Said culture and gender studies professor Lawrence La Fountain-Stokes, author of "Translocas: The Politics of Puerto Rican Drag and Trans Performance," quoted in "As Tennessee, others target drag shows, many wonder: Why?" (AP News).
I found that after struggling to read "Tennessee curbs trans treatment and drag for children" (BBC):
Tennessee's governor has signed laws banning drag performances in front of children... Violators of the new drag law, meanwhile, face nearly a year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500 (£2,100). Governor Bill Lee enacted the laws as questions were asked about an old photo apparently of him in women's clothing. When it comes into force next month, the drag law will ban performances "harmful to minors" by "go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators" in public places or venues where they could be viewed by children....
[T]he American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, an LGBT civil rights organisation, said they would sue to stop the legislation from being enforced. "We are dedicated to overturning this unconstitutional law and are confident the state will find itself completely incapable of defending it in court," the organisations said in a statement.
The key words are, obviously, "harmful to minors," otherwise they'd be banning the play "Peter Pan," which is always (almost always?) performed with a female impersonating a male.
Who decides what is "harmful to minors"? I know what provoked this legislation, but laws that violate freedom of speech are always provoked by something stirringly important. I've got to give this my "lawsuits I hope will succeed" tag. Figure out a way to protect children that doesn't violate the Constitution.
Meanwhile, here's that photo of Bill Lee:
पोस्ट्स
१६७ टिप्पण्या:
trans/social
My guess is 95% of Americans would have no problem with adult men who want to dress up as women, either to entertain themselves or other adults. But if these adult men somehow NEED to have children present as part of their entertainment then yup we're going to have a big problem with that.
Those who can't see the distinction are being deliberately obtuse.
The name for the event you are watching is the powder puff prom. The girls put on pads and whack the living hell out of each other in one short game. The football team and cheerleaders trade places and play each other's roles for the "prom" before the game.
It was hilarious. This was standard behavior when I was in HS in the sixties. Lots of "steam" was released. The band would show in drag as well in what would be described as "gender role reversal" these days.
Different times, different norms. Mutual disbelief. Nobody displayed their narrowly covered cloaca before a elementary school kid in this activity. I find this to be an important point.
Drag is a form of entertainment, but a pretty crude one. I've been to a number of drag shows and am not the slightest bit offended by them, but let's be real. Drag is all about being outrageous. Drag Queens are rarely attractive women, they're not good singers or dancers, the jokes aren't funny. That's not the point, it's not what people enjoy about drag.
As for drag queen story hour, story hour is a positive thing every library should make a regular event. I have no issue with a person in drag being among the readers, just as I would have no problem with a clown or anyone presenting as a character doing the reading. My problem is having a dedicated thing called Drag Queen Story Hour. Why? What's the relationship? What benefit do drag queens bring to the event?
It makes me question their intentions, their purpose. It's not about the children, it's not about literacy, it's not promoting libraries or knowledge--drag has nothing to do with any of that. Why are our libraries being used to promote drag to children?
If they want my support, they need to provide a valid explanation for what they're doing. So far I haven't heard one.
Is pedophilia still a word? Did we legalize it in one of those spending bills?
One person’s kink is another person’s free expression. They want to stop the sex shows in grade schools. If you won’t show some rational constraint you don’t give them much choice…
That Bill Lee photo looks like Halloween or something not pedophile strip show story time comes to kindergarten…
The parents decide.
That's the problem. Public schools are actively hiding their agenda from parents.
There is a multitude, of activities, that can enhance educational experiences for Children. Exposing them to men dressing as women fails at all levels.
Why do Teacher insist on sharing their personal fetishes with school children.
"Meanwhile, here's that photo of Bill Lee:"
Man in shorts? Or not?
Yeah, the “No drag shows for kids” law is unconstitutional, but not the sex change law. The Left has billions of dollars and it will be spent attacking all of these state laws.
Female blackface. And white liberal women love it!
Aren't there two distinct laws in the articles? It seems to me that the ACLU/Lambda Legal vow to sue is in response to the law restricting medical treatment, and not the drag show law.
I enjoy seeing a twerking gay man in a gown just as much as any toddler, but are you really agreeing that the medical treatment law is unconstitutional?
Invasion of the Body Switchers
Drag makes no sense to me.
Milton Berle wasn't funny in drag, was probably the problem.
I understand the sentiment behind passing and signing this bill but I agree it is tricky. It's because of all the plentiful video footage of these very sexualized trans dancing shows where men dressed in Vegas showgirl type outfits are doing moves that practically shove their "junk" in the faces of children. Yes, it's the fault of the adults who bring their kids to these shows who show the poor judgement. We have car seat and seatbelt laws that tell adults that have to be careful on behalf of children. I know my rationale for comparing the two laws can be demolished by the freedom of expression argument but, darn it, why do the proponents of forever moving the bar of decency downward have to keep pushing against the line.
How many people in the trans/drag crowd have been around small children? They perhaps do not understand the fundamental meat-and-potatoes learning required before one gets to sex.
How to eat with a fork and knife. How to use the potty. How to not pee your pants. How to read. How to write. How to interact / play with siblings and other children. How to dress yourself. How to brush your teeth. How to make your bed. How to take a shower. How to comb your hair. How to get to school. How to ride a bike. How to do math. How to paint. How to sing.
This all must happen before puberty and before sex is relevant.
On top of this, today's small children are expected to learn phones, tablets, internet and therefore games and social media.
Every kink is a great civil rights issue.
If you look at a porn site, you’ll discover that there are hundreds of kinks. So, we have a long way to go here to “liberate” every kink.
It was a better world when people kept their crappy, disgusting kinks to themselves.
There has to be recognized and defined distinctions between trans, drag, cross dressing(?), Peter Pan, Milton Berle in a dress, etc. The first seems to stand apart. The others are more blurry.
On the one hand, consider the Panto Dame in the great English Christmas Pantomime tradition.
On the other, consider the bravura performances of Bugs Bunny in drag, where he fools Elmer Fudd every stinkin' time. And what about the Baton Show Lounge in Chicago (53 years in business, recently moved from River North to Uptown)?
And what about Milton Berle?
No easy answers, but it should be easy to put an age limit on audiences.
Trans-activists are going to ruin this for everyone by going too far. No one much cares what adults do with their time and attention. We all grew up in a time when lots of things were off limits until you were 21 (then 18).
Mezzrow is right. Decades ago, annual events by schools or men's and women's clubs featured sex role reversal played out in a sports event or tea party. It bears no relation to professional drag queens performing provocative routines mocking the female sex in front of small children.
This law does seem a mess, as it casts a wide net. But it needs redrafting, not abandoning the issue of exposing children to sexualized performances.
I'm a bit young for Powder Puff Prom, but the underlying practice continued into the 80's at least. Every football player dressed up as a cheerleader at least once in high school. My friends and I dressed as women for Halloween one year. There was no deeper meaning, they were just costumes. Tom Hanks got his start wearing a dress in Bosom Buddies; it was a sitcom, not social commentary.
Remember Revenge of the Nerds? At the talent show, the football players dressed as cheerleaders and the cheerleaders dressed as football players. It wasn't controversial, it wasn't transgressive. Quite the contrary, it was portrayed as lame jock humor.
"While some on principles baptized
To strict party platform ties
Social clubs in drag disguise
Outsiders they can freely criticize
Tell nothing except who to idolize
And then say God bless him"
"My problem is having a dedicated thing called Drag Queen Story Hour. Why? What's the relationship? What benefit do drag queens bring to the event?"
You objected specifically to the *speech*. Doesn't that make you uneasy?
Tennessee's governor has signed laws banning drag performances in front of children
So, men performing in women's clothing is not banned. That said, civil unions for all consenting adults, without discrimination by politically congruent ("=") constructs. Lower the Rainbow banner and sequester other albinophobic paraphernalia.
