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

gmisk

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I'd be of the view any parent having their 11yr old dancing on stage in a gay bar for dollars, being around murders and exposed to drug use, or having them twerking at a gay pride parade, doesnt really have their sons best interests in kind.

Their interests? Yes.

Huh?!? Was the kid in a club or a shoot out at a crack den?


BTW I have said already I don't agree that a kid should be in a nightclub at 4am dancing about on stage regardless of whether it is a gay or a straight one. I can also honestly say that the majority of LGBTQ people I know would think exactly the same, the parent(s) need to wise up and the club should do the same.

But I also knew that this thread would be used as an opportunity to basically run down LGBTQ people in general, which it has, how depressing.

One eyed Jack

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

What exactly would you quantify as child abuse?

Hard to quantify precisely as it’d dependent entirely upon context. Like in the context in this particular case, I don’t think it’s appropriate for any child to be exhibited like that on stage, but the context of it is drag performance and the whole dollars throwing thing is part of the whole show. It’s still grossly inappropriate, but in that specific context, I think it’s naivety on the part of the parents, rather than anything that was intentionally malicious or intended to cause the child any harm. Calling the child a professional drag artist for example is just stupid, the child is 11, they aren’t a professional anything.

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s absolutely true, because heterosexuality being the dominant sexual orientation means we’re more likely to assume our children are heterosexual too. That’s why there exists all this nonsense about people who are gay and they’ve come out and all the rest of it - because they were assumed to be heterosexual, and they struggle with their own sexuality, until they accept whatever they’re comfortable with.

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

This thread is extremely uncomfortable reading. If you know any child that’s being sexualised at the age of 3, you should contact tusla. It is certainly not the norm

Before anyone jumps on me let me state for the record I have condemned the whole on a stage in front of adults things in a night club several times now but I think people are taking Jack up wrong.

Jack is talking about sexual orientation which is not the same as being sexualised. I have been steadfast in my opposition to the sexualisation of children for many decades. That is not the same as sexual orientation.

As someone who grew up with the expectation that I was/would be heterosexual by everyone around me I can confirm that I knew I wasn't long before I had a bulls notion what sex was or any interest in it.
I just knew - with absolute certainty - that I did not like boys 'that way' before I ever knew what 'that way' entailed. Why my older sister got all worked up about some fella in the tennis club was a complete mystery to me but I turned into a tongued tied mess when I spotted the local tomboy out kicking a ball.


Sex had nothing to do with it then. I was 7 years old. I had no idea whatsoever about sex. But my sexual orientation was clear (to me at least) even as I lacked the language to express it. Back in the early 1970s this was not considered 'normal' or even recognised so I knew enough to keep quiet, nowadays people tend to be more open about it.

We do talk about little Timmy having a girlfriend in playgroup and everyone goes ahhhh... isn't that sweeeet. Or how little Tania has a crush on Timmy.
Are we sexualising them? In a way yes. Because we are projecting sexual feelings on to them by defining them as heterosexual.

Jack's posts have made me wonder if perhaps people have an issue with a parent saying little Tania has a crush on Tammy, or Timmy has a boyfriend in playgroup in the same casual way we say it when it's opposite genders?

Some people are glaringly blindly obviously of one sexual orientation or another from a young age. Most aren't.


Now - once again - NO, I do not think an 11 year old dancing in front of drunken adults in a night club is in any way shape or form appropriate - regardless of sexual orientation of anyone involved.

begbysback

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Lots of people are of the opinion the earth is flat, just as your opinion of a child behaving this way is ok. You like the flat earthers are wrong and nothing will change that.

Unless somebody falls off the edge?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

gmisk wrote: »

Huh?!? Was the kid in a club or a shoot out at a crack den?


BTW I have said already I don't agree that a kid should be in a nightclub at 4am dancing about on stage regardless of whether it is a gay or a straight one. I can also honestly say that the majority of LGBTQ people I know would think exactly the same, the parent(s) need to wise up and the club should do the same.

But I also knew that this thread would be used as an opportunity to basically run down LGBTQ people in general, which it has, how depressing.

The child mimics snorting ket off his arm, he’s 11.
He’s also been photographed with a convicted murderer.

Wibbs

gmisk wrote: »

Huh?!? Was the kid in a club or a shoot out at a crack den?

I think they're referring to one of the men the kid's been hanging around with. IIRC this particular guy killed and dismembered another guy(over drugs?) and went down for it.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Hard to quantify precisely as it’d dependent entirely upon context. Like in the context in this particular case, I don’t think it’s appropriate for any child to be exhibited like that on stage, but the context of it is drag performance and the whole dollars throwing thing is part of the whole show. It’s still grossly inappropriate, but in that specific context, I think it’s naivety on the part of the parents, rather than anything that was intentionally malicious or intended to cause the child any harm. Calling the child a professional drag artist for example is just stupid, the child is 11, they aren’t a professional anything.

