If DeSantis wins
- Thread starter CastletonSnob
- Start date
Aw, last summer the lady and I went to the beach, yeah? And she wanted to catch some rays but didn't want tanlines, so she took off her top, and just like that, her breasts out in full display for all to see, mate. And she wasn't even alone in doing so. Tons of women tanning with their tits out. Like, with little kids around. Toddlers and stuff. Good thing everyone there was either enough of an adult not to gawk like a horny teenager, or young enough they didn't give a shit, cuz we was at the beach and they all too busy doing beach stuff.
I leave an argument be when it's self-defeating, sufficiently irrelevant, or agreeable enough to let stand as the last word. You just about fulfilled all of those conditions. I agree, some women in New Jersey dress like that (agreeable enough), that doesn't change what I said about a user who lives in the UK (irrelevant), and also doesn't help the actual case against me since describing drag-queen story hours as "men dress like they're from New Jersey to entertain children" would probably lead to more opposition to them (self-defeating). But yes, you are right, New Jersey sucks.
The former, but it's not as simple as "they don't understand so they don't enjoy." As adults, we like entertainment centered around unusual and often heavily flawed characters. We understand the humor because we recognize people's flaws. Children don't, they don't know Fran Fine's myriad character flaws (honestly the implied sexuality is the least of her flaws). Children learn by imitating others, they don't know right, wrong, normal, or abnormal, and definitely don't know media tropes like "the lady in red". Children are not likely to be traumatized by seeing a man dressed as a stripper, but they may imitate that behavior, and will be traumatized down the line when they find out they were unknowingly displaying themselves as sex objects using symbology they didn't understand. We live in a society, and as much as you may want to normalize certain things in your own life, you have no control over how others interpret your behavior. "This is normal to me" doesn't stop others from thinking you're a prostitute if you dress like one.
That's not the point. What's more sexual content: a woman walking around completely nude, or a woman walking around fully dressed with a poster that says "Looking for dude's to gang bang me"? Fashion is full of symbolism and messaging. Again, a man without a shirt is common, a man without a shirt but wearing a bowtie is a stripper, and you can recognize that. Drag queens' outfits are full of deliberate sexual symbolism, even the ones that cover all the skin.
Not seeing it as sexual would be deliberate ignorance of the intent and message of things. For example:
I'm gonna take a guess that few people here are significantly older than me, I know many of you are around the same age, so you would have experienced The Nanny as a child, potentially even just as reruns, so it makes sense that people may have missed some of the themes in that show. Like, the show is about the unlikely story of a Brooklyn floozy taking on the role of the mother in a high society household. "Who would have guessed that the girl we described was just exactly what the doctor prescribed". If you watch that show unknowingly, not understanding what the woman is meant to be like, you don't get what's unlikely about that. You don't get a bunch of the comments by Niles or C.C., you don't get her mother badgering her about settling down and getting married, you don't get Maxwell's hesitance to accept his feelings for her. If you think "oh, that's just how she dresses, whatever", you don't understand the show. "She's the lady in red when everybody else is wearing tan."
If I don't sexualize that character, I'm missing the point. If you see people who behave like that and think "oh, that's totally normal, they're just like The Nanny", not only have you misunderstood the show, but the show has inadvertently taught you to misunderstand social cues everywhere else. Which is why kids are supposed to have parental guidance when consuming content like that.
But also, go back to Shinji's post in #494, and tell me that blue dress isn't sexy.
And yet the one thing you can't do is admit when you're wrong. Because you're wrong. Women have dressed up like that, they do dress up like that, and your assertion that drag queens dress up like that solely to project sexuality is utterly wrong. But you can't admit that, can you? Because your goal isn't to have good-faith arguments; your goal is to spew your bullshit here, deflect proof against you, ignore arguments you can't counter, haul the goalposts around like you're paid by the foot, and then declare yourself the winner and pat yourself on the back.
You. Are. A. Clown.
I tried it once and almost got frostbite. This isn't just a beach in England, this is a beach in northeast England.
I didn't say women haven't dressed up like that, I said that's not normal, everyday attire. It is attire coded to sexuality and worn for that purpose. Pay attention.