..."lawsuits I hope will succeed"...
!
Is Althouse driving a wedge between herself and her transphobic commenters?
For me, it's a subject for cruel neutrality. I can't even decide which is weirder; a drag show performed for children, in a public school or a public library... or a Republican state government passing legislation to ban drag shows.
I'm just interested, in the interestingness.
"Aren't there two distinct laws in the articles? It seems to me that the ACLU/Lambda Legal vow to sue is in response to the law restricting medical treatment, and not the drag show law."
This is part of what I was struggling to read. I edited out the material about the medical treatment and do not mean to express an opinion about that. I saw that there is explicitly a lawsuit on that subject, and I don't mean to opine about that. If there is no lawsuit about criminalizing drag performances, then there isn't a lawsuit I'm saying I hope will succeed. Sorry to be confusing about that. But I think the law based on the judgment that a performance is "harmful to minors" is a terrible mistake. Parents need to do their work of protecting children. Criminal law is the wrong choice. Most dancing is a display of sexuality, and it can't be left to officials to decide someone in drag is "harmful to minors" and transforming dance into a crime.
"Drag is a job. Drag is a legitimate artistic expression
that's WHY we show it to preschoolers.. Right? i mean.. Right?
Then How about?
Minstrel singing in Blackface is a job. Blackface is a legitimate artistic expression
If we are gladly and proudly showing little children what men look like, mocking women..
Shouldn't we be gladly and proudly showing little children what whites look like? mocking blacks?
Drag is fine for adults, but men pretending to be women, doing sexual things in front of kids is sick. Drag is NOT a kid activity...only to perverts.
They perhaps do not understand the fundamental meat-and-potatoes learning required before one gets to sex.
…might want to rephrase that in the context of this conversation…
I hope it succeeds too, so that we can start having women's lingerie shows in front of children as well. Imagine the joy of middle school boys having their female teachers walk the catwalk in front of them for dollar bills. Express yourself girls! Show us the artistry of your pole dance!
Oh wait, those things are banned almost everywhere for minors in the US.
Here's some classic sexualized dancing by a female dressed as a female. She gestures that hot weather is emanating from her nether region. Is it dangerous? Would it become dangerous if this was a man in drag?
Is pedophilia still a word? Did we legalize it in one of those spending bills?
It's a politically congruent construct, normalized under the Polanski/Goldberg it's not rape-rape liberal doctrine, and the #NoJudgment #NoLabels social progression. It's why they feel compelled to house feminine-adjacent males with female captives, employ trans/homosexual groomers in schools, churches, Boy Scouts, etc. It's why personal affirmation through transgender conversion therapy is trendy, why casting couches were progressive, why sexually active children was a gay expression, why "burdens" of evidence are aborted, cannibalized, sequestered in darkness, and dissent is criminalized.
Scroll to 1:50 to get to the aforementioned gesturing.
Normalizing aberrant behavior. Defining deviancy down. That's the ticket. The next push will be labeling pedophilia as A-Ok. Even Stevie Wonder can see this coming.
Figure out a way to protect children that doesn't violate the Constitution.
Give fascists/marxists a choice between death/exile.
We can put it under the commerce clause or whatever bodily crevice people pulled the right to an abortion out of.
I don't care that drag shows exist. I question what breathing adult would see it as entertainment. Yes, I know that men dressing up as women has been entertainment for eons. From Greek plays to Tony Curtis to Charley's Aunt to Uncle Miltie and on and on. I get the use of it. But drag shows are a different thing to me. I don't get the attraction nor supposed entertainment about it. It's not funny and frankly, if I want to go look at beautiful women, I prefer to go look at beautiful women. Not men dressed up as women. I don't even get the point of it.
Still, if breathing adults want to see it, go see it. BUT there is literally zero reason for this to be a part of any school at any time. What is the purpose? To what end would you bring this into a grade school? State your purpose truthfully, honestly, and let's go from there. Don't give me the BS about teaching kids about inclusiveness. I can do that without putting on dominatrix straps and hanging my balls in a kids face. Please.
Also- any parent who thinks it's cool family fun to bring their kids along for some of this are horrible parents. Yes, I'm being judgemental. Standards count to me. Doing that tells me you have no standards for you kid. Good luck in a few years.
Ann Althouse said...
"My problem is having a dedicated thing called Drag Queen Story Hour. Why? What's the relationship? What benefit do drag queens bring to the event?"
You objected specifically to the *speech*. Doesn't that make you uneasy?
A program to manipulate children to fulfill some outsider's hidden agenda? Context matters. No, it doesn't make me uneasy. It doesn't make you uneasy either. So broadly defined, it makes nobody, literally nobody, uneasy.
Shouldn't we be gladly and proudly showing little children what whites look like? mocking blacks?
Albinophobia is celebrated in parades, on bumper stickers, on children's clothing, etc. To their credit, human reproductive rites, and excess carbon sequestration, for fair weather causes, redistributive change, etc. are still conducted in darkness. Meanwhile with social progress there is a mass psychosis spreading among girls and boys. The experiment must go on.
if drag shows AREN'T about mocking women..
Then, how come we don't have pole dancer story hours too?
Why is it, that ONLY Males are allowed to be sexual in front of little boys and girls?
Shouldn't Strippers be given the chance too? (pasties and g-strings, of course)
All of you that think Drag Queen Story hour is a good thing (to say Nothing of full-on drag shows)..
Tell us how you feel about Candi and Bambi's Stripper Story Hour? Sound good? Want your daughters there?
The law doesn’t actually make any statements about “harmful to minors,” that’s just the commentary. It specifically adds to the definition of “adult cabaret performance” (which previously covered exotic dancers, topless dancers, and male/female impersonators) to include male/female impersonators that provide entertainment that “appeals to the prurient interest.” It also adds a restriction specifically prohibiting those types of shows being performed where they can be viewed by non-adults (to the previous law prohibiting those sorts of performances near schools and parks). So, it basically just adds to the preexisting obscenity laws.
There are a lot of vague terms in the law, as there always is in obscenity law. There could be a chilling effect. But it actually would not impact most of what we’re talking about here - drag queen story hours, “family-friendly” drag shows, anything that would be done in public, etc. certainly should (should!) clearly exclude anything that “appeals to the prurient interest.” So I don’t think there’s really much here, for either side.
Given that the previous law included male/female impersonators without the modifier about prurient interests, it actually loosens the law some. I would argue that PG-rated drag shows near schools and parks were prohibited before, but now, would be allowed!
Parents need to do their work of protecting children.
Heartily agree! Which means to me that schools, where children go without parental supervision through no fault of parents, need to be constrained to publicize their programs ahead of time and provide a way for objecting parents to opt out without children's being penalized. It's a sticky wicket, since parents could object to lots of things for lots of reasons.
But I agree that it's parents' job to keep their kids away from Drag Queen Story Hour if they object to it. I could see myself taking my young children to a story hour where the drag queen was, you know, Mrs. Doubtfire or someone dressed as an old-school princess, but not a drag queen in pasties and a thong, for instance.
(I've only seen one drag queen who could get away with that - an Aussie guy on RuPaul years ago. Was absolutely beautiful and convincing as a woman, even in a bikini. I always thought he kind of missed the point, even as a glamour queen, that drag was also supposed to entertain, and Ru seemed more or less to agree, though I believe he did end up in the final.)
I suppose if the library allowed women to dress for story hour the way a sexualized queen is dressed, I wouldn't ban that attire on public decency grounds. But... it's one of those uncomfortable "I know it when I see it" questions. It may not be actionable but it sure may be objectionable.
MPAA ratings aren’t viewed as a freedom of speech issue. Peter Pan gets a G. Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, gets an R and everyone is ok with that. Drag queens could create standards and rate their shows for age appropriateness.
