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

retro:electro

woddensanta wrote: »

Definitely a wind up.

The sad thing is I don’t think they’re trolling.

retro:electro

DontThankMe wrote: »

Don't have a child so they won't have to be collected from school and if I did I'd encourage them to cycle/walk and they wouldn't need a spin either way.

Would you have any issue with Larry Murphy collecting a child from school and walking him/her home?

givyjoe

The Talking Bread wrote: »

The most mental thing about this thread is people entertaining posters like DontThanKMe who are clearly (insert the word that shall not be spoken on Boards)

What a pathetic charade.

Nah, we all know..

Plumbthedepths

woddensanta wrote:

Definitely a wind up.

Of course it is. There's a word for his behaviour but best to let the mods eventually deal with him.

cgcsb

Zorya wrote: »

there has always been a part of LGB activism that includes lowering age of consent.

You do realise that in the UK, the age of consent for male homosexuality was 21 between the years of 1962 and 1994 (and during that time male homosexuality remained effectively illegal anyway), at which point this was lowered to 18, and then only in 2001 was it equalised with heterosexual acts at age 16. There were similar laws in various US states. Hence the campaign to lower the age of consent. Ireland was equalised at 17 from 1993 when male homosexuality was legalised.

Gravelly

DontThankMe wrote: »

Don't have a child so they won't have to be collected from school and if I did I'd encourage them to cycle/walk and they wouldn't need a spin either way.

There's a surprise. Please don't ever.

erica74

DontThankMe wrote: »

Don't have a child so they won't have to be collected from school and if I did I'd encourage them to cycle/walk and they wouldn't need a spin either way.

Reported and blocked. If you're serious and these are your genuine thoughts and opinions, please get psychiatric help.

Zorya

DontThankMe wrote: »

People deserve second chances in life as long as there is another responsible adult there to supervise his encounters with him preferably one of his parents then I don't see an issue with it. Also we don't how often they have been in each other's company people are probably assuming that they are actually better friends than they are. For all we know they could have hung out only once or twice not multiple times.

I think we can all agree this is one of the weirdest posts ever on Boards.

retro:electro

DontThankMe wrote: »

Don't have a child so they won't have to be collected from school and if I did I'd encourage them to cycle/walk and they wouldn't need a spin either way.

Please god it stays that way.

Defaulter1831

retro:electro wrote: »

The sad thing is I don’t think they’re trolling.

I don't either. Trolls don't continue delusional effort to this extent.

There's a sizeable cohort who believe in 'if it feels good do it' crap and children not being parented.

Plumbthedepths

retro:electro wrote:

The sad thing is I don’t think they’re trolling.

If that is the case, (which I doubt it is) the person behind that name I believe constitutes a danger to children.

sbsquarepants

DontThankMe wrote: »

Yes he is less than an ideal friend/role model for the boy but who are we to judge anyone's character and past behaviour is not a good indicator of future behaviour.

Since when?

It has been without a doubt the single most accurate indicator in my personal experience.

This whole story turns my stomach, it's fúcking disgusting behaviour all around. Scummy parents and pervy "fans", it's rotten to the core, that poor kid hasn't got a hope in life!

cgcsb

DontThankMe wrote: »

"Desmond’s parents also consulted a therapist who said the best thing to do would be to neither discourage, nor encourage, but rather to allow Desmond to develop naturally. Therefore, rather than ostracize, punish, or shame him, force him to play with certain toys, or restrict him to boys only costumes and clothing while playing dress up, Desmond’s parents allowed him to inherently progress, explore, and choose his tastes in clothing, toys, and activities on his own. He had developed his gender identity as non-conforming, or gender fluid, as a young child. He is not, nor has the desire to become, transgender. From early on, he has said that he is a boy who enjoys dressing up as a girl."

That doesn't sound like irresponsible parenting to me.

Playing with female toys or wearing female clothes is a different prospect to performing in a night club for money.

retro:electro

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

If that is the case, (which I doubt it is) the person behind that name I believe constitutes a danger to children.

I’d like to think they’re trolling but to assume they are is to assume there aren’t weirdos out there who think like this. We’ve seen from the clip that there are.

cgcsb

Muckka wrote: »

Maybe not to you, but to a lot of alpha males this would be a no no.

Can you understand why some men are against this ?

Obviously some aren't and that's their opinion.

Men who are very manly, have a bit of an old school attitude.
They need to be understood too, not everyone can conform to societies expectations.

If people are expecting equality, people should be allowed to speak against what doesn't feel right to their moral compass....

What are you on about?

Zorya

cgcsb wrote: »

You do realise that in the UK, the age of consent for male homosexuality was 21 between the years of 1962 and 1994 (and during that time male homosexuality remained effectively illegal anyway), at which point this was lowered to 18, and then only in 2001 was it equalised with heterosexual acts at age 16. There were similar laws in various US states. Hence the campaign to lower the age of consent. Ireland was equalised at 17 from 1993 when male homosexuality was legalised.

Yes, I do realise.

And I realise the vast majority of LGB people do not want age of consent to include children.

I also realise that this chap is considered one of the founding fathers of the gay rights movement. Meet Harry Hay.

ceadaoin.

Michael Alig is a reprehensible person who has never shown one shred of remorse for the murder he committed. Watched a documentary about him a while ago, the way he casually describes dismembering the body and even jokes about it is very disturbing. He blames it on drugs yet he continues to use them. He should not even be out of jail, let alone be acting as a "mentor" to a child IMO.

JohnMc1

The Talking Bread wrote: »

The most mental thing about this thread is people entertaining posters like DontThanKMe who are clearly (insert the word that shall not be spoken on Boards)

What a pathetic charade.