But naivety on the parents is being celebrated and is gaining airtime on daytime talk shows where you’re deemed intolerant for expressing concern that this isn’t right. The parents are whoring their child out in a nightclub for money. I have a hard time understanding what’s not neglectful and abusive about that tbh

Wibbs

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As someone who grew up with the expectation that I was/would be heterosexual by everyone around me I can confirm that I knew I wasn't long before I had a bulls notion what sex was or any interest in it.
I just knew - with absolute certainty - that I did not like boys 'that way' before I ever knew what 'that way' entailed.

I've heard similar from gay lads I've known. They all knew early on, like 6/7 years of age that they were "different" in some way. In a way straight kids don't seem to.

DontThankMe

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Lots of people are of the opinion the earth is flat, just as your opinion of a child behaving this way is ok. You like the flat earthers are wrong and nothing will change that.

That's your opinion though doesn't make it a fact and make mine wrong just like my opinion is isn't right or wrong. Billions of people are of the opinion that God or some form of God is real and exists some people might say they are wrong but this can't be proven. It's the same in this case my opinion can't be proven to be wrong or right you and the majority of the posters in this thread can say it's wrong but there is no proof of that.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sex had nothing to do with it then. I was 7 years old. I had no idea whatsoever about sex. But my sexual orientation was clear (to me at least) even as I lacked the language to express it.

We do talk about little Timmy having a girlfriend in playgroup and everyone goes ahhhh... isn't that sweeeet. Or how little Tania has a crush on Timmy.
Are we sexualising them? In a way yes. Because we are projecting sexual feelings on to them by defining them as heterosexual.

Look at those two quotes. It's not sexualising to say a kid has a crush on another kid because as you say, they don't know what it is and I would have hoped that most adults would know that the kids don't know.

gmisk

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

The child mimics snorting ket off his arm, he’s 11.
He’s also been photographed with a convicted murderer.

Christ...seriously?!?
Look in all honesty I wouldnt watch the link, I dont need to click on something like that and add to its clicks, the description was enough for me, I dont think this kind of crap should be happening in a gay or straight club/bar it is bizarre that it is.

The Bishop Basher

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Before anyone jumps on me let me state for the record I have condemned the whole on a stage in front of adults things in a night club several times now but I think people are taking Jack up wrong.

Jack is talking about sexual orientation which is not the same as being sexualised. I have been steadfast in my opposition to the sexualisation of children for many decades. That is not the same as sexual orientation.

As someone who grew up with the expectation that I was/would be heterosexual by everyone around me I can confirm that I knew I wasn't long before I had a bulls notion what sex was or any interest in it.
I just knew - with absolute certainty - that I did not like boys 'that way' before I ever knew what 'that way' entailed. Why my older sister got all worked up about some fella in the tennis club was a complete mystery to me but I turned into a tongued tied mess when I spotted the local tomboy out kicking a ball.


Sex had nothing to do with it then. I was 7 years old. I had no idea whatsoever about sex. But my sexual orientation was clear (to me at least) even as I lacked the language to express it. Back in the early 1970s this was not considered 'normal' or even recognised so I knew enough to keep quiet, nowadays people tend to be more open about it.

We do talk about little Timmy having a girlfriend in playgroup and everyone goes ahhhh... isn't that sweeeet. Or how little Tania has a crush on Timmy.
Are we sexualising them? In a way yes. Because we are projecting sexual feelings on to them by defining them as heterosexual.

Jack's posts have made me wonder if perhaps people have an issue with a parent saying little Tania has a crush on Tammy, or Timmy has a boyfriend in playgroup in the same casual way we say it when it's opposite genders?

Some people are glaringly blindly obviously of one sexual orientation or another from a young age. Most aren't.


Now - once again - NO, I do not think an 11 year old dancing in front of drunken adults in a night club is in any way shape or form appropriate - regardless of sexual orientation of anyone involved.

What has sexual orientation got to do with any of this ?

gmisk

Just to reinforce my point below

"But I also knew that this thread would be used as an opportunity to basically run down LGBTQ people in general, which it has, how depressing."

One poster (now banned) said below
Time to extend that acronym to the "LGBTQP" community
The number of likes.....really horrible.

BattleCorp

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

The child mimics snorting ket off his arm, he’s 11.
He’s also been photographed with a convicted murderer.

^^^^^^^^^
And with a painting with the word Rohypnol behind Desmond and the murderer in the video.



Is it just me or does the kid not look healthy? He seems slightly out of it in some of the videos too.