""Drag is a job. Drag is a legitimate artistic expression/that's WHY we show it to preschoolers.. Right? i mean.. Right?"
The problem isn't the drag but the degree of sexuality in the performance. You wouldn't accept nondrag performers waggling their crotch in children's faces either. Draw the legal lines in the right places, not where they express hostility to people you don't like.
Getting people back in legitimate churches with their kids and employing community shaming to encourage the degenerates and perverts back into the closet, keeping their dirtbag practices to themselves, is the answer.
whatever bodily crevice people pulled the right to an abortion out of.
Human reproductive rites is a liberal art of human expression of love and empathy.
That said, in order to keep women and girls affordable, available, and taxable, and the carbon-based "burden" of evidence sequestered in darkness, the rites of human expression cannot be restricted. Meanwhile, the pressure for sexual expression progresses to ever younger ages with less... uh, "strings", attached.
Anyway, everyone has a right to redefine reality to reflect their beliefs, and groom, mold children in their image in the classical convention. This goes beyond class-disordered ideologies.
Sounds like the law isn't distinguishing between drag and hetero sexual explicit performances. Seems fine to me, though this notion used to be common sense.
It seems harmless to kids unless it's a group made so fashionable that it's tempting to join, where some patience with normal development would lead to normal tastes.
Wait until the hormones kick in and then see what's appealing.
Here's some classic sexualized dancing by a female dressed as a female. She gestures that hot weather is emanating from her nether region. Is it dangerous? Would it become dangerous if this was a man in drag?
Did she point this out in the elementary school cafeteria?
The problem isn't the drag but the degree of sexuality in the performance.
Point, counterpoint, interesting progression. Civil unions... marriage for all consenting adults, without discrimination for politically congruent ("=") constructs. Sexual expression and gender conversion therapy at any age. Human rites performed for social, redistributive, clinical, political, criminal, and fair weather progress.
I had forgotten about powder puff football. My best friend's sister, a beautiful senior who loved to weight lift, thrilled to play. She probably could've played on the regulation team. I always hated that tradition. I didn't like seeing the silly KofC pictures of my dad doing the "There's Nothing Like a Dame" routine with his friends, either. None of this is funny or entertaining or inoffensive. But don't ban it.
whatever bodily crevice people pulled the right to an abortion out of.
Elective abortion violates Constitutional rights of "our Posterity" in cruel and unusual ways. They need to find a better way to express their religious beliefs in equity and exclusion.
Yeah, the “No drag shows for kids” law is unconstitutional,
Some locals have age limits for kids playing tackle football
Movie rating system
Drinking
fire arms/hunting
Our laws are littered with age restrictions.
How would making public drag shows in front of children illegal, violate the children's constitutional rights?
mezzrow said...
The name for the event you are watching is the powder puff prom. The girls put on pads and whack the living hell out of each other in one short game. The football team and cheerleaders trade places and play each other's roles for the "prom" before the game.
It was hilarious. This was standard behavior when I was in HS in the sixties. Lots of "steam" was released. The band would show in drag as well in what would be described as "gender role reversal" these days.
Different times, different norms. Mutual disbelief. Nobody displayed their narrowly covered cloaca before a elementary school kid in this activity. I find this to be an important point.
3/3/23, 6:36 AM
I can imagine the outrage, and charges of grooming if something like this were attempted today.
The problem isn't the drag but the degree of sexuality in the performance. You wouldn't accept nondrag performers waggling their crotch in children's faces either. Draw the legal lines in the right places, not where they express hostility to people you don't like.
Part of the problem with what you’re saying is making the distinction, if there is any at all. I’m not convinced there is…
. Draw the legal lines in the right places,
isnt the intent of 'drag' to pique prurient interests? Outside the content of the "performance".
I understand the subtlety you suggest. I suggest we move that line far far in the direction of banning "performances" in front of children.
Female blackface. And white liberal women love it!
In classical times, they would sodomize girls and boys to force them to take a knee. They would dress boys in feminine attire, girls in masculine attire, in order to normalize gender reductive ideologies. Shave female prisoners' heads, castrate males, etc. With social progress we are revisiting these free expressions.
The language quoted in the post: "When it comes into force next month, the drag law will ban performances 'harmful to minors' by 'go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators' in public places or venues where they could be viewed by children...."
That is a quote from the BBC article, quoting the bill. Some words were left out that are important to me in my thinking about the constitutionality (or not) of this bill.
"The bill, which the Tennessee House passed last week, defines an adult cabaret performance as a performance 'that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, or similar entertainers.' " (https://www.wtkr.com/news/national-news/tennessee-first-state-in-2023-to-restrict-public-drag-performances)
My quote is from some local news station, but the bolded words were included in multiple reports I heard about this bill. Powder Puff Prom, Milton Berle, Tom Hanks, Bugs Bunny are probably off the hook.
Product of single sex RC schools. 1 now co-ed. Chances decent I had a female part in a school play along the way but can't remember.
Female blackface. And white liberal women love it!
Yes, as I said, there are literally hundreds of kinks.
The kinks that command attention and ignite civil rights crusades are always the ones that turn on white liberal women.
The problem isn't the drag but the degree of sexuality in the performance. You wouldn't accept nondrag performers waggling their crotch in children's faces either. Draw the legal lines in the right places, not where they express hostility to people you don't like.
We already have laws against things like that. The problem is a group of people have disavowed norms and insisted what was once universally acknowledged to be unacceptable behavior is not only acceptable but worthy of promotion. The new laws eliminate the semantic distinction and clarify what is and is not appropriate. Where’s the fault? If the people in charge of education woke up tomorrow and said all nude female dance performances are a necessary part of sex education for middle schoolers and Tennessee passed a law saying “no it’s not,” you’d have a problem with that?
is not consent an issue here?
can a child walk away and not be restrained?
why focus on speech when freedom of association is at peril?
I'll fall in with your lawsuit if you include the state of California and its recent efforts to ban firearm possession for those under 21. And this in a state with cities having some of the highest crime rates in the country.
Society has presumed children incapable of handling "adult" issues for centuries. Government intervention in medical care and a host of other areas irritates me no end. But one way or another, some institution must protect children and if schools are kneecapping parents at every turn then we're left with government. And if we don't like what legislators and governors do, at least they're answerable at the voting booth (in theory) or the judiciary. By all means, let's everyone lawyer-up and fees all around as my Future Interests prof was fond of saying after dissecting an ill-drafted will or trust.
Personally, whether Bill Lee has a long-suppressed desire to do drag is irrelevant to the question of whether government should protect children. He can swish his hips with his frat buddies however he chooses. But, when the public library's children's story hour is conscripted for a bit of adult sex ed and gender fluidity persuasion, well, that's waving the red cape in front of a bull. The left reacts with free-expression outrage at laws such as Tennessee's, but conveniently ignores government's historical role in protecting children from a host of adult issues. I will be a government skeptic until I die, but children stand a better chance of becoming responsible adults if they leave voting, military service, driving, factory work, owning a gun and gender transition to 18+.
Or perhaps Tennessee ought to carve out an exception for drag queens who first submit to phalloplasty. Would a physically neutralized mtf in a dress who must stp but can't produce eggs now fit the definition of drag? We'll have to await Justice Jackson's education on the definition of a woman I suppose.
Do they prey before the drag show begins?
Play the Drag National Anthem maybe?
The problem isn't the drag but the degree of sexuality in the performance. You wouldn't accept nondrag performers waggling their crotch in children's faces either.
Exactly right, imo. And quite properly there was outcry over that show - darn it, I'm way too fuzzy on the details; European-based streamed movie? Or was it actually a show? about young girls learning to dance in very sexualized ways? Doggone it!
