If DeSantis wins

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,231
970
118
Country
USA
Okay, but you're still going to have to explain to me precisely what the harm is of men wearing traditionally women's clothing reading books to children.
It's not traditionally women's clothing that they're wearing.
No one else but you measures a policy's worth by its deviation from what is done so far.
You called me "ultra-conservative" as a pejorative. That inherently says something about your opinion of what's done so far. You contradict your own claims.
What an absolute load of bullshit. Your entire posting history is one long screed about how people would just be happier if they were like you.
People wouldn't be happier if they were like me, they'd be exactly as happy, because people are like me. You're a person, I'm a person, we're all people, and whatever ridiculous categories you may make to call yourself are pure human construction, a product of imagination and nothing more, with the singular exception of the two sexes because otherwise we go extinct.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,482
7,057
118
Country
United States
with the singular exception of the two sexes because otherwise we go extinct.
Man, if one person has a working set of testicles and another person has a working set of ovaries, we aren't going extinct. You're just getting pissy that a fraction of us don't call it by the "right" name and assume a whole host of social rules that aren't even consistent because of it.

A handful of people voluntarily opting out isn't gonna do shit to a species of 8 billion people and you know it.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
2,345
1,877
118
Country
4
Man, if one person has a working set of testicles and another person has a working set of ovaries, we aren't going extinct. You're just getting pissy that a fraction of us don't call it by the "right" name and assume a whole host of social rules that aren't even consistent because of it.

A handful of people voluntarily opting out isn't gonna do shit to a species of 8 billion people and you know it.
A political elite doing the will of corporate lobbyists and destroying the biosphere in the name of profits will however.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
20,167
4,931
118
Because that's the purpose of it. There are few things the average person would agree upon more unanimously than "women shouldn't wear burlesque costumes to entertain children", but "men shouldn't wear burlesque costumes to entertain children" is definitely one of them. Like, these aren't even trans representation. These are cis-men dressing up as a sexualized caricature of a woman. It's about normalizing a taboo for preschoolers.
Nothing about it is sexualized unless you think dresses, make-up, and wigs are by definition sexual. Which being fair is how society typically frames it, and is indeed something that needs to be trangressed against, because it's bullshit. A man wearing a dress, make-up, and a wig infront of a child is no more sexual than a woman having short hair, wearing pants, a top hat, and a beard in front of a child. It's the double standard of men with feminine traits (make-up, dresses) being seen as dangerously freakish, and women with masculine traits (short hair, pants) not being given a second thought.

Regular everyday people wear far less clothes and reveal far more skin than any of these drag queens, who usually wear entire racks of clothing in one sitting. Not to mention beaches and swimming pools where pre-schoolers will see actual boobs, butts, and even nipples, and which everyone has zero issues with.

What drag queens are normalizing for these pre-schoolers are exaggerated feminine traits (heavy make-up, large dresses and hair). Although normalizing isn't the correct word, since it's entertainment, no different from a clown or someone in an animal costume performing infront of children. Men dressing up as exaggerated women has pretty much been a staple in childrens' entertainment since the freaking Looney Tunes.
 

bluegate

Elite Member
Legacy
Dec 28, 2010
2,389
987
118
Man, if one person has a working set of testicles and another person has a working set of ovaries, we aren't going extinct. You're just getting pissy that a fraction of us don't call it by the "right" name and assume a whole host of social rules that aren't even consistent because of it.

A handful of people voluntarily opting out isn't gonna do shit to a species of 8 billion people and you know it.
But, but, but, but, all the brown people are having all the babies and white people are not anymore, do you know what that means?

1681716010648.png
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
It's not traditionally women's clothing that they're wearing.
Well, it's often a rather extravagant take on traditional women's clothing, but nevertheless recognisable as.

For instance, the picture below is amongst the more risque, and yet is still well within societal norms for women's clothing that children are exposed to in their regular lives on a daily basis. Aside from the odd possible outlier, they simply are not turning up in unusually sexualised clothing.
1681719740804.png
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
20,167
4,931
118
Well, it's often a rather extravagant take on traditional women's clothing, but nevertheless recognisable as.

For instance, the picture below is amongst the more risque, and yet is still well within societal norms for women's clothing that children are exposed to in their regular lives on a daily basis. Aside from the odd possible outlier, they simply are not turning up in unusually sexualised clothing.
View attachment 8540
In the conservative mind the fact that a man is wearing it makes it sexualized, because in the mind of the conservative a man dressing as a women is a pervert, because what man would purposefully choose feminine attire if not for sexual means. Because to conservatives women are inherently sexual, hence why men who dress feminine are sexual weirdos, and women who dress masculine are weirdos for denying their natural sexual traits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Buyetyen and Absent

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,583
2,293
118
Country
Ireland
In the conservative mind the fact that a man is wearing it makes it sexualized, because in the mind of the conservative a man dressing as a women is a pervert, because what man would purposefully choose feminine attire if not for sexual means. Because to conservatives women are inherently sexual, hence why men who dress feminine are sexual weirdos, and women who dress masculine are weirdos for denying their natural sexual traits.
Same way same sex relationships are inherently purely sexual in a way heterosexual relationships aren't. Anything relating to the queer community is always strictly sexual. Probably because of how incredibly repressed the average con is. They think entirely in sexual terms and don't understand that those of us with healthy attitudes towards sex are able to make it just one facet of a healthy life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Absent

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
20,167
4,931
118
Same way same sex relationships are inherently purely sexual in a way heterosexual relationships aren't. Anything relating to the queer community is always strictly sexual. Probably because of how incredibly repressed the average con is. They think entirely in sexual terms and don't understand that those of us with healthy attitudes towards sex are able to make it just one facet of a healthy life.
The concept of asexual gays would probably glitch their brains.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,154
3,893
118
I can't see this taking off directly in the UK, with their love of pantomime. And if someone was charged, they'd end up in front of a judge in a dress and a wig.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,231
970
118
Country
USA
Man, if one person has a working set of testicles and another person has a working set of ovaries, we aren't going extinct. You're just getting pissy that a fraction of us don't call it by the "right" name and assume a whole host of social rules that aren't even consistent because of it.
Language has consequences in how people act out their lives. If your version of the language leads to people sterilizing themselves, maybe consider trying some different naming conventions. It's not right vs wrong, words are all made up, none of them are inherently right, but some help make people joyful and prosperous while others make people frustrated and suicidal. Please, stop supporting the latter.
Nothing about it is sexualized unless you think dresses, make-up, and wigs are by definition sexual.
Fashion is much like language. It's all made up by people. There's nothing inherent about any of it. And yet, you can recognize people's roles by what they wear. Uniforms are obvious, you can tell the difference between a doctor and a police officer. Non-uniforms can be equally telling: if you see a teenage boy in America with his pants falling down in the back, you can guess his personality. You see a woman in a big, colorful sweater and blue hair, you can guess what she'll act. People dress in culturally coded ways to indicate things to people. It's never "what's most sexy". I don't know if any man thinks the "little black dress" is the sexiest outfit in the world, and yet women all over the place shove themselves into those sausage casings and go out to clubs because that's the cultural coded attire for "I want men to want to have sex with me". Adding a bowtie to a shirtless man is objectively more clothes, but we all know the bowtie means that he's dressed like a stripper.

It's not just dresses, make-up, and wigs. Have you seen the quantity of sequins on these characters? They are imitating burlesque. They are wearing outfits exaggerated specifically in the ways that are culturally coded to striptease performances. Your questioning why those things should be sexualized, but not questioning why people would want to perform for children in outfits deliberately pulled from sexual adult entertainment.
The concept of asexual gays would probably glitch their brains.
If you used those words as simple descriptors, it's pretty easy. "A man who finds men attractive but doesn't want to have sex". It's when you treat those as categories of human that you can be you cause issues, since you're creating a scenario where one gay man has nothing specific in common with another (the opposite is equally valid, a gay man who finds men to be ugly but still wants to sleep with them), but are both claiming the same specific category of being. If it's words, if its just expressions of preference, it's not a problem to have personal and even contradictory meanings for self-description. When you consider these to be people's core identity and ask everyone to recognize and respect these categories, you can't have malleable, personal definitions. You can't demand people recognize something with no form.
For instance, the picture below is amongst the more risque, and yet is still well within societal norms for women's clothing that children are exposed to in their regular lives on a daily basis.
No, it isn't. You've never seen a woman dressed like that in your regular daily life. I guarantee it.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,208
118
No, it isn't. You've never seen a woman dressed like that in your regular daily life. I guarantee it.
Aw, bless. It seems to me like you live either in a monastery or Antarctica. Maybe even a monastery in Antarctica.
 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,583
2,293
118
Country
Ireland
The Nanny was on from 1993-1999 staring Fran Drescer. That's who those clothes remind be of, a 30 year old network sitcom
I was gonna say Katie Sagal in Married With Children but yeah that vibe. Then again it may be specifically sequins that make tstorm go absolutely out of control fuck wild.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,501
3,701
118
I was gonna say Katie Sagal in Married With Children but yeah that vibe. Then again it may be specifically sequins that make tstorm go absolutely out of control fuck wild.
Well they catch the light just right and shine in the eyes, it flips a switch, drives a man wild, y'know?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mister Mumbler

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
7,231
970
118
Country
USA
Aw, bless. It seems to me like you live either in a monastery or Antarctica. Maybe even a monastery in Antarctica.
Seriously, tell me you have seen a woman dressed like that in any normal daily setting.
The Nanny was on from 1993-1999 staring Fran Drescer. That's who those clothes remind be of, a 30 year old network sitcom
Checkmate? Yeah, I'm calling checkmate on this one. Fran Fine, who canonically sleeps with her employers, is a sexualized caricature. Yes.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
12,152
6,407
118
Country
United Kingdom
It's not right vs wrong, words are all made up, none of them are inherently right, but some help make people joyful and prosperous while others make people frustrated and suicidal. Please, stop supporting the latter.
Your approach remains the one with the absolute worst track record on that particular front, so you don't have a leg to stand on moralising at others here about the mental health impact.

It's not just dresses, make-up, and wigs. Have you seen the quantity of sequins on these characters? They are imitating burlesque. They are wearing outfits exaggerated specifically in the ways that are culturally coded to striptease performances. Your questioning why those things should be sexualized, but not questioning why people would want to perform for children in outfits deliberately pulled from sexual adult entertainment.
And yet, the "coded" meaning seems to be entirely lost on you. Because anyone with even faint familiarity with the drag scene knows its not about sexualisation. That's not the intent, and it's also not how it's received by the audience.

It's pageantry. You may as well be insisting that British kids can't go to panto any more, because you find the dames "sexualised". Panto dames are literally drag, and its a British tradition.