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

Zorya

Zorya wrote:

Oddly Glitter Hole have removed that image from their own Twitter account, but you know the Internet..

Oh FFS. Any doubt I had has been removed.

It’s hilarious, (actually it’s sad) the number of “disappointed” parents who are commenting on their FB site, asking could the group do a child’s party in the home, etc etc, as they wanted some way to expose their child to their form of entertainment. All negative comments deleted of course.

ixoy

So if the same drag queens marketed themselves under a separate name for family entertainment would people be more accepting? Actors do wide ranges of roles, authors sometimes use pen names for different types of works, etc.

Supposing there was an adult entertainment duo named “Fanny & Dick”, whose acts were normally for over 18s, with a sexually focused theme throughout. Then some library authority takes it upon themselves to ask Fanny & Dick could they devise an act suitable for children and perform in one of the branch libraries. In the name of all that’s holy, who the heck would want to bring young children to be entertained by people who would find it against their instincts to curb the double entendre and innuendo in their variants of Little Bo Peep, Jack and the Beanstalk, etc.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't make it a point to sit my daughter down and explain to her that some people have one leg. I waited until she noticed it herself, asked me why it was that that person had one leg and I explained some people are different.

I didn't need to make a huge song and dance about it.

And yet it is common to hold children's events - like storytelling - aimed specifically at disabled people, with the aim of normalising disability and removing the stigma around it.

Does that annoy you? That disabled people are "making a huge song and dance about it"?

As well-meaning as you consider yourself to be, many others aren't. Many others will make crass remarks to their kids about that leg, or will point and otherwise make a big deal of it. Even though you don't feel personally like normalisation is necessary, it is.

There's a thread here on AH with a load of scumbags making dwarf jokes in response to a story about an assault.

So normalisation is still needed. You might not personally feel like you need to attend a pride week book reading, but by making a big song and dance about it, you are in fact the one who is denormalising it and creating a stigma about it.

You think if you walk past something like this and scoff, that your child doesn't pick up on that? They do.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Zorya wrote: »

Quoting Alfred Kinsey about sexuality - what an utterly debased, degenerate monstrous attempt at a human being he was.

You would have many wayfarers when it comes to people who speak of children's early sexualisation. From the back to nature 'sexual innocence' prelapsarian mythology types right up to the organised promotors of pedophilia as normal. James Cantor, well known modern sexologist, recently advocated the LGB movement not forget its pedophilic comrades.

https://twitter.com/JamesCantorPhD/status/1081657375122227200

The people who are sincere in such fields have been co-opted by those with paraphilia for scores of years. I have no time for this type of psycho-babble sh!te.

Strawman argument - doesn't address the point I made.

I was talking about sexuality IN children, you're talking about sexualisation OF children.

marieholmfan

ixoy wrote: »

So if the same drag queens marketed themselves under a separate name for family entertainment would people be more accepting? Actors do wide ranges of roles, authors sometimes use pen names for different types of works, etc.

Yes of course it would be more acceptable!
If you dress up like a clown and do conjuring tricks for my kid's party it isn't any of my business if you want to do a drag act or get buggered on stage or whatever. My relationship with you is transactional not holistic.


You could even be in drag and do conjuring tricks but it would have to be widow twanky style drag not some sort of sexualised drag act.


What I don't want is a blurring of the lines where the conjurer gets buggered on stage and then when I complain everyone is like 'well that's just queer culture' or whatever.


Seriously don't come round to my house to do a charming kid friendly magic act and fellate the parents on stage! That's not on and could be traumatic for the kids!

ixoy

ixoy wrote: »

So if the same drag queens marketed themselves under a separate name for family entertainment would people be more accepting? Actors do wide ranges of roles, authors sometimes use pen names for different types of works, etc.

I think if this group were known for non-sexualised material they would indeed be acceptable to most, in drag or whatever. Curious children, such as I was (and by heck I would have googled all I encountered were the internet available in my childhood), could innocently google “glitter hole” in an effort to see pictures of the funny actors in the library and have their eyes opened wide.

jimgoose

seamus wrote: »

...There's a thread here on AH with a load of scumbags making dwarf jokes in response to a story about an assault...

I'm one of those "scumbags", as you put it. I got carded for it, and that's fair enough. The difficulty people have is some rambunctious youngfella in dire need of a toe in the hole, and possibly even community service, "vaulting" that woman being called a "hate crime". I don't believe it is, but that's neither here nor there.