Basically, right-thinking people are against the sexualization of childhood and some people - both purveyors and critics - use drag as shorthand for sexualization, in spite of drag's long comedy history.
Side note: I had no idea that pelvic thrusts were a part of MM's dance repertoire! I admit I thought she was tamer than that.
You wouldn't accept nondrag performers waggling their crotch in children's faces either.
You've seen the photos. The women who attend these events look delighted to have their children (or grandchildren) putting dollar bills in the performer's underpants and having the performer's crotch thrust into their kids' faces. The mothers are getting lavished with attention by men whom they perceive as non-threatening because they seem gay. Adding in the children just makes it naughtier fun. The women in the audience don't have kinks, so they see it all as cartoonish and not sexual.
Non-drag male performers don't get that leeway, because when they put on a sexually-charged performance, it actually reads as sexual to the women in the audience.
I don't see any small children - or any children in the old photo of Bill Lee.
On-line - I've seen children forced to watch creepy leftist drag shows.
Our militantly revolutionary lesbian librarians are the actual problem.
The left are on the march to over-sexualize young children.
some of the push back will be clumsy.
If drag shows are a legitimate form of artistic expression, it is an adult form of artistic expression - it is almost always sexually suggestive.
Pantomime (because people will draw the comparison) with men dressed up as women has come from, I believe, when women were not allowed (sic) to be actors. Shakespearean plays as one example are not necessarily for young kids, but it’s also understood that it is a male, playing the role of a female. Role. Acting.
Saying that drag is a wholesome job for children of all ages is not a thing.
I'll fall in with your lawsuit if you include the state of California and its recent efforts to ban firearm possession for those under 21. And this in a state with cities having some of the highest crime rates in the country.
And adults over 21. The right of human expression, dignity, and agency, is arbitrarily restricted under the nominally "secular" Pro-Choice ethical religion. Case-in-point: Respect for Marriage Act.
Thinking of coordinating a Stripper Story Session at my local library; I figure for around a grand I could get a few good looking dancers from the local gentlemen's club to promote literacy. Pretty sure we'd get a bunch of teens to attend. Money well spent. Because literacy.
Seriously, if you brought your 8 year old to the strip club, (1) the strip club would throw you out, and (2) you'd lose custody, pronto. I fail to see an meaningful distinction here. Why is it ok to have fake women dance provocatively in front of children, but not real women? Isn't this illegal discrimination?
I wonder how the average run-of-the-mill trans person feels about being associated with and represented by drag performers?
I would guess most people who go through transition would have as a goal that their discernable transness is as minimal as possible. Drag performance is the opposite of that.
When drag performers push out of entertainment venues into schools, does that help or hinder the broader acceptance of trans people in society?
use drag as shorthand for sexualization, in spite of drag's long comedy history.
So, trans/social expression should be regarded as a comic act, and the audience should laugh at their blackface. I'm sure they would approve.
First, they conflated life and death to relieve "burdens", sex and gender for equity and inclusion of trans/homosexuals et al, sex and sexual acts, then celebrated diversity with the old fashioned color blocs (e.g. "people of color").
frankly, if I want to go look at beautiful women, I prefer to go look at beautiful women. Not men dressed up as women. I don't even get the point of it.
[shrug] For me, RuPaul's Drag Race was kind of like that cake show where people competed to make the cake that looked most realistically like a train or a hamburger, or the body paint show where the competitors tried to make human beings disappear into a background of a fruit stand or a bookcase: starting at one point and ending at a very different point through skillful application of artifice.
It was fascinating to watch the men transform themselves into women or "women" (some, usually the glamour queens, were trying for more authenticity than others, often the comedy queens). But they were all required to perform in both glamour and comedy scenes, as well as dancing and lip syncing, and their artfulness in transformation was definitely part of the competition. It was an exhibition of bravura performance. Ru himself could play it both ways, brilliantly.
Back then, Ru didn't allow trans performers. If you came out as trans, you were off the show - sympathetically, but it was clear and acknowledged by all that trans was a different ball of wax. I think I heard he relaxed that rule in later seasons, but I've stopped watching and can't say for sure.
I wonder how the average run-of-the-mill trans person feels about being associated with and represented by drag performers?
About as comfortable as trans/homosexuals with trans/bisexuals others in the transgender spectrum with less stable sexual orientations.
LLR Chuck comes out for the complete sexualization of children.
Given its now the standard democratical position, this was quite inevitable.
Next up for Chuck: Lowering the age of consent to 8 is a blessing of liberty and the right way to "conserve conservatism" is by allowing grown men to shake their genitalia in the faces of toddlers.
"Drag is a job... "
Back in the 60's, it was "My job is a drag!"
I tell ya, it's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world!
if you brought your 8 year old to the strip club, (1) the strip club would throw you out, and (2) you'd lose custody, pronto
Reactionaries, obviously.
Why is it ok to have fake women dance provocatively in front of children, but not real women? Isn't this illegal discrimination?
Feminist pride. Forward! with gender reduction ideology and bennies for babies.
Replace drag show story hour with New Testament story hour.
Al least that would be an enumerated protected right.
Althouse said
"Here's some classic sexualized dancing by a female dressed as a female. She gestures that hot weather is emanating from her nether region. Is it dangerous? Would it become dangerous if this was a man in drag?"
No- it wouldn't become "dangerous", but it also wouldn't be appropriate for children. The original isn't appropriate for young children and wasn't intended as story hour entertainment. If I took my grandson to story hour at the local library and they started showing this movie clip, I think I would leave.
I agree that the parents, not the government, should be making most decisions about what is and isn't "harmful to children", but "it takes a village" to create a healthy society in which to raise children, and the advocates of drag queen events for children are creating a hostile environment for raising children by pushing adult entertainment into family venues.
Is the solution a better written law, or a different approach to setting boundaries to maintain a healthy society?
Drag is just gay blackface. A gender minstrel show.
"Figure out a way to protect children that doesn't violate the Constitution."
A very reasonable sentiment, but of course progs couldn't care less about "protecting children," who must be indoctrinated as soon as possible, preferably to alienate them from their own families. Going after kids is the new cutting edge in the culture war. Drag shows are only one maneuver.
Where exactly does the Constitution, which is, like, a century old anyway, provide a right to put on sexually oriented performances in front of children? If there is such a right, how does it square with ordinary age restrictions applied by all sorts of establishment, at the movies, etc.?
The women in the audience don't have kinks, so they see it all as cartoonish and not sexual.
The kinks are integrated in their Pro-Choice ethical religion.
