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

Brian?

Omackeral wrote: »

So you're pedantic as well as obtuse. You put yourself across as this fair, level-headed debater but the reality is that you're really not one when you're backed into a corner.

I’m pedantic sometimes yes. It’s important to be clear when debating but rarely happens on here, because people use too emotive language. I’m not trying to be pedantic to score points like some do.

Your statement was that “it is outrageous” where you bolder the “is” for emphasis. To me you’re attempting to present it as fact if you do this. So I was trying to reframe the debate correctly so we could argue whether this was outrageous or not. I possibly did a poor job of this.

I am obtuse sometimes yes. Who isn’t.

I’m far from backed into a corner. I can put down my phone and retreat at any time.

DontThankMe

cdeb wrote: »

Why are you so adamant he's a drag dancer if you don't understand the alternatives?

A table dance is essentially what you see in the video. Very similar to a lap dance, but not on the lap.

Definitely sexualised, if only for the state of partial undress

"The truth is, Desmond is a professional drag performer. No one forces him to perform, performing is what he loves to do and has always loved to do."

It's what his mother says he is a professional drag performer.

If there were boys dancing at a beach would you say that they are being sexualised too?

Brian?

Omackeral wrote: »

''I'm not petty..... Say sorry or I'm going home''.

See ya later so. You'll get no apology from me for your shameful debating style or for your questionable viewpoints on this quite honestly.

Shameful debating style? Give over. There wasn’t an active debate. There was a load of people attacking and being outraged. And you called me petty. I’m going nowhere now.

Brian?

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Brian, if, hypothetically that was your son up there? Would you be comfortable. Apologies if this has been questioned before?

I don’t know. I’m not avoiding the question. I actually have 2 sons both younger than this boy.

I do know they wouldn’t be allowed be out that late.

Wibbs

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Can't believe people are actually trying to defend this.

I can. Sadly. The pendulum can swing too far.

Brian? wrote: »

What ideology?

Hahahahhahah... oh wait you're serious? If there's a Right On position to be taken on any matter, you're a near guarantee to be the one posting it. On that score you're a walking cliche on the matter. You'll defend this "progressive" ideology to the point of farce and fault. QV this thread.

Brian? wrote: »

Yes I am being obtuse.

But I refuse to allow people to conflate being gay and being a pederast. It’s wrong.

Gay men and women can be pederasts and paedophiles. Just like straight men and women. This is a fact, not an opinion. A quite close to knuckle type of pederasty has been a strong theme of Gay culture for millennia, in a similar way that "teen" porn is a theme of Straight culture down to today.

bubblypop wrote: »

I think most people would react the same if an 11 year old girl was dancing & grating sexily for an audience of grown men.

The poo would hit the fan harder I suspect. Imagine an 11 year old barley dressed girl tarted up a common streetwalker gyrating for a mob of straight men in a nightclub who are throwing dollar bills at her. It sure as hell wouldn't be promoted as something "special".

However, it being in the "Gay world" more are willing to blind eye it, even tacitly promote it. Why? For some on the surface very good reasons. Gay men have wrongly been accused of being paedophiles as a near given of their sexuality for a very long time, so naturally that prejudice shouldn't be promoted. But the pendulum can swing too bloody far in a case like this and some are afraid to call a spade a spade in fear of a) being accused of homophobia and b) tarring all Gay men with the same brush and c) being pilloried in the media for it.

The joke is that this particular nightclub incident came to light because Gay men who were in the club that night posted and tweeted about their disgust about it. And fair play to them. The TV stations who had this kid on are the real scumbags.

Brian?

ceadaoin. wrote: »

No one is conflating that though? They would also say the same thing about an 11 year old girl dancing for men who are throwing money at her. Or at least I know I would for one. Would that be conflating heterosexually with pedophilia?

The poster I responded to was certainly conflating the 2.

ceadaoin.

DontThankMe wrote: »

If there were boys dancing at a beach would you say that they are being sexualised too?

If they were surrounded by men (or women) leering and throwing money at them then yes. It's not that hard to understand

The Talking Bread

Reading the background story and it seems the parents are seriously f*cked up individuals. The first day he went to playschool at THREE they made a point of telling the playschool teacher and his classmates that he was gay!

They have basically sexualised him since he was a toddler.

Brian?

The Talking Bread wrote: »

You will be missed.

I doubt it. You’ll all go back to agreeing to be outraged

Brian?

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Reading the background story and it seems the parents are seriously f*cked up individuals. The first day he went to playschool at THREE they made a point of telling the playschool teacher and his classmates that he was gay!