Yeh, that'll freeze yer nips. Belgian beaches used to be kinda mediocre too, but global warming solved that little pickle.
Wow, the beginning of this video is about Anita Bryant and holy shit, the arguments have not changed, complete with firing teachers
Don't think we haven't been watching which countries stand to gain better weather from global warming.
So that means children will be traumatized down the line by the mere act of walking down the street and having their eyes open. Seeing an add that shows a woman in a bikini, or just some light cleavage. Going to the zoo and seeing two animals mating. Watching one of the many Bugs Bunny cartoons where he dresses in drag, or the Super Mario movie in theaters now. Watching a superhero movie where someone gets punched in the face, i.e. all of them, even the animated ones.
And this is just me pointing to actual activities children may copy. You're claiming little kids under 10 have the mental capacity to understand character flaws and extremely tame sexually coded humor in 90's sitcoms, to the point where it will traumatize them down the line? Am I honestly supposed to take you seriously?
You also realize how quickly women are considered sexually coded just wearing anything that's not baggy, right?
Considering how quickly you think children will have brains completely broken by a goofy woman in a dress, what exactly would children in your opinion be allowed to be exposed to? Talking animals? Or would that indoctrinate them into thinking they should crawl around on all fours? Talking vegetables? Or would that traumatize them everytime their parents prepare dinner?
It's patently not true. Sexualisation is not the purpose of the form. Anyone faintly familiar knows this.
The only reason you think it is is because you reduce LGBTQ culture to sex; you can't see anything else to the entire group of people.
Out of interest, do you also think pantomime isn't suitable for kids? Because it's literally always involved drag. And it's a family tradition in Britain.
Lmao, yeah, you're missing the point. It's "sexy" in the tamest way possible, suitable for network television primetime in the 90's.
It looks good, sure, but you're demented if you look at it and shout "whore"
It is not. It's pretty hideous really, like a prototype romper that wasn't done cooking.
If anything, this whole conversation perfectly displays the dichotomy between left and right in this country currently: the left is worried about the right criminalizing people's right to exist, complete with overt discrimination and potential death sentences, while the right is complaining that a man wearing sequins is bullying christians. Considering how the last few pages of this thread has gone, the only people who'd be sexualizing kids dressed like Fran Fine is you folks
Last edited:
The associations people have to attires can change. For starters, burlesque didn't start out as something sexual or risque, it is is a literary, dramatic or musical work intended to cause laughter by caricaturing the manner or spirit of serious works, or by ludicrous treatment of their subjects.
To your sad, puritan viewpoint, maybe it is. To normal people? No.
Tclown seems to be regressing to the point of wanting to stone harlots for showing their ankles.
Anytime the argument is "everybody knows that", everybody is probably wrong.
Pantomime involves crossdressing, I suppose you can call that drag if you'd like, but that's still very different than a drag queen. Drag queens and drag shows are a specific aesthetic, not just any man in women's clothing.
No, I said the opposite of that. Well, not quite. Kids have plenty of mental capacity, what they lack is knowledge. They don't have the context to understand those things, and need responsible guidance to navigate them. A kid isn't going to be traumatized by animals mating at the zoo, but if your parents sit you down in front of those mating animals on purpose, and then you try to have sex with your dog because you didn't know what you were seeing and all the adults assured you it was normal and fun, it's gonna haunt you at some point.
Unfortunately, you've missed not only my point, but the point of the show. This argument is crippled by your media illiteracy. It's like if I was complaining about words someone painted on a wall and you said it didn't matter because you can't read anyway.
Those associations can change, but if and when they do, there won't be drag queens. Those associations are the premise of drag shows, without the cultural implications of that fashion, the artform is empty.
See my response to MysteriousGX. It applies doubly to you.
What the fuck is your life, holy shit.
I earnestly recommend therapy, there's some shit that's gone terribly wrong
This thread is going all kinds of strange and exciting places. Keep it up, yeah?
... Were conservatives using "same sex marriage will lead to bestiality" because they think we all secretly want to fuck dogs? Every accusation... Christ.
Sounds like you want to avoid situations like that, and think maybe it's a good idea to not normalize behavior for a child that could embarrass them if they imitate it.