I don't think the opposition to Drag Queen Story Hour is a free speech issue. Like other minor-restricted activities, it seems to me like a legitimate time/manner/place restriction
And to be honest I wouldn't even mind Drag Queen Story Hour if there *was anything else on offer*. Why does it always have to be Drag Queen Story Hour? Why can't it be 82d Airborne Vet Story Hour, or Sous Chef Story Hour? So that for me is the more important issue: the utter domination of the discussion by one very extreme viewpoint, to the exclusion of everything else. What story hours these days are not devoted to promotion of DEI? I would wager nearly none at all. Anything else that slipped through would be an accident, or so celebrity-driven that they could not brush it aside, like Bobby Flay or something
I don't think the opposition to Drag Queen Story Hour is a free speech issue. Like other minor-restricted activities, it seems to me like a legitimate time/manner/place restriction
And to be honest I wouldn't even mind Drag Queen Story Hour if there *was anything else on offer*. Why does it always have to be Drag Queen Story Hour? Why can't it be 82d Airborne Vet Story Hour, or Sous Chef Story Hour? So that for me is the more important issue: the utter domination of the discussion by one very extreme viewpoint, to the exclusion of everything else. What story hours these days are not devoted to promotion of DEI? I would wager nearly none at all. Anything else that slipped through would be an accident, or so celebrity-driven that they could not brush it aside, like Bobby Flay or something
I don't think the opposition to Drag Queen Story Hour is a free speech issue. Like other minor-restricted activities, it seems to me like a legitimate time/manner/place restriction
And to be honest I wouldn't even mind Drag Queen Story Hour if there *was anything else on offer*. Why does it always have to be Drag Queen Story Hour? Why can't it be 82d Airborne Vet Story Hour, or Sous Chef Story Hour? So that for me is the more important issue: the utter domination of the discussion by one very extreme viewpoint, to the exclusion of everything else. What story hours these days are not devoted to promotion of DEI? I would wager nearly none at all. Anything else that slipped through would be an accident, or so celebrity-driven that they could not brush it aside, like Bobby Flay or something
I don't think the opposition to Drag Queen Story Hour is a free speech issue. Like other minor-restricted activities, it seems to me like a legitimate time/manner/place restriction
And to be honest I wouldn't even mind Drag Queen Story Hour if there *was anything else on offer*. Why does it always have to be Drag Queen Story Hour? Why can't it be 82d Airborne Vet Story Hour, or Sous Chef Story Hour? So that for me is the more important issue: the utter domination of the discussion by one very extreme viewpoint, to the exclusion of everything else. What story hours these days are not devoted to promotion of DEI? I would wager nearly none at all. Anything else that slipped through would be an accident, or so celebrity-driven that they could not brush it aside, like Bobby Flay or something
I don't think the opposition to Drag Queen Story Hour is a free speech issue. Like other minor-restricted activities, it seems to me like a legitimate time/manner/place restriction
And to be honest I wouldn't even mind Drag Queen Story Hour if there *was anything else on offer*. Why does it always have to be Drag Queen Story Hour? Why can't it be 82d Airborne Vet Story Hour, or Sous Chef Story Hour? So that for me is the more important issue: the utter domination of the discussion by one very extreme viewpoint, to the exclusion of everything else. What story hours these days are not devoted to promotion of DEI? I would wager nearly none at all. Anything else that slipped through would be an accident, or so celebrity-driven that they could not brush it aside, like Bobby Flay or something
I don't think the opposition to Drag Queen Story Hour is a free speech issue. Like other minor-restricted activities, it seems to me like a legitimate time/manner/place restriction
And to be honest I wouldn't even mind Drag Queen Story Hour if there *was anything else on offer*. Why does it always have to be Drag Queen Story Hour? Why can't it be 82d Airborne Vet Story Hour, or Sous Chef Story Hour? So that for me is the more important issue: the utter domination of the discussion by one very extreme viewpoint, to the exclusion of everything else. What story hours these days are not devoted to promotion of DEI? I would wager nearly none at all. Anything else that slipped through would be an accident, or so celebrity-driven that they could not brush it aside, like Bobby Flay or something
The problem as I see it is that drag queen reading hour at libraries and “shows” at schools are being used by the left as an innocuous gateway to screwing up the developing minds of the kids. This is similar to gateway drugs like alcohol, nicotine, and marijuana being marketed to the youths to get them addicted, leading in many cases to more hardcore drugs. The left and ACLU absolutely hates the 1st Amendment unless they can use it for their nefarious uses. Drag queen reading hour / shows for children is just another sign that the left wants our society to descend to the levels of anything goes as established in Sodom and Gammorah.
Trans drag shows should be for adults only. Why can't we protect our children?
oh I know - because the left will lie and say we are banning free speech and banning books.
"What a drag it is... getting old."
“Seriously, if you brought your 8 year old to the strip club, (1) the strip club would throw you out, and (2) you'd lose custody, pronto. I fail to see a meaningful distinction here. Why is it ok to have fake women dance provocatively in front of children, but not real women? Isn't this illegal discrimination?”
Hear hear. There IS no distinction. If under-18s can legally be barred from stop clubs, then barring them from drag performances is legally kosher too. To argue otherwise may be an interesting exercise, but it’s ultimately incoherent.
Society has a duty and right to protect children from pornography, even if the pornography has artistic elements.
Cross dressing at Halloween for sake of being silly is fine.
We don't allow children to walk up to a bar and order alcohol. Banning adults from stripping and sexually flaunting themselves in front of children should be a no-no naturally -- without laws.
Sadly - because the drag - queen - trans - whatever-shows, circa now being pushed in places where children and their parents should feel safe - we need to re-think the boundaries.
Make the library safe again.
Make Story hour safe again.
is it too much to ask that a library be safe from slathering our children with progressive leftist sex?
I feel about men in drag about the same as I feel about clowns: Stupid and not funny.
Monty Python drag was hilarious.
Agree with Althouse’s comment that the legal principle should focus on prohibiting sexually explicit conduct in front of kids. I don’t understand her earlier comment questioning whether we should be uncomfortable about limiting the speech aspect of these events (her later comment explains the rationale for doing so, to protect minors.)
I haven’t read the law but some excerpts make it clear that the lewd content is what the law is attempting to prohibit, so if that’s the case then the only other problem is how to define “explicit” or “prurient interest.” That’s the age old problem, right? Although we all know it when we see it….
On another note, parental rights issue is complicated because some parents are having their rights trampled by schools and libraries promoting content that they deem inappropriate for their kids, while other parents eschew any belief that explicit sexual conduct is inappropriate for kids (and in my view, society may have an overriding interest in protecting kids from parents who think that these explicit shows are healthy for kids.)
Women's clothes are uncomfortable and expensive. Only a tiny fraction of men want to wear them. There are some exceptions, but, by and large, men look ridiculous when they wear women's clothes.... Of the tiny fraction of men that want to wear women's clothes only an even tinier fraction want to wear them in front of children. These men look ridiculous and evil.....Attractive women who wear men's clothes still look attractive, but ugly women who wear men's clothes look uglier. Why is it that women who cross dress don't--so far as I know--have any great wish to appear in front of children.....This whole dispute seems manufactured. There can't be that many drag performers who want to dance in front of children and there can't be that many parents who would want to take their child to such a performance. Who are these people? Is this where the Falun Gong followers ended up when they lost belief in their master?
You wouldn't accept non-drag performers waggling their crotch in children's faces either. Draw the legal lines in the right places, not where they express hostility to people you don't like.
And your argument passes the California v. Miller test(s). It sounds to me that the law is clarifying that drag (while possibly having artistic value) is prurient by its nature purient and sexual and therefore passes the first 2 tests of Miller.
If men dressed as princesses and acted out a skit from Disney they wouldn't be liable under this law (the peter pan reference you make). But if Elsa and Anna start grinding on each other or lifting their dresses then it becomes prurient.
Does this law apply to a man dressing as Cinderella and reading the story of Cinderella to a bunch of pre-schoolers? I don't think it would. Could a man in a Cinderella dress give a man dressed as prince charming a lap dance at the same show? No.
I think this is probably already covered under whatever obscenity laws are in the state already, but am too lazy to research.
Libraries will not be seen as safe for children if parents have to exercise constant vigilance over the librarians and what they are planning. And libraries need to be seen as safe - especially for children in order to survive as institutions in these digital days. As people read less and less and download more and more of what they do read, the question arises - why fund libraries? Libraries have fought back against digital doom by recreating themselves as safe and welcoming spaces for children after school and on weekends. Now they are to be seen as Times Square. It's obvious what will happen. Who leaves their children alone in Times Square? Libraries will crash like Disneyland which damaged its brand and lost a lot of business when it became seen as a place where parents had to exercise vigilance. When libraries are drag queen friendly, they'll shortly afterward lose community support, funding and jobs and wither away.
The whole - *LOOK! we found an old photo of a conservative having fun...* &* even though it's out of context we are going to use it to destroy that person.* and the media - like good paid-off Apparatchiks - fall in line.
meanwhile - The Cook Biden family are not indicted for corrupt international grifting - to the tune of millions - using "the big guy's" VP status to line their pockets. Did they pay their taxes?