Dressing as the opposite gender isn't a disability nor does it need to be normalised.

Drag is not trying to be normal. It is purposely being abnormal for comedic and theatrical effect. Why does that need to be normalised?

My 6 year old daughter met a guy I know who's gay and asked me why he had a boyfriend. I said that he likes boys. She looked a little confused. She asked did that happen to everyone. I said no, the majority of boys like girls and girls like boys but it's perfectly fine to love whoever you want.

Did I do wrong by telling her that being gay wasn't wrong but it wasn't usual?

Zorya

jimgoose wrote: »

I'm one of those "scumbags", as you put it. I got carded for it, and that's fair enough. The difficulty people have is some rambunctious youngfella in dire need of a toe in the hole, and possibly even community service, "vaulting" that woman being called a "hate crime". I don't believe it is, but that's neither here nor there.

Scumbag. Idiot. Racist. Bigot. Heck, even ''Tiny Penis''. You could get called anything on Boards these days, with impunity. Apparently the same people think the place is gone to the dogs. :rolleyes:

sbsquarepants

seamus wrote: »

You think if you walk past something like this and scoff, that your child doesn't pick up on that? They do.

Maybe just don't scoff then?

There's hardly a need to drop to your knees and praise Jebus for blessing you with the majestic sight of some bloke in a frock.

I have gay friends, my kids don't know them as my gay friends, I don't think of them as my gay friends, just my friends.

That's all the normalising anything needs!

jimgoose

Zorya wrote: »

Scumbag. Idiot. Racist. Bigot. Heck, even ''Tiny Penis''. You could get called anything on Boards these days, with impunity. Apparently the same people think the place is gone to the dogs. :rolleyes:

I bet if I formed a group called "Pork Portcullis" using the emblem of a pair of large, pendulous breasts and went around entertaining kids with a highly (hetero)sexualised and innuendo-filled act I'd get called some names right enough. :pac:

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote:

I have gay friends, my kids don't know them as my gay friends, I don't think of them as my gay friends, just my friends.

That's such a good point.

"Look how different we are, notice and accept our differences"

"Don't treat us as different"

Can't have both

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Strawman argument - doesn't address the point I made.

I was talking about sexuality IN children, you're talking about sexualisation OF children.

I seriously worry about adults who are so focused on sexuality in children, let alone dragging them into the world of adult sexuality. Kids have a right to their innocence.

marieholmfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Did I do wrong by telling her that being gay wasn't wrong but it wasn't usual?

I don't think so.

sbsquarepants

Deleted User wrote: »

That's such a good point.

"Look how different we are, notice and accept our differences"

"Don't treat us as different"

Can't have both

Homophobe!

marieholmfan

Deleted User wrote: »

That's such a good point.

"Look how different we are, notice and accept our differences"

"Don't treat us as different"

Can't have both

Accept our difference and don't mistreat us because of our difference.
Makes sense to me.

marieholmfan

marieholmfan wrote:

Accept our difference and don't mistreat us because of our difference. Makes sense to me.

How are drag queens/kings mistreated?

baby and crumble

Deleted User wrote: »

In the name of all that’s holy, who the heck would want to bring young children to be entertained by people who would find it against their instincts to curb the double entendre and innuendo in their variants of Little Bo Peep, Jack and the Beanstalk, etc.

Here's the rub of the issue for me. You are assuming that because in one aspect of their lives these performers are risque and use 18+ humour that they are incapable of being appropriate around children.

As I said before, I perform as a drag king. I am also a qualified social worker, have worked and volunteered with people with disabilities for 20+ years and trust me, I'm not 'unable to curb the double entendres' around children. In fact, I rarely use sexual jokes in my acts although that's by-the-by here.

That's like saying because you have sex in your bedroom and enjoy it you're incapable of not having sex around children.

it's a ridiculous argument, and honestly it's insulting to those of us who have more than one interest and hobby in life.

marieholmfan

Wow - thanks so much for doing such an important and difficult job. This country owes you alot.

baby and crumble wrote: »

I perform as a drag king. I am also a qualified social worker, have worked and volunteered with people with disabilities for 20+ years

baby and crumble

baby and crumble wrote:

it's a ridiculous argument, and honestly it's insulting to those of us who have more than one interest and hobby in life.

I have to agree with you there. Can't bring David Beckham to the cinema, he might start kicking the popcorn all around the place.

As I said previously, I wouldn't be comfortable with this particular group or any drag troupe to be honest. I see it as pretty much identity politics which my daughter doesn't need to be exposed to.

Queer feminists aren't exactly high on my list of suitable event organisers for 3-7 year olds.

Gimme A Pound

ixoy wrote: »

So if the same drag queens marketed themselves under a separate name for family entertainment would people be more accepting? Actors do wide ranges of roles, authors sometimes use pen names for different types of works, etc.

Absolutely.

Zorya

ixoy wrote: »

So if the same drag queens marketed themselves under a separate name for family entertainment would people be more accepting? Actors do wide ranges of roles, authors sometimes use pen names for different types of works, etc.

No, not for me. For all the reasons elsewhere outlined.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

I seriously worry about adults who are so focused on sexuality in children, let alone dragging them into the world of adult sexuality. Kids have a right to their innocence.

Just to clarify - again: not saying "drag thin into the word of adult sexuality". See below

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm not saying this should be encouraged, but I am saying people need to be aware of it and certain that they shouldn't be denying it just because it makes their view of innocent childhoods a little more uncomfortable. It's the natural reality of human nature.

Brian?

Zorya wrote: »

There is no need to normalise different sexualities for pre pubescent children - to do so is in its essence sexualisation of children. Hetero couples do not - unless they're a bit fcuked up - normalise their sexuality for their children because they don't put it in their face. People have sex privately, they don't make out heavily in front of their small kids or wear sexualised clothing or talk dirty or make innuendo or ape sex acts, or do anything at all really to draw their children's attention to their private sexual lives. Because it is not relevant for small children in any way to see or think about such matters.
And after that kids just gag to think of their parents having sex. What you are talking about is not how ''normalising'' works.

How do drag queens normalise butch gay Moms or demure gay Dads? How do they act as role models for anypne but a niche few?

Normalising gay Mammys and Daddys does not require drag queens which is essentially a fetish act, even if they don a floral gown and adopt the facsimile of a mumsy librarian. It surely does not represent the vast majority of gay parents. It is not a useful representation of an example of a homosexual / transgender way of life to present to small children. It's underlying cachet - indeed, raison d'etre - is queer sexuality and sex. That's cool. But not relevant for children.

Cross dressing isn’t always a fetish. I think the real issue here is that you sexualise the act of cross dressing and I matter what it’s always sexualised to you.

Heterosexual couples absolutely normalise their sexuality. Do you think it’s wrong to hold hands or kiss in front of a child? You seem incapable of separating sexuality and sex acts. It’s quite common that gay men are reduced to a sex act, but you’re also reducing transgenderism to a fetish.

I’m a bit bamboozled by your attitude to be honest. Do we hide all mentions and allusions to sexuality away from children until they are sexually mature? Or when does it become relevant? I believe an open dialogue between parents and children is extremely important to raise well adjusted children. My parents were very open about both and it’s something I am passing on to my children, because the lack of taboo makes life so much easier.


You can post more photos of these particular drag queens if you want. Some are a little out there. But that’s not why I replied in the first place. You asked why a pride event would be targeted at children.

Brian?

Zorya wrote: »

No, not for me. For all the reasons elsewhere outlined.

I take it you’ve never been to the Panto?

Brian?

Brian? wrote:

I take it you’ve never been to the Panto?

I take it that you think that a panto dame is trying to normalise transgenderism/transvestitism?

If not then why conflate the two?

ceadaoin.

It's possible to teach children about the fact that gay people exist and that it's normal and no big deal in an age appropriate manner. I mean, if that's the goal then there probably is no need, they will see same sex couples out and about in normal life, on TV etc anyway. I'm not sure if a group that performs highly sexualized shows for adults and who are literally named after an arsehole meet that criteria for age appropriate. Like, why? I'm baffled as to why it was even being considered, and even more so baffled that people are outraged that some parents weren't keen on it.

Zorya

Free show London last summer, The Glory lgbt bar sends performers to entertain the crowds.



I can make out 4 children clearly, 2 are tots. The young girl closest is looking down, smiling in an embarrassed way, the blond girl standing up looks bewildered, the two toddlers looking are not smiling. There are other kids further away and they are not looking. The adults are laughing which makes a noticeable difference between them and the children.

Don't care if it makes me a square - I think these kind of acts are suited to an adult audience and are NOT child-friendly.