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

Alrigghtythen

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

RuPaul is an adult, this thread is about the exploitation and abuse of a 11 year old boy. You do see the difference I trust?

But that was the video I linked to. He's an adult with a 7 year old boy dressed in a cocktail dress dancing on a bar on his show. It was the 7 year olds "big break" as a drag performer.

Why are you not condemning the abuse and exploitation of that same 11 year old child, 4years earlier?

um7y1h83ge06nx

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

The kid looks seriously heroin chic in that though. Emaciated

True enough, could have an eating disorder.

Plumbthedepths

Alrigghtythen wrote:

Do you agree with adults exploitation of a 7 year old child?

You have read my posts and this is the question you ask? Can't decide if you are serious or doing the same crap as another poster here earlier.

Alrigghtythen

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You have read my posts and this is the question you ask? Can't decide if you are serious or doing the same crap as another poster here earlier.

His first big break came in 2014 when he was featured alongside the B-52’s lead singer, Fred Schneider, in RuPaul’s Drag Race season 5 winner Jinkx Monsoon’s music video for the song, “The Bacon Shake”. This was Desmond’s first time playing a character in “drag” and he loved it.

https://desmondisamazing.com

Yet you excuse RuPaul because...? Why?

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

RuPaul is an adult, this thread is about the exploitation and abuse of a 11 year old boy. You do see the difference I trust?

Plumbthedepths

Alrigghtythen wrote:

Yet you excuse RuPaul because...? Why?

Where did I excuse RuPaul? I said RuPaul is an adult and the thread is about the exploitation of a child. I'm not watching any links posted of kids if that's alright with you . Now twist your nonsense elsewhere.

Alrigghtythen

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Where did I excuse RuPaul? I said RuPaul is an adult and the thread is about the exploitation of a child. I'm not watching any links posted of kids if that's alright with you . Now twist your nonsense elsewhere.

RuPaul is the adult that launched the 7 year old childs drag career.

Bannasidhe

neonsofa wrote: »

But retro's entire point is we shouldn't assume everyone is right handed/straight. We should allow whatever emerges naturally and facilitate that appropriately as it emerges. Giving them the necessary left handed tools when the need for such becomes apparent. You're both saying the same thing??? Unless you're saying that we should somehow try to decipher if the child is gay and give it "gay appropriate" toys?? Because that's the only difference I can see between your analogy and what retro has been saying.

And my point is whatever people should do is not the same as people do do.

And no, I never mentioned gay appropriate toys, I have enough of an issue with fecking gendered toys.

But you know what. This thread had turned into one full on exercise in pitchfork waving and any time anyone even tries to explain that yes actually, some kids do know they are gay at a young age (no one said 3, most had it around 7) and tries to give a sense of the difficulties that presents in a predominantly heterosexual world they are rounded upon.

In the same thread where links between male homosexuality and paedophilia are frequently made.

In a thread where the suggestion that a gay kid (they exist) be shown that it's ok to be the gay kid is called perverse.

In a thread where the LGBT community is called upon to FIX This - as if we are responsible. Every SINGLE gay person who has identified themselves as such on this thread has been clear in their disapproval of an 11 year old performing anything in an adult night club.
But according to the thread title we 'worship' - we don't. WE ARE DISMAYED. DISGUSTED.


I'm out.

Ya'll can boil up your tar and gather your feathers.

retro:electro

Bannasidhe wrote: »

In a thread where the suggestion that a gay kid (they exist) be shown that it's ok to be the gay kid is called perverse

Child you better not be referring to me there because let me tell you, that is not what I said. How about you re-read my post k? I was responding to a poster who said we sexualise children from birth. What I said was pre-supposing any kind of orientation on a baby is perverse. By doing so you’re assuming they’re displaying sexual tendencies towards others of either the same gender or opposite and that’s fcuked up to say about a child who can barely tell the colour blue from red.
Now please calm the f down.

neonsofa

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And my point is whatever people should do is not the same as people do do.

And no, I never mentioned gay appropriate toys, I have enough of an issue with fecking gendered toys.

But you know what. This thread had turned into one full on exercise in pitchfork waving and any time anyone even tries to explain that yes actually, some kids do know they are gay at a young age (no one said 3, most had it around 7) and tries to give a sense of the difficulties that presents in a predominantly heterosexual world they are rounded upon.

.

I suggest you just read what electro said again and maybe you wouldn't feel "rounded upon". Because she already had a sense of the difficulties, hence her making the exact same point you're at pains to make back at her.

cgcsb

Zorya wrote: »

Nothing to see here. These kids are ''the future''. All's cool.



















Now Fcuk Off before you make me really cross with your support of this crap. :mad::mad::mad:

Ah he has bags under his eyes and he's only a kid.

Defaulter1831

cgcsb wrote: »

Ah he has bags under his eyes and he's only a kid.

He's a very puny, malnourished, small 11 year old boy. And how could he be different given the lifestyle imposed on him.

Defaulter1831

Alpha Male

Have to agree with him.

https://youtu.be/E1vzeG_g8k8

ceadaoin.

If those pics were of a young girl there is no way anyone would deny that they are being sexualised. It shouldn't be applauded just because it is breaking gender norms. It's completely possible to allow a child to express themselves freely in how they dress that don't involve inappropriate clothing, people and settings.

cgcsb

Defaulter1831 wrote: »

He's a very puny, malnourished, small 11 year old boy. And how could he be different given the lifestyle imposed on him.

Agreed. Should be out playing with other kids in the fresh air and going to bed at 9.

The Bishop Basher

Given that he’s from the US, on the spectrum and has whack job parents I’d be willing to guess that he’s also on a cocktail of pharmaceuticals.

Defaulter1831

Rennaws wrote: »

Given that he’s from the US, on the spectrum and has whack job parents I’d be willing to guess that he’s also on a cocktail of pharmaceuticals.

Ketamine for starters.

One eyed Jack

retro:electro wrote: »

Child you better not be referring to me there because let me tell you, that is not what I said. How about you re-read my post k? I was responding to a poster who said we sexualise children from birth. What I said was pre-supposing any kind of orientation on a baby is perverse. By doing so you’re assuming they’re displaying sexual tendencies towards others of either the same gender or opposite and that’s fcuked up to say about a child who can barely tell the colour blue from red.
Now please calm the f down.

retro if that’s what you thought I actually meant, you completely misunderstood my post. We differentiate between male and female from birth according to their sex. Socially, medically and scientifically, we regard differences in males and females according to their sex, ie - whether they are male or female. There was no suggestion of any “displaying sexual tendencies towards others”.

There’s a world of a difference between a persons sexual orientation, and a persons expression of their sexuali identity, which appears to be how you read my post. Humans aren’t born “a blank slate”, they’re born with any number of characteristics and traits which influence their thought processes and these inherent characteristics influence how they perceive, interpret and interact with their environment, and how people interact with them.

You’re free of course to pretend to be oblivious to these differences, and you’re free to believe that everyone else in society is the same as yourself in that they too are oblivious to these differences. It’s no skin off my nose what you choose to believe, I’m under no obligation to take you seriously. I’m only explaining my position to you as a courtesy and an attempt to clear up any misunderstanding you attribute to malicious intent.

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

So you're *not* raising him under the assumption that he's straight.

You're raising him *as* straight.

Which is a different thing. A parent who lets their boy wears dresses is not raising them as trans, or as gay. They're simply allowing the child to express themselves. They're making no assumptions at all.

A parent who refuses to allow a boy to wear a dress is not "assuming" the child is straight, they are insisting on it.

No seamus, and I can understand where you’re coming from in making the distinction, but when I said that I’m raising him under the assumption that he’s straight, that’s exactly what I’m doing. Of course it would be a different thing if I were raising him as straight, and you’re right in that I’d be insisting he conform to some idealised standard of what it is to be straight.

I don’t do that though. I don’t place any particular emphasis on whether he’s straight or gay or anything else, because that would be conforming to stereotypes, like the idea that if he were interested in makeup it could be an indication that he’s gay. It wouldn’t in my eyes at least indicate any such thing, but when it comes up that I’m interested in women’s fashions, makeup, and I like nothing better of an evening than to chill out with a pair of knitting needles and some wool, people do make assumptions, and they have made assumptions. I don’t blame them for making assumptions that are incorrect because I understand that they’re only basing their assumptions on their own experiences and expectations.

FWIW, my son thinks it’s weird that I enjoy knitting, sewing and so on, as he obviously wasn’t born when we were taught as children to knit, crochet and sew by our parents. He thinks knitting is for old ladies! It’s not something that actually bothers me enough to try and argue it with him, but maybe some day I’ll show him this clip on YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-Lri1rYfqk

retro:electro

retro if that’s what you thought I actually meant, you completely misunderstood my post. We differentiate between male and female from birth according to their sex.

Yes Jack I know we differentiate between male and female at birth according to their sex, do you honestly think I’m struggling with that? What are you ****eing on about? You said this..

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I raised my child with the assumption he was straight.

Please tell us how you raised a child with “the assumption he was straight”?? Please inform me on the parental differences in raising a straight child from a gay child?

There’s a world of a difference between a persons sexual orientation, and a persons expression of their sexuali identity

But again.. you said,

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I raised my child with the assumption he was straight.

You also said..

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re normally sexualised according to heterosexual norms

But yet have the cheek to say to me

you’re free to believe that everyone else in society is the same as yourself

You’re the one who speaks as if you have an authority on everything and like your word is final. It ain’t.
Most people don’t sexualise children from the get go.
And if you believe I’m misunderstanding you, I’ll kindly remind you I asked you to clarify and expand on an earlier point but you never did.
But in all honestly, I just can’t be bothered getting into it any further with you because if past debates are anything to go by it’s just an exercise in futility.

One eyed Jack

retro:electro wrote: »

Yes Jack I know we differentiate between male and female at birth according to their sex, do you honestly think I’m struggling with that?

I do, yes.

retro:electro

Can hardly blame you for getting the wrong end of the stick, having one eye and all.

Omackeral

retro:electro wrote: »

Can hardly blame you for getting the wrong end of the stick, having one eye and all.

Ha ha seems to be a theme among the cyclopsed ones. I suggest an eyepatch.

sbsquarepants

Jaysus christ - those photos above are stomach churning.
I don't give a rats arse about PC bullshít or mod bans - as far as I'm concerned anyone who has no problem with an 11 year old kid being used in this fashion is a fúcking nonce. It's disgusting.

11 year old boys should not look like anorexic crack whores:mad:

Hector Savage

It's disturbing that this thread is still going, presumably lots of arguments so there are people on here agreeing with this **** !!??
I mean FOR FUXAKE LIOKE!!!!

tabby aspreme

Hector Savage wrote: »

It's disturbing that this thread is still going, presumably lots of arguments so there are people on here agreeing with this **** !!??

I'm not surprised, anyone remember the "Fairytale of Kathmandu" documentary , and the support for O Searcaigh afterwards, and the David Norris interview with Helen Lucy Burke, because the Roman's and Greeks practiced Pedastry , some people think its still ok.

sbsquarepants

tabby aspreme wrote: »

I'm not surprised, anyone remember the "Fairytale of Kathmandu" documentary , and the support for O Searcaigh afterwards, and the David Norris interview with Helen Lucy Burke, because the Roman's and Greeks practiced Pedastry , some people think its still ok.

And to think there was a very real chance that he was going to be president, be like having our very own Donald - weirdo!

Hector Savage

sbsquarepants wrote: »

And to think there was a very real chance that he was going to be president, be like having our very own Donald - weirdo!

I actually like Norris, I don't think he was promoting peadophilia here, he was talking about the ancient greeks and how young boys were seen as desirable.

Not that pretty but facts just the same - just like Victorian girls would have been married at 12.

One eyed Jack

retro:electro wrote: »

Can hardly blame you for getting the wrong end of the stick, having one eye and all.

Scraping the bottom of the barrel for a cheap dig now. I dunno what you think being blind in one eye has to do with not getting your point. I can still fcuking read :pac: It’s not even an intelligent or witty insult, it’s just a stupid, cheap dig that has nothing to do with anything.

seamus

ceadaoin. wrote: »

If those pics were of a young girl there is no way anyone would deny that they are being sexualised. It shouldn't be applauded just because it is breaking gender norms. It's completely possible to allow a child to express themselves freely in how they dress that don't involve inappropriate clothing, people and settings.

Except that, you see, he's in the US.

Where they have massive shows parading 4/5/6/7/8 year olds in skimpy swimwear and other heavily sexualised contexts.

So I'm not really surprised in a country where they hold child beauty pageants for paedophiles to drool over, they also see no major problem with an 11 year old's burlesque act.

The "drag" isn't the issue here. Like you say, it's the settings, the context.

Drag acts aren't necessarily "racy" or even suggestive. Eddie Izzard's drag was always pantomime. Julian Clary's was flamboyant - though the actual comedy was always racy, the clothing never was.

What this kids parents are doing is something else entirely, you won't find anyone outside a small niche of paedophiles supporting it.

sbsquarepants

Hector Savage wrote: »

I actually like Norris, I don't think he was promoting peadophilia here, he was talking about the ancient greeks and how young boys were seen as desirable.

Not that pretty but facts just the same - just like Victorian girls would have been married at 12.

No, I used to think he was a harmless eccentric up until he ran for president, but now he gives me the outright creeps.
I don't want the president of the country writing character references for ex lovers when they're facing child sex charges. He's a weirdo.