I doubt it.
If the people in charge of education woke up tomorrow and said all nude female dance performances are a necessary part of sex education for middle schoolers and Tennessee passed a law saying “no it’s not,” you’d have a problem with that?
That's a good point and goes to my reasoning that this law is felt necessary as a clarification of the existing obscenity laws.
Tennessee Senate Bill 3
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 7, Chapter 51, Part 14, relative to adult-oriented performances.
Tennessee Senate Bill 1
AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 28; Title 29; Title 33; Title 34; Title 36; Title 37; Title 39; Title 40; Title 49; Title 56; Title 63; Title 68 and Title 71, relative to medical care of the young.
State Pushback On ClownWorld
Note that this is not gay or drag-specific; it would equally apply to the adult "titty bar" that is already considered an "adult cabaret" which is precisely why it should not have been necessary in the first place -- the people doing this were intentionally circumventing same by holding these events in other than adult entertainment venues that already prohibited minors.
The second bans any treatment of a medical form (surgical or medication) that is intended to alter a minor's hormonal or physical characteristics for the purpose of identification or living as other than their biological sex. One of the justifications is particularly on-point:
"This state has a legitimate, substantial, and compelling interest in protecting the ability of minors to develop into adults who can create children of their own."
Exactly, and all of these procedures and medications carry at minimum a risk of permanently destroying that capacity. Without a next generation there are no humans.
I was graduated from Jupiter High School in 1973. At that time, and still to this day though clueless administrators tried to change it, we had not only Powderpuff Football (between seniors and sophomore girls) but _tackle_ Powderpuff Football. I was a coach for the seniors in 73 and we taught the girls about five simple plays as well as one razzle dazzle reverse run. We won but did not run up the score.
Many of my pals dressed up as cheerleaders for their respective classes.
It was the only football game we won that year as our varsity team in our tiny school went 0-11. We had only 17 players left by the last several games and many of us, myself included, played both ways. After the games we went up to the local beach with beer and my jug of daiquiris and played one way.
MarcusB. THEOLDMAN
Pantomime (because people will draw the comparison) with men dressed up as women has come from, I believe, when women were not allowed (sic) to be actors. Shakespearean plays as one example are not necessarily for young kids, but it’s also understood that it is a male, playing the role of a female. Role. Acting.
There is a sci-fi novel where an entire small town in West Virginia is accidently sent back in time to 1631. Some of the characters end up in London and decide to go see a play at The Globe and one of them is quite offended to see that men are dressing up as women. Its pretty funny. If I recall correctly the phrase "bunch of perverts" is used.
Kids love to play dress-up. Adults should be grown out of that stage and those that are not have no right to act out in adult spaces where other adults gather to be away from kids and kid stuff. Drag performers are annoying like squeegee guys only less useful. Go play Peter Pan in those nightclubs where your kind hang out. Leave the rest of us alone.
Nobody is "targeting" drag. They're just saying that it's not appropriate for children.
Nobody ever said I want to be a drag when I grow up.
The problem isn't the drag show, its the mindset that we must tolerate other peoples mental problems and treat them as good and wholesome. Nothing about these shows is providing a positive portrayal of life to the children they insist on including. Acting as if these are a boon to society is obscene.
The fact that the reporters don't identify hb9 in any way makes me think that they don't want the actual text if the law to be known or compared to their fake news characterization.
I'm fine with the government banning drag shows for children, just like I'm fine with the government banning burlesque shows for children. I am not fine with the government banning drag shows, just like I'm not fine with the government banning Burlesque shows. While I do not like the practice of Drag Time Story hour at your local library I don't think the mere practice of a man in drag costume reading a story to children is a drag show. I honestly am not sure if there is a good legal distinction to make of when it crosses the line into drag show for children. It seems like a I know it when I see it situation. If we were talking about Strip shows it would be much easier because it could be covered by if certain body parts are exposed. Even if there was a good legal definition of drag show the government could implement does that mean it could also ban children seeing video of the drag show or reading a book about the drag show?
All that being said, I still think drag shows for children are a very bad thing and I hope they do not take place, I am just not sure thee is a good government solution to it. This seems like a cultural problem that has arisen from the inability of the Left to distinguish between LGBT people shouldn't be unfairly discriminated against and everything that is LGBT is good and should be embraced.
Lurker21: "Nobody is "targeting" drag. They're just saying that it's not appropriate for children."
They know that. They are simply lying.
Its another in an endless line of lefty/LLR Motte and Bailey routines.
What the dems/lefty/LLR's do is support the indefensible: wanting adult males shaking dildos and their genitalia in the face of young children, sexualizing children from the youngest age and have men in girls bathrooms, not to mention the clear intent to chemically castrate young males and lopping of children's body parts.
All of which LLR Chuck would call "blessings of liberty".
When called upon it the lefties/LLR's (but I repeat myself) immediately retreat to calling you "transphobic" (see resident lefty LLR Chuck above) and claiming "we only want respect for trans people!" you bigot!
When it comes to the destruction of all societal norms, destruction of language, destruction of the family and attacks on religion (Christianity ONLY), the left/LLR's are indefatigable.
There is a sci-fi novel where an entire small town in West Virginia is accidently sent back in time to 1631. Some of the characters end up in London and decide to go see a play at The Globe and one of them is quite offended to see that men are dressing up as women. Its pretty funny. If I recall correctly the phrase "bunch of perverts" is used.
The 1632 series by Flint. I believe it was the second novel, 1633. One of the contemporary characters is highly amused to find out that Shakespeare got all the credit when the plays were actually written by a nobleman. The uptimers from West Virginia end up setting the Globe theater on fire as a diversion to the outrage of a twentieth century English teacher.
"average run-of-the-mill trans person" There's a phrase you don't see every day! Does such a person exist?
As a retired professor of Constitutional Law, Althouse, has any legal entity ever succeeded in satisfactorily defining pornography? If your answer is negative, then why do you think “sexually explicit” will ever be successfully defined as a legal term?
It wasn’t a problem when we could tell our kids that drag shows feature silly men who dress up like women to be silly. I don’t think we’re allowed to do that anymore.
Since "drag" is not specifically targeted by the law, can it still be restricted under the Democrats' treatise of misinformation, disinformation, and misgendering?
It wasn’t a problem when we could tell our kids that drag shows feature silly men who dress up like women to be silly. I don’t think we’re allowed to do that anymore.
It was ruled to be bigoted or sanctimoniously hypocritical, perhaps in preparation to normalize transgender conversion therapy for boys and girls through medical, surgical, and/or psychiatric corruption... treatment. First, they came for the babies... fetal-babies.
Shakespearean plays as one example are not necessarily for young kids, but it’s also understood that it is a male, playing the role of a female. Role. Acting.
I once accidentally attended a play in London by Christopher Marlowe that was "The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus." Unbeknown to us, or most of the audience, the play as presented was a gay version. This was 1977 so well before the avalanche of gay culture. As the audience became aware of the theme, people began to get up and leave and there were even some boos. Shakespeare's plays were performed in an era where women who performed on stage were whores. Infamous Nell Gwynne once saved herself from a mob that thought she was the French mistress to Charles II. She declared, "I am not the French mistress, I am the English whore." She was almost the first female actor in Restoration plays.
“ Attractive women who wear men's clothes still look attractive, but ugly women who wear men's clothes look uglier.”
Reminds me of college. My GF shared men’s overalls with a good friend of hers. She was 5’6” and maybe 110 lbs. Her friend was a couple inches taller, but maybe 70 lbs heavier. GF was cute in them, and they allowed my hands to roam a bit. For her friend, it just looked like she couldn’t find anything else that fit. It was the hippie era…
The new term of the Iowa legislature, passed one of its very first bills of the season, starting the process of tax $'s following students to private schools.