One eyed Jack

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

But naivety on the parents is being celebrated and is gaining airtime on daytime talk shows where you’re deemed intolerant for expressing concern that this isn’t right. The parents are whoring their child out in a nightclub for money. I have a hard time understanding what’s not neglectful and abusive about that tbh

I think they’re trying to make sure their child is happy is all, and sure, I wouldn’t care so much about any child’s happiness that I’d let them imitate their adult peers. I get that children want to emulate their peers and all the rest of it, I know of young girls that want to emulate the Kardashians, and their outfits and makeup are often dodgy af. There’s an innocence on the part of the children involved, and a naivety on the part of their parents.

I do agree that in many cases that can be exploited by people with malicious or more underhanded intentions, or exploited by the media who love stuff like this because it’s the kind of modern day freak show as it were that gets views. I don’t think it’s right, but I just don’t see it’s intent as being abusive either, I think it can be easily exploited if the child isn’t managed properly and that’s when I’d have no issue with suggesting it may be an abusive relationship between the child and their parents.

The Bishop Basher

The murderer is on the left. He spent 16 years in prison for murdering his drug dealer, chopping up the body and disposing of it in the Hudson river.

You can see the word Rohypnol on the poster behind.

The murderer introduces him as the worlds youngest club kid which given the backstory is more then a little sick...

https://youtu.be/TqjOEKYOav0

One eyed Jack

Rennaws wrote: »

What has sexual orientation got to do with any of this ?

Started off from someone saying it was sexualising the child to be saying they were gay at three years of age. It is sexualising the child, they were first sexualised when it was determined at birth that they are male, then the parents raised their child as a male, and when they realised he was gay, well they raised him as a gay male as opposed to assuming for the next couple of years that he was a straight male. Effectively they made his life a whole lot easier, but denied him the whole coming out story that would have helped him on X factor later in his showbiz career.

Now that’s cynical :pac:

BattleCorp

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think it’s right, but I just don’t see it’s intent as being abusive either, I think it can be easily exploited if the child isn’t managed properly and that’s when I’d have no issue with suggesting it may be an abusive relationship between the child and their parents.

I'd disagree with you though and say that the child isn't being managed properly. (Probably being managed properly from a money-making point of view but not from a safeguarding point of view). In my opinion it's abusive. Maybe not intentionally, but it is still abusive.

Dancing for money at 4am in a club isn't right.
Letting your kid hang out with a convicted murderer isn't right.
Letting the kid twerk in a very sexualised way while wearing hotpants at a gay pride parade (or anywhere else for that matter) isn't right.
Your kid making snorting noises when someone mentions ket isn't right. The kid has obviously been exposed to too much adult stuff if they know that.
It also says a lot about the mindset of the adults surrounding him when they have a painting with the word rohypnol in the background.

So no, I won't be recommending Desmond's parents for a 'Parent Of The Year' award.

retro:electro

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Started off from someone saying it was sexualising the child to be saying they were gay at three years of age. It is sexualising the child, they were first sexualised when it was determined at birth that they are male, then the parents raised their child as a male, and when they realised he was gay, well they raised him as a gay male as opposed to assuming for the next couple of years that he was a straight male.

Nobody raises a toddler in accordance with any assumed sexuality in mind and if they do that’s messed up. They’re children. Blank canvases. You might have raised your kids fresh from the womb with an orientation in mind but please do not assume your perverse desires apply to the rest of us.

The Bishop Basher

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Effectively they made his life a whole lot easier

He’ll be lucky if he makes it to adulthood at all let alone without serious emotional problems..

They’ve destroyed that kid..

Franz Von Peppercorn

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Started off from someone saying it was sexualising the child to be saying they were gay at three years of age. It is sexualising the child, they were first sexualised when it was determined at birth that they are male, then the parents raised their child as a male, and when they realised he was gay, well they raised him as a gay male as opposed to assuming for the next couple of years that he was a straight male. Effectively they made his life a whole lot easier, but denied him the whole coming out story that would have helped him on X factor later in his showbiz career.

Now that’s cynical :pac:

You’re confusing gender with sexualisation. To sexualise someone is to treat that person in a sexual way. As wiki says.

“Sexualization (or sexualisation) is to make something sexual in character or quality, or to become aware of sexuality,[1][2] especially in relation to men and women. Sexualization is linked to sexual objectification. According to the American Psychological Association, sexualization occurs when "individuals are regarded as sex objects and evaluated in terms of their physical characteristics and sexiness”.

This isn’t the same as putting male on the birth cert.

One eyed Jack

retro:electro wrote: »

Nobody raises a toddler in accordance with any assumed sexuality in mind and if they do that’s messed up. They’re children. Blank canvases. You might have raised your kids fresh from the womb with an orientation in mind but please do not assume your perverse desires apply to the rest of us.

Nobody? You’re talking nonsense. There’s plenty of debate in child development about the whole blank canvas theory, nature vs nurture, gender stereotypes and gender roles and all the rest of it. I raised my child with the assumption he was straight. So have most people throughout human history.

“Perverse desires” :rolleyes:

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody? You’re talking nonsense. There’s plenty of debate in child development about the whole blank canvas theory, nature vs nurture, gender stereotypes and gender roles and all the rest of it. I raised my child with the assumption he was straight. So have most people throughout human history.

“Perverse desires” :rolleyes:

Youd hope parents would create a living environment for a child to safely explore who they are and their hobbies and interests, without the fear of judgement or leaving them scared what they’re doing or what they like is wrong. Does a 3 year old know he’s gay and into males? Doubtful but he may realize he likes playing with dolls and singing and dancing more than he likes getting muddy and playing football. I presume a blank canvas is letting the child explore his interests safely and that he feels accepted and happy. You may suspect the child will grow up to be gay, or he may totally grow out of wanting to play with dolls but you don’t force stereotypes or gender roles on kids. You don’t make a little boy play football if he doesn’t enjoy it. No more than you’ll make your daughter play dress up if shed rather be outside playing and climbing trees. Let your kids take the lead on who they want to be, but there’s a difference between that and exploitation and basically whoring them out for fame and fortune.

retro:electro

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody? You’re talking nonsense. There’s plenty of debate in child development about the whole blank canvas theory, nature vs nurture, gender stereotypes and gender roles and all the rest of it. I raised my child with the assumption he was straight. So have most people throughout human history.

“Perverse desires” :rolleyes:

Please tell me how you raised your child with the assumption he was straight from birth?

seamus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I raised my child with the assumption he was straight.

How does orientation even come into it until they're a teenager?

Sure, in some cases it becomes obvious that a kid is gay at an early age, but I'm not sure in what scenarios that even arises as a "thing" until they're actively out there trying to score.

You say raised then under the "assumption" that they're straight, but what does that even look like? Do you reinforce straightness and correct any indication of homosexuality?

I raise my kids under no particular assumption. They'll probably be straight, but we won't know until we get there. One of them often says that she's going to marry her best (female) friend, but every now and again also declares that one of the boys in her class is her boyfriend.

So orientation doesn't matter. I'm not sure how we would act any differently if we "assumed" she was straight?

The Bishop Basher

retro:electro wrote: »

Please tell me how you raised your child with the assumption he was straight from birth?

I'm all ears on this one too..

One eyed Jack

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

You’re confusing gender with sexualisation. To sexualise someone is to treat that person in a sexual way. As wiki says.

“Sexualization (or sexualisation) is to make something sexual in character or quality, or to become aware of sexuality,[1][2] especially in relation to men and women. Sexualization is linked to sexual objectification. According to the American Psychological Association, sexualization occurs when "individuals are regarded as sex objects and evaluated in terms of their physical characteristics and sexiness”.

This isn’t the same as putting male on the birth cert.

I’m actually not confusing gender and sexualisation. Sex is classified as either male or female and there’s no arguing with that from a biological standpoint. We attribute characteristics to humans based upon whether their sex is either male or female. Gender is a different thing again entirely.

One eyed Jack

Vaughn Old-fashioned Superpower wrote: »

Youd hope parents would create a living environment for a child to safely explore who they are and their hobbies and interests, without the fear of judgement or leaving them scared what they’re doing or what they like is wrong. Does a 3 year old know he’s gay and into males? Doubtful but he may realize he likes playing with dolls and singing and dancing more than he likes getting muddy and playing football. I presume a blank canvas is letting the child explore his interests safely and that he feels accepted and happy. You may suspect the child will grow up to be gay, or he may totally grow out of wanting to play with dolls but you don’t force stereotypes or gender roles on kids. You don’t make a little boy play football if he doesn’t enjoy it. No more than you’ll make your daughter play dress up if shed rather be outside playing and climbing trees. Let your kids take the lead on who they want to be, but there’s a difference between that and exploitation and basically whoring them out for fame and fortune.

Nope, and that’s never been a philosophy I’ve ever subscribed to.

retro:electro

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m actually not confusing gender and sexualisation. Sex is classified as either male or female and there’s no arguing with that from a biological standpoint. We attribute characteristics to humans based upon whether their sex is either male or female. Gender is a different thing again entirely.

Assigning sex at birth and sexualising the child thereafter are two completely different things Jack

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, and that’s never been a philosophy I’ve ever subscribed to.

Wtf