The sad thing if even if DontThankMe isn't being 100% serious there are people with that mindset. This kid was just on a terrestrial channel [aka no cable setup required to watch] broadcast during the daytime and owned by DISNEY of all companies. And this segment was more than likely given a huge applause.

cgcsb

DontThankMe wrote: »

No that wouldn't be my logic at all I was responding to a poster that said this is a child protection issue and, since no action has been taken by child protective services in the US it is therefore, not a child protection issue.

DontThankMe wrote: »

People deserve second chances in life as long as there is another responsible adult there to supervise his encounters with him preferably one of his parents then I don't see an issue with it. Also we don't how often they have been in each other's company people are probably assuming that they are actually better friends than they are. For all we know they could have hung out only once or twice not multiple times.

I can only conclude you are having a laugh with the above.

cgcsb

retro:electro wrote: »

I was just reading that both parents are unemployed and “looking for work” :rolleyes:
The mother has set up a Go Fund Me to financially assist Desmond achieve his dreams (sure Jan) It would be more in their line to get fcuking jobs and stop pimping out their child and following him around gay bars at all hours of the morning.
Sadly I think this kind of publicity is exactly what they were looking for.

I think that they probably copped when he was young enough that he was sort of a feminine boy, even though that'd be pretty difficult to establish as early as 3. And identifying this they concocted various scenarios in which this could be monetized so they wouldn't have to work. They should be locked up.

Defaulter1831

Say over 100 people posted on this thread, a normal percentage breakdown would leave you with 3 or 4 people you wouldn't want kids around. Given what 4 have said here.. I'd be very worried.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I genuinely think most people with a healthy mind, or a decent moral compass, whether they’re gay straight bi trans or drag, would be beyond disgusted seeing a small child gyrating on stage for cash. This isn’t a LGBT thing. This is grooming.

Omackeral

Uncharted wrote: »

Those "parents" should be fired from a cannon into a volcano.

Worst description of "parenting" ever.

Media whoring their kid for financial gain,regardless of consequences.

Leaving the kid to make online videos,in extremely dodgy environs,with a convicted killer !!!!

What the actual fcuk?

Hey, it's 2019. Where is your tolerance?!

Uncharted

Omackeral wrote: »

Hey, it's 2019. Where is your tolerance?!

In a volcano

How Soon Is Now

75 pages in (on mobile) yet the only people I've seen told to not post on the thread again or banned where ones who broke "boards special protocol"

Says a lot doesn't it....

I've seen people banned from forums on boards for using a slang name of a celebrity yet its perfectly fine to more or less support child abuse or possible pedophilia!

Bannasidhe

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.

I disagree. The presumption is of heterosexuality until proven otherwise.

People assume their children are straight and act accordingly.

As for that comment about "perverse desires" - I hope you don't mean what I think you mean by that because of you do it looks like you have some issues you need to deal with.

retro:electro

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I disagree. The presumption is of heterosexuality until proven otherwise.

People assume their children are straight and act accordingly.

As for that comment about "perverse desires" - I hope you don't mean what I think you mean by that because of you do it looks like you have some issues you need to deal with.

I have 3 nieces and a nephew. All under the age of 5. I can’t say I’ve ever spend even one second wondering what sexual orientation they are. They’re children, babies. Them being gay or straight is not something I’d ever ponder about much less assume on their behalf until the they reach an age where they start showing interest in others beyond grabbing their crayons. You say the presumption is heterosexuality until proven otherwise; I disagree. Maybe the probability of them being hetro is more likely but assuming it on their behalf, much less raising them in accordance with what you believe their orientation to be and announcing it to all and sundry before they’ve even mastered the art of speech is perverse and I’ll make no apologies for that.

retro:electro

You wouldn’t introduce your 3 year old as “here’s my son Timmy he’s straight” so why introduce them as gay?? Maybe because introducing him as a straight 3 year old wouldn’t grab headlines or be click-baity enough for thousands of Youtube comments. Poor child is being used as nothing more than a pawn.

Bannasidhe

retro:electro wrote: »

I have 3 nieces and a nephew. All under the age of 5. I can’t say I’ve ever spend even one second wondering what sexual orientation they are. They’re children, babies. Them being gay or straight is not something I’d ever ponder about much less assume on their behalf until the they reach an age where they start showing interest in others beyond grabbing their crayons. You say the presumption is heterosexuality until proven otherwise; I disagree. Maybe the probability of them being hetro is more likely but assuming it on their behalf, much less raising them in accordance with what you believe their orientation to be and announcing it to all and sundry before they’ve even mastered the art of speech is perverse and I’ll make no apologies for that.

Well, as someone who was assumed to be heterosexual I can confirm is isn't pleasant when you know you are not and don't feel it is safe to tell people to stop assuming you are - your whole life. Questions about boyfriends, crushes... the deadly silence if you say I have a girlfriend...
I'm an adult now. I can cope. Being a 7 year old kid - not so easy. It's hard enough being 'different' without people projecting their expectations of who you are onto you.

Great for you if you don't do that. You are in a very small minority.

retro:electro

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well, as someone who was assumed to be heterosexual I can confirm is isn't pleasant when you know you are not and don't feel it is safe to tell people to stop assuming you are - your whole life. Questions about boyfriends, crushes... the deadly silence if you say I have a girlfriend...
I'm an adult now. I can cope. Being a 7 year old kid - not so easy. It's hard enough being 'different' without people projecting their expectations of who you are onto you.

Great for you if you don't do that. You are in a very small minority.

Well done on just poking a massive hole through your own argument and further proving mine