So I guess the parents will get the final say as to the appropriateness of drag queen story hour. Iowa joins states already making this move and more state are following. According the editorial content in the Des Moines Register, Public school educators are clueless about what is motivating such legislation.
Went to an all-boys Catholic high school where skits often included classmates dressed as girls with water balloons, etc. It was funny because it was so stupid. Had no idea it would become a very important pursuit that we all have to love, honor and cherish. Sic transit imperium.
It would seem that many states and municipalities have laws on the books restricting sexual performances to audiences of adults. Nudie bars, strip clubs, etc.... my understanding was that children were legally restricted from viewing these forms of speech. The laws seem to have passed constitutional muster. Isn't this law, restricting drag shows to adult venues, just a law like those?
From the post:
"The key words are, obviously, "harmful to minors," otherwise they'd be banning the play "Peter Pan," which is always (almost always?) performed with a female impersonating a male."
Not the same thing; not even close. The story maintains that Peter is a boy, and the story line does not even hint othetwise. And having a boy portray Peter would do no violence to the show, unless the actor resembled a young Danny Trejo.
"Who decides what is "harmful to minors"? I know what provoked this legislation, but laws that violate freedom of speech are always provoked by something stirringly important. I've got to give this my "lawsuits I hope will succeed" tag. Figure out a way to protect children that doesn't violate the Constitution."
The radicals promoting this nonsense could make the argument, if they haven't already, that exposure to traditional moral concepts is "harmful to minors." If a law were passed to prevent such exposure, would you hope that a lawsuit against it would succeed? I think you might, cruel neutrality and all that, but there's that shadow of a doubt in my mind that makes me wonder.
I think it is stirringly important that anything that influences minor children should be looked at differently than free speech in a public venue. I think special rules should apply just as they do to proselytization or a teacher using his/her position to convince students that one political viewpoint is the only right way.
Back to your last statement - how would children be protected in a way that doesn't violate the Constitution? I suppose some kind of regulation, whether at the local or state level, requiring viewpoint neutrality could be proposed. Enforcing it could be hard, though, and even that could be challenged as infringement of free speech.
"Replace drag show story hour with New Testament story hour. "
Heh - the corrupt vile left will never allow such ... heresy against the state.
plus "church and state!"
They prefer wiggle-ass and state, for kids, in the local library, - you haters..
I remember when Professor Althouse was concerned about a fully clothed adult male performer singing Prince's "Little Red Corvette" in front of a class of high school girls because the lyrics of the song were mildly sexually suggestive.
That seemed uncharacteristically prudish at the time. Good to see her loosening up. Maybe.
The drag shows today are primarily evangelism, not entertainment. That is the cause of the negative reaction.
Stranger Danger one day, Drag Queen Story Hour the next… What a country!
There is nothing wrong with drag as long as it's done in the proper venues, and no children in the audience. Drag has been done in all the military services, the Ivy league, prep schools, public high schools and all boy Catholic schools.
Between WWII and 1982 Kansas City had the drag night club The Jewel Box. My parents, aunts and uncles would catch a show there after eating dinner out. They enjoyed it. My parents where hardcore conservative republican Catolics. My father told me The Jewel Box could get risque, but done tastefully.
I think it's Auron McIntyre who has the standard Twitter reply that the question you ought to ask isn't whether kids should be allowed to watch highly-sexualized drag shows but rather why it's so important for these drag "artists" to perform their highly-sexualized acts in front of kids.
His other is the Simpsons bus driver tapping a sign that says "It's not rocket science guys. They're just evil and want to diddle kids."
Probably some overlap, there.
Anyway the Nice People will always find some reason to object to measures to protect kids from disgusting shit when it's dressed up as important expression by some group they favor.
Turn it around: What kind of rules to protect kids would Nice People like Prof. Althouse actually support? I'm a somewhat reasonable guy--let's meet halfway! What usually happens is jackasses like David French just declare this or that horrible thing "a blessing of liberty" and assert that any action to reduce its harm to kids would be *worse* than then horrible thing itself. It's just a coincidence that they never get around to actually protecting kids--they're Nice People after all, they just care about Love and Understanding.
Someone is being deliberately obtuse here.
There may be some fine First Amendment distinctions to be drawn.
But to pretend that sex shows for young children is not a problem is to abandon reason.
The law should be about subjecting children to a sex show, not about whether the performer is dressed like the sex they are not.
Shows like this are probably not happening in my city, but I can understand why people want to do something now to make sure that they don't. The problem is, we are getting reactionary laws instead of well-thought-out ones.
Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1401, is amended by adding
the following language as a new subdivision:
"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an
adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers,
male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration
Don't say trans/homosexual ("cisgender").
Blogger Ann Althouse said...The law should be about subjecting children to a sex show, not about whether the performer is dressed like the sex they are not.
I agree; I'd support a law banning minors from sexually explicit performances. Would you and/or the rest of the Nice People really support such a law, though? Seems more likely the Nice People would be swayed by cries of censorship, equivocation about what is or isn't sexually explicit, complaints that it stifles a key artistic expression and outreach to young people and is thereby a part of "trans genocide" and responsible for youngsters' suicides, etc etc.
Anyway such a law would be attacked as an imposition of religious morality and would be alleged to be impartially applied if it were ever to be enforced ("how can you ban this but not child beauty pageants/Hooters/country music singers in short shorts?!").
But yeah, better-targeted laws are preferable.
Ann Althouse said...
"The law should be about subjecting children to a sex show, not about whether the performer is dressed like the sex they are not."
Good clarification. I would expect some dissembling by proponents of the shows, making the case that it's about acceptance and inclusion, not about influencing choices, even though the latter appears to be what it really is. Whether that would stand up in court is a good question and may depend on the venue.
The law should be about subjecting children to a sex show, not about whether the performer is dressed like the sex they are not.
I would think that there already are laws prohibiting this, but for some reason they're not being enforced. Adults can consent to seeing pornography, minors cannot.
Drag all you want; stay the F from kids.
we are getting reactionary laws instead of well-thought-out ones
The TN law close loopholes in an existing law that were exploited by sexually-oriented (i.e. gender) activists. This is similar to pedophile laws that are skirted through rhetorical license and redefining states of Nature, human rites rationalized through social distancing, political congruence and arbitrary inclusion of couplets and discrimination of others under "Respect for Marriage Act", labor and environmental arbitrage, sales tax collection requirements before uniform regulation, etc.
Ann Althouse said...
The law should be about subjecting children to a sex show, not about whether the performer is dressed like the sex they are not.
I think you are trying to play devil's advocate here. That's fine.
I generally agree with your point broadly.
The problem with your point is that the country has a group of shitheads in it trying to tear the country down. It is using these obscene abuses of children to inflame division and turn people against each other.
After these people are purged from the country we can have a reasonable discussion. But you are trying to discuss the finer points of policy with fascist shithead barbarians.
You are being obtuse and not facing the situation we are all actually in.
The problem is not a man dressed as a woman. The problem is the overt sexual displays of "drag story hr". Do we allow children in a strip club? No. The second problem is that some of these as well as "rainbow parades" are overtly trying to convince children that homosexuality is just totally normal, with sometimes graphic depictions of gay sex--grooming. Neither has a proper place with children.
On the "free speech" aspect, we allow all in movies, but have age restrictions. How does drag story hour differ? Is the argument that it is totally suitable for small children?
"The law should be about subjecting children to a sex show, not about whether the performer is dressed like the sex they are not."
The law is defining drag shows as sex shows, so it's doing exactly what you think it should be doing. So you're in favor?
Hell, when I was in college in the 50s we used to go to Finocchio's in SF which was mostly drag but no kids. I think the people exposing kids to this are perverts, including schools and libraries. The people that bring kids to these shows are mostly single mothers who are weird if not out and out perverts.
