It's not gatekeeping. It's not prescriptive. It's descriptive. "Conservative" is relative to the status quo, if you're detached from what society generally considers acceptable, you're not being conservative.
I don't think I do. I think you're smart enough to think it through. If the aspects that define a drag performance were not violative of societal expectations, would drag queens exist?
Conservatism in practice does not necessarily relate to the status quo: society changes and when it does so, conservatives often continue to represent the past rather than the actual status quo, and very obviously so.
I think you need to be very careful about the fact you have moved from "acceptable" to "expectations". The two are not synonymous.
I don't think you're giving any consideration into how the world might work and what other people might think. I think you are giving consideration to what workings or thoughts might allow you to support something completely independent of the accuracy of that assessment. To deny the relationship between drag queens and sexual themes is not a reasonable assessment of reality, it's just a convenient premise for your desired conclusions.
You'll have to map out your delirium at some point. Now you have people supporting LGBT or cross dressing just to spite "billions of people", out of sheer "hate of people and anger all over the place".
You literally ascribe motivation to other people's behaviour without even beginning to consider that they actually just don't see the world the way you do.
I think what you're talking about is an aspect of performance.
Completely off-target as a response, seeing as neither of us here are saying drag isn't intended to be transgressive.
But obviously the only reason you would ever not try to be just like Tclown is because you hate him so much, because he's just so much better than you.
This is why I don't believe in God, because a pair of skeletal hands did not immediately erupt from the ground and drag DeSantis down to Hell for such an utterly blatant lie.
I don't know about that: have you seen which way his poll numbers for the Republican nomination are going?
Not gonna lie, I would really enjoy watching a biblically-accurate angel appear over some of these """""""""""""""""Christians"""""""""""""""" just to smite them. I think it would be quite cathartic for an agnostic-athiest like myself.
I actually believe that, if a god and a devil exist, then the devil did the very first thing that an evil, cunning devil would do : invest the churches. Preach evil from the christian (or muslim or whatever) priest position. People are stupid, they eat up any propaganda or injunction if it comes with the correct label. And that would explain why religious nuts, fundamentalists, fanatics, are so often embracing the most evil policies and worldviews (sexist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, transphobic, plus so often pro-gun, pro-dictatorship, and in favor of the most corrupt politicians, the least social, the most oligarchic ones).
You list many things you can support, and yet you do more to defend drag shows for children than any of these things.
Let me put it this way then: James Bond story hour would be an inappropriate theme for a children's event. I don't think someone impersonating 007 at a library would be shooting people and sleeping with married women, but those concepts are associated with the character, and travel with him, even if he might clean up his act for the children. Holding that event is a stupid idea, and I question the motives and/or sensibilities of anyone who would suggest it.
Well, that is the crux of the argument with others, at least.
I don't think much of the drag community has any interest in doing story hours for kids, and even those who do are unlikely to be inviting themselves to schools and libraries. I imagine the people running those facilities are the ones orchestrating the events, and its their intentions that matter. In the US, these things are frequently organized by activists, the drag queens are just being paid to be there, and the money often comes from public funds.
Firstly, James Bond is a specific character with specific attributes and this is not reasonably comparable to an entire group of people who are individuals in their own right. Secondly, you are just wrong that drag queens are all about sexual themes, and it makes me question how much you really know about them.
Punching people, performing death defying feats, and getting involved with risqué women are associated with superheroes as well. You know what little kids fucking love; Spider-Man and Batman. And NOT because these kids are weirdos who want to actually physically hurt people and have sex.
Most James Bond movies are PG because PG-13 didn't exist until 1984, and was created in part because of Temple of Doom. They invented a new rating specifically for movies like these, because PG, which already means "parental guidance", was insufficient.
And you don't see any issues putting sexual themes in front of children and saying "haha, look at the funny clown"? You don't see where the accusations of grooming come from in that?
Well, I was impressed by your honesty for one post, and now you have retreated back into your shell.
And none of it was due to sexual material, just violence. And PG is PG, whether it's 13 or 15; it means any kid can watch it so long as a parent is present. James Bond is up there along with Indiana Jones and Batman as regular shit children watch.
It's only sexual because people like you deem it sexual, because feminine features, like a dress and make-up, are sexual in your eyes. Clowns and dressing up as an animal are also sexual in the eyes of certain people - should we ban clowns and macots from being around little kids, too? What about during the summer, when women dress in cooler, revealing clothes, should they be banned from being near children? I'll bring up beaches and public swimming pools again. What about a mother breast feeding her baby in public, or infront of her own children in her house?