Why does that make them ducked up?

Omackeral

Brian? wrote: »

I’m pedantic sometimes yes. It’s important to be clear when debating but rarely happens on here, because people use too emotive language. I’m not trying to be pedantic to score points like some do.

Your statement was that “it is outrageous” where you bolder the “is” for emphasis. To me you’re attempting to present it as fact if you do this. So I was trying to reframe the debate correctly so we could argue whether this was outrageous or not. I possibly did a poor job of this.

I am obtuse sometimes yes. Who isn’t.

I’m far from backed into a corner. I can put down my phone and retreat at any time.

In my opinion it is outrageous. I didn't spell it out like. In my opinion it is outrageous. My opinion. I'll be sure to use that qualifier anytime I engage with you in future. Again, it was my opinion... and also the opinion of >95% of the posters here too. A general consensus you might say.

Also, nothing can be outrageous as a matter of fact so your whole argument is pretty moot. It's implied that it's an opinion. But you already know that.

Now, how's that for pedantry?

Wibbs

DontThankMe wrote: »

If there were boys dancing at a beach would you say that they are being sexualised too?

If they were dolled up like a whore and men were throwing money at them to keep dancing, then eh.. yeah.

Dear Jesus I hope you're on a wind up. If not I really dunno what to say to someone who can't see the obvious differences between the two. I really bloody don't.

Omackeral

DontThankMe wrote: »

"The truth is, Desmond is a professional drag performer. No one forces him to perform, performing is what he loves to do and has always loved to do."

It's what his mother says he is a professional drag performer.

If there were boys dancing at a beach would you say that they are being sexualised too?

Do you throw dollar bills at boys on the beach?

Wait, don't answer that.

Omackeral

Brian? wrote: »

Shameful debating style? Give over. There wasn’t an active debate. There was a load of people attacking and being outraged.

Attacking? Nope. Outraged. Yep, cos it's outrageous... in my opinion.

Brian? wrote: »

I’m going nowhere now.

Add unintentionally hilarious to the list.

Wibbs

Brian? wrote: »

So I’m insane by your implication?

I wouldn't say insane, blinkered by your "progressive" ideology, yes.

Brian?

Wibbs wrote: »

I

Hahahahhahah... oh wait you're serious? If there's a Right On position to be taken on any matter, you're a near guarantee to be the one posting it. On that score you're a walking cliche on the matter. You'll defend this "progressive" ideology to the point of farce and fault. QV this thread.

What ideology? It’s a simple question. What ideology am I defending? I

Omackeral

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Brian, if, hypothetically that was your son up there? Would you be comfortable. Apologies if this has been questioned before?

Brian? wrote: »

I don’t know. I’m not avoiding the question. I actually have 2 sons both younger than this boy.

Genuinely scary. I sincerely hope you're ripping the p*ss.

Bannasidhe

Cool Air wrote: »

It's the tyranny of the progressive. The same people who call themselves feminists always shout the loudest for cruel backwards Islam. They demand deranged men in wigs be allowed into women's spaces. To hell with real women.

Another year or two and they'll saying sex with children is ok.

Jayzuz - not only are you an expert on Gay Culture* - you are fluent in feminism**too. :rolleyes:


Any more axes you need to grind there?


*as imagined by straight people who haven't a notion.
** as yes - all feminists are Islam loving TERFs because the posters doesn't like feminists, Muslims, and transgender people therefore they are somehow in it together.


FWI - most feminists do not defend the ideology of Islam - they do get annoyed by Muslim = terrorists. Some feminists do not like transgender women being identified as women. Some feminists don't give a monkeys.

Brian?

Omackeral wrote: »

In my opinion it is outrageous. I didn't spell it out like. In my opinion it is outrageous. My opinion. I'll be sure to use that qualifier anytime I engage with you in future. Again, it was my opinion... and also the opinion of >95% of the posters here too. A general consensus you might say.

Also, nothing can be outrageous as a matter of fact so your whole argument is pretty moot. It's implied that it's an opinion. But you already know that.

Now, how's that for pedantry?

Disappointing. You’re not going to actually debate the issue you’re just going to call me petty or a pedant. Grand. I’ll move on.

The Pheasant2

Brian? wrote: »

That’s actually an interesting point. Can you explain.

You think I should adopt a moral stance on all subjects?

No you needn't take a moral stance on anything.

But your reluctance to engage with the potential moral component of this issue on the basis that this is legal and therefore unnecessary to discuss in relation to morality, is intellectual cowardice yeah.

Legislators are not some omniscient benevolent force - do some thinking for yourself for **** sake

Omackeral

Brian? wrote: »

I doubt it. You’ll all go back to agreeing to be outraged

Yeah, cos it's outrageous. Shure we'll get your two boys out to do a bit of twerking at the next Pride event. It'll be great.

Brian?

Omackeral wrote: »

Genuinely scary. I sincerely hope you're ripping the p*ss.

Grow up.

I'm trying to understand Brians view on this...... Maybe we have got him wrong.
I don't know.

If a young lad wants to dress as a girl & perform like his favorite female singer.... Then yea, grand, go for it.
In private though, for family etc. Put on a bit of a show, grand. Kids love dressing up etc

This case is different though, he is performing in a grown up club, sexually dancing, & it's not just this particular video that's the problem, it's all the other things too. Twerking at a gay pride parade? Acting like a sexualized adult?
His parents allow this, & actively encourage it?

It is a child protection issue. Gay, straight, whatever, it is over sexualizing a child.

batgoat

Bannasidhe wrote: »

11 year old drag acts are not part of Gay Culture - a topic I suspect you know nothing about. Drag is.

I an Gay. I have a (now adult son), a 12 year old grand-daughter and a 9 year old grandson.
Back in the day if my son wanted to do drag I would have said sure - you can practice at home. Even do little shows at home for adult friends (would have made a refreshing change from his bizarre puppet shows).

No way in hell would he have been allowed into a club (gay or straight) to perform until he was at least 17. And that I would have taken a lot of convincing.

One of my grandchildren on a stage in a nightclub behaving any way sexually would be over my dead body.

Yep, this sort of strikes me in the same vein as child beauty contests and teenagers going go-go dancing. It's incredibly bad parenting to send their kids out to clubs doing this stuff but it's not got anything to do with being LGBT.

Omackeral

Brian? wrote: »

Why does that make them ducked up?

Why does introducing your 3 year old as gay make you f*cked up? Jesus.

Now my opinion (again, my opinion) is that you willfully see f*ck all wrong with this whole nightclub thing in the name of being progressive but also you're doubling down on the outlandish comments to kind of mask it. So now people will say ah he's only ripping the p*ss. You're not though. You honestly believe, or want to be seen to believe, that the story on topic here is fine.

The Talking Bread

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Brian, if, hypothetically that was your son up there? Would you be comfortable. Apologies if this has been questioned before?

Brian? wrote: »

I don’t know. I’m not avoiding the question. I actually have 2 sons both younger than this boy.

I do know they wouldn’t be allowed be out that late.

He says, whilt avoiding the question.

If it were a show on at 5 in the afternoon would you allow them to dress prance around half naked or dress up in womens clothes in a room of gay men throwing money his way?

Do you not see the sexualisation here?!

Brian?

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

No you needn't take a moral stance on anything.

Ok. Valid point.

But your reluctance to engage with the potential moral component of this issue on the basis that this is legal and therefore unnecessary to discuss in relation to morality, is intellectual cowardice yeah.

Legislators are not some omniscient benevolent force - do some thinking for yourself for **** sake

I actually don’t think it intellectual cowardice to be honest. It’s intellectual ambivalence at worst. I don’t feel the need to take a moral stance on the issue.

Are you saying everyone should force themselves to think critically up to the point where they take a moral stance? Generally interested

_Kaiser_

Brian? wrote: »

Disappointing. You’re not going to actually debate the issue you’re just going to call me petty or a pedant. Grand. I’ll move on.

Please do.

Either...

1) You genuinely see no issue here with the exploitation of a vulnerable child for the sexual titilation of grown adults

or

2) You're on a wind-up and trying to get posters sactioned/thread closed by acting "offended" when people call out your "position" for what it is

Either way, I don't think anyone will miss these contributions.

batgoat

Cool Air wrote: »

Yeah I get you. I was just mocking the 'woke' types and how they'll try to guilt the rest of us into accepting this.

I have no doubt normal gay people are disgusted by this.

No, the dreaded woke types for the most wouldn't like condone this sort of ****.

Brian?

Omackeral wrote: »

Why does introducing your 3 year old as gay make you f*cked up? Jesus.

Now my opinion (again, my opinion) is that you willfully see f*ck all wrong with this whole nightclub thing in the name of being progressive but also you're doubling down on the outlandish comments to kind of mask it. So now people will say ah he's only ripping the p*ss. You're not though. You honestly believe, or want to be seen to believe, that the story on topic here is fine.

I don’t see anything to be outraged by. I made that very clear from the beginning. I’m sorry if you missed that.