Unless you're forced to see a show. participate. And not in elementary schools.
But professor, the whole point of using the phrasing "harmful to minors" and relating to a "prurient interest" is to make a speech restrictive law which IS consistent with the constitution, as already interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Though it is beyond me how this captures anything new that Tennessee's obscenity law doesn't already affect.
Figure out a way to protect children that doesn't violate the Constitution.
I'm sorry, I'm unfamiliar with a Constitutional right for men to invite children to stick dollar bills in their g-strings.
Actual drag was always a nightclub act on par with female strippers. Adults have every right to either perform at, or patronize, adult entertainment venues. So did I miss the memo where we allow kids into stripclubs now cuz "Constitution"?
"Replace drag show story hour with New Testament story hour."
HBTPFH: "Heh - the corrupt vile left will never allow such ... heresy against the state."
Lets be honest here. The neocon/LLR's would be much more fanatically against a New Testament story hour than any leftists anywhere. Naturally, they are, to a person, very much for drag queen story hour and "blessings of liberty" sexualization of children.
See LLR Chuck's posting earlier today where he goes all in on the trans agenda. Similar to Mitt Romney going all in on BLM.
Those Progressives really love their womanface minstrel shows.
Having been at some HS events for relatives kids this year, I note that the 'dance team' of underage girls performing for the parents was IMO quite sexualized and except for clothes staying on would have fit in a strip club.
One of the performances included elementary and middle school kids who learned how twerk and grab their privates from the dance team.
But no one is mentioning that, it's just when there is someone in the opposite genders clothes when twerking is an issue.
LOL
What consenting adults do among themselves is their own business, but leave the children out of it. Just like you can't take kids to a straight strip club, so you shouldn't allow children into any kind of LGBT indoctrination. Period. Full stop.
If this isn't an advertisement for home schooling I don't know what is.
I assume that most jurisdictions still have statutes banning the sale of pornography to minors and the attendance of minors at strip clubs, even if the Internet makes such laws seem almost quaint. I presume the criteria for drawing the line between what is permissible and what is not are not quite so simple as visible genitalia. Morality aside, how does that inform this question? From a lay perspective, what other tests might be applicable if there is a desire to regulate these performances?
"As Tennessee, others target drag shows, many wonder: Why?" (AP News).
AP News earns a headline of misinformation, disinformation, and 3-2 babies.
@Mark at 4:44 PM raises an excellent practical point. I've seen some shocking dance routines involving twerking and crotch grabbing by cheerleaders at *Pop Warner* football games. Anyone who might question the wisdom of such performances risks getting called out for racism. Ironically, I'd expect that if anything, regulating drag reading hours would be more difficult than regulating dance performances by twelve year olds at football games because drag reading hours very clearly have a political agenda to them.
I have to agree with the law professor. I forgot how the quote goes, something to the effect that Law is a blunt instrument. This is the kind of thing that will invite all kinds of mischievous unintended consequences.
When anyone feels that the only way to validate their lifestyle is to expose it to children is a pedophile. Period.
But no one is mentioning that, it's just when there is someone in the opposite genders clothes when twerking is an issue.
Bullshit.
I know of a LOT of parents who don't like what's going on with the sexualization of their kids in public schools. It's been happening for some time now. That's part of the reason homeschooling - and private school attendance - is on the rise.
Maybe you need to get out more, talk with people outside of your circle and stop spending your free time ogling other people's kids.
It's a perversion and a fetish.
Nothing wrong with that as long as there are consenting adults involved IN PRIVATE.
Nobody needs to be around kids when indulging in your own particular kink.
You are a pervert if you insist on being around kids, and should be arrested.
"But no one is mentioning that, it's just when there is someone in the opposite genders clothes when twerking is an issue."
Well, Mark, it wasn't part of the blog post, but since you bring up, plenty of us have problems with parents and schools sexualizing children directly. However, since you seemingly can't figure out why a guy/gal in a dress twerking for children is worse, I really don't want to waste any more time with you.
Drag performers on RuPaul take a lot of care with their performances and costumes, etc.. But the fat ugly wackos twerking at public libraries are just attention-seeking amateurs. Little kids consider these people to be clowns. Why can’t libraries have Granny and Gramps story hours?
Also, feminists that preyed upon boys and girls, accusing the former of being part of a liberal culture, denying the dignity and agency of the latter in choice, while normalizing underage sexual relations and sex with "burden" relief.
"But no one is mentioning that, it's just when there is someone in the opposite genders clothes when twerking is an issue."
Males in feminine clothing, females in masculine clothing? With or without sexual steering, twerking? Perhaps an issues of misinformation, disinformation, and, with social progress, fraud, and forcing mass hysteria treated through medical, surgical, and/or psychiatric corruption of human lives, particularly girls, at a vulnerable stage of development.
What is the difference between drag shows and performing in blackface? Asking for a friend.
Where are the strong men with tar and feathers to chase these freaks out of town?
B.,
Little kids consider these people to be clowns.
Indeed. But they also consider them to be cool people who get to dress up in fancy, sparkly, dramatic clothing and makeup. Who -- at age two or three -- wouldn't want to be a drag queen? I mean, we're talkin' sequins here!
This is where things get a bit insidious for me. Small children are keen on bright colors and flamboyant dress. They are too young to see that drag queens are generally grotesque (and hideously exaggerated) caricatures of stereotypical femininity, exactly as minstrel shows were grotesque, hideously exaggerated caricatures of blackness. I imagine that they'd equally love exaggerated caricatures of Japanese or Arabs or Mexicans. It's all new to them, and when you're a small child, whatever is new is almost definitionally fascinating.
So the drag queen storytellers are interesting because they are gaudy and outrageous. And the little kids think, "Cool! That's what I wanna be when I grow up!"
This isn't either new or surprising. I remember going shopping with my mom when I was seven or so, and glomming on to the most striking or colorful or silky (kids can be into polyester, and I'm the livin' proof) clothing. A few years further on, and I was mortified at myself. But if someone told me then that I could wear this sparkly stuff all the time, if I only changed my "orientation" (as it then was) to something a bit queerer . . . I have no idea what might have happened. Because I was then a tomboy, interested in math and rockets and model gliders and natural history. For that matter, I still am. But it's only the ever-helpful Leftists now who would insist that liking these things meant I was "really" a boy.
Jim, I saw the same at the away game at a private Catholic school too. You can blame the public schools, but it's not just public schools doing this and you're attempt to deflect is a fail.
If you are for no twerking in front of children, you are exempting the by far most common example of this.
I can bet plenty in this comment section enjoy watching 15 and 16 year old girls dance like they're on a pole at halftime ... and then come on here and call others groomers.
lmao at the double standards clearly on display, pervs.
"I can bet plenty in this comment section enjoy watching 15 and 16 year old girls dance like they're on a pole at halftime ... and then come on here and call others groomers."
This sounds like projection, Mark.
Dumb Lefty Mark: "I can bet plenty in this comment section enjoy watching 15 and 16 year old girls dance like they're on a pole at halftime ... and then come on here and call others groomers."
Well, lets tally them up.
We'll include Dumb Lefty Mark as 1 because THAT projection is like a huge flashing neon sign.
Lets see who else.....hmmm....nope. I cant discern any others.
Looks like its Dumb Lefty Mark again all by himself
Its like a theme or something.
I should ask for clarification from Dumb Lefty Mark: are you really arguing that sexualized dancing by trans strippers sporting dildoes right in the faces of young children and shaking their genitalia in the faces of those nearly naked men and having those young children put money in the g-strings of those nearly naked men is EQUIVALENT to an adult male looking at young cheerleaders at a youth football game?
Because it sure looks like that is exactly what you are suggesting....which is as revolting as it is unsurprising coming from you.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा