

    I've addressed this.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement