Drag Queen Story Times picketed by protestors who claim that it grooms children and promotes paedophilia

[littlebabyjesus]

Oh dear @ thread.

Worth pointing out that two totally different kinds of event have been conflated on this thread?

One is a cabaret show for parents to enjoy with their babies. Put on by men in drag. Which involves, from what I can gather, some playfulness and suggestive poses done to entertain the adults. As pointed out, you can get away with more 'adult' content in front of babies cos you know they're babies.

The other is a storytelling hour for young children to enjoy. Put on by men in drag. Which involves, from what I can gather, men in drag reading stories to children with their parents/teachers present.

Other than the fact that both involve men in drag, I don't see that they have much in common with one another. In either case, if it's not your thing, don't go to it. It's not like they're misrepresenting what the events are in their flyers. In both cases they appear to do exactly what it says on the tin. What else is there to say that isn't just some combination of prejudice, puritanism and prudery?

 

[Pickman's model]

Oh dear @ thread.

Worth pointing out that two totally different kinds of event have been conflated on this thread?

One is a cabaret show for parents to enjoy with their babies. Put on by men in drag. Which involves, from what I can gather, some playfulness and suggestive poses done to entertain the adults. As pointed out, you can get away with more 'adult' content in front of babies cos you know they're babies.

The other is a storytelling hour for young children to enjoy. Put on by men in drag. Which involves, from what I can gather, men in drag reading stories to children with their parents/teachers present.

Other than the fact that both involve men in drag, I don't see that they have much in common with one another. In either case, if it's not your thing, don't go to it. It's not like they're misrepresenting what the events are in their flyers. In both cases they appear to do exactly what it says on the tin. What else is there to say that isn't just some combination of prejudice, puritanism and prudery?

The mistake you're making is trying to be reasonable with unreasonable people

 

[Jennaonthebeach]

We’ll all get to see how history judges the medical ‘treatment’ of autistic and mentally unwell vulnerable children in the next decade. For those who have taken hormones either prescribed or obtained from the internet and are subsequently infertile and unable to reverse physical changes it’s going to be horrendous, and an absolute medical scandal. And that’s of considerable more concern to everyone I’m sure.

File under things that never happened, nor will ever happen.

 

[Cloo]

Oh dear @ thread.

Worth pointing out that two totally different kinds of event have been conflated on this thread?

One is a cabaret show for parents to enjoy with their babies. Put on by men in drag. Which involves, from what I can gather, some playfulness and suggestive poses done to entertain the adults. As pointed out, you can get away with more 'adult' content in front of babies cos you know they're babies.

The other is a storytelling hour for young children to enjoy. Put on by men in drag. Which involves, from what I can gather, men in drag reading stories to children with their parents/teachers present.

Other than the fact that both involve men in drag, I don't see that they have much in common with one another. In either case, if it's not your thing, don't go to it. It's not like they're misrepresenting what the events are in their flyers. In both cases they appear to do exactly what it says on the tin. What else is there to say that isn't just some combination of prejudice, puritanism and prudery?

Yeah I was going to say this - the media is trying to get everyone to conflate these two things but they are separate events promoted in didferent ways and for different reasons.

 

[Jennaonthebeach]

Put on by men in drag.

Its far from being just men putting on these shows. I follow a few trans women on Twitter who make a living doing drag - and do this sort of thing.

 

[Tanya1982]

I guess we should ban breastfeeding.
After all sucking on someone's nipples is highly sexual, can't have babies engaging in such depravity

Many a truth said in jest, etc…

Breastfeeding orgasm and arousal: Is it normal to get turned on by breastfeeding?

Feeling turned on while you breastfeed or chestfeed might not be widely spoken about, but it could be more common than you first thought. Here’s everything you should know about the involuntary arousal you may feel while nursing and the links between breastfeeding and orgasms.

flo.health

Breastfeeding and sex: five surprising facts | Life as a parent articles & support | NCT

Feeding your baby can have a huge impact on your sex life – in a whole load of different ways. Here are the facts to wheel out on your next mum night out.

www.nct.org.uk

33% to 50% of breastfeeding mothers described breastfeeding as erotic

 

[smokedout]

Many a truth said in jest, etc…

Breastfeeding orgasm and arousal: Is it normal to get turned on by breastfeeding?

Feeling turned on while you breastfeed or chestfeed might not be widely spoken about, but it could be more common than you first thought. Here’s everything you should know about the involuntary arousal you may feel while nursing and the links between breastfeeding and orgasms.

flo.health

Breastfeeding and sex: five surprising facts | Life as a parent articles & support | NCT

Feeding your baby can have a huge impact on your sex life – in a whole load of different ways. Here are the facts to wheel out on your next mum night out.

www.nct.org.uk

33% to 50% of breastfeeding mothers described breastfeeding as erotic

Ban it. Ban parents having sex in a home where a baby or child is present. Ban nudity in the home. Ban masturbation. Ban snuggling up on the sofa with a baby in the room. Ban kissing on the lips in front of children. If heterosexual parents want to engage in such lewd behaviour they should hire a baby sitter and go to a hotel. It's time to end these flagrantly sexualised displays where children might just walk in and be groomed by their own parent's filthy behaviour.

 

[Rob Ray]

More to the point, everyone involved has to feel shame. Not the shame that comes from hurting anybody, but the shame of doing something Weird And Wrong. Collateral damage is acceptable in the pursuit of shaming, but should be glossed over to avoid shaming the people doing the shaming. This is the path to a healthier society.

 

[smokedout]

In an interesting pivot in strategy, Turning Point is now targeting drag events that don't exist.

 

[Tanya1982]

Ban it. Ban parents having sex in a home where a baby or child is present. Ban nudity in the home. Ban masturbation. Ban snuggling up on the sofa with a baby in the room. Ban kissing on the lips in front of children. If heterosexual parents want to engage in such lewd behaviour they should hire a baby sitter and go to a hotel. It's time to end these flagrantly sexualised displays where children might just walk in and be groomed by their own parent's filthy behaviour.

To say nothing of wedding dress shops. Advertising their submissive princess fantasies in colours denoting virginity. Sexuality in every window display.

If ‘stripper heels’ cannot be seen in case a toddler gets the wrong idea, what on earth will they take from a dress that says ‘unpenetrated as of yet but tonight’s the night’.

 

[cesare]

How high do the high heels have to be before they become stripper heels, btw?

 

[oryx]

In an interesting pivot in strategy, Turning Point is now targeting drag events that don't exist.

View attachment 365567

There is still going to be an anti-Turning Point demo on that date AFAIK.

 

[smokedout]

To say nothing of wedding dress shops. Advertising their submissive princess fantasies in colours denoting virginity. Sexuality in every window display.

If ‘stripper heels’ cannot be seen in case a toddler gets the wrong idea, what on earth will they take from a dress that says ‘unpenetrated as of yet but tonight’s the night’.

Weddings are clearly not suitable for children. You may now kiss the bride, eugh you sick pervert, there are children present. And too often presided over by a festishistic man in a dress.. Grooming in plain sight, Judith Butler has so much to answer for.

 

[smokedout]

How high do the high heels have to be before they become stripper heels, btw?

2 inches if worn by an adult human female, half an inch if worn by a pornsick grooming male.

 

[Tanya1982]

How high do the high heels have to be before they become stripper heels, btw?

Its the plastic platform sole and mule combo, rather than the heel height.

Weddings are clearly not suitable for children. You may now kiss the bride, eugh you sick pervert, there are children present. And too often presided over by a festishistic man in a dress.. Grooming in plain sight, Judith Butler has so much to answer for.

That’s true.

Pregnancy in public is another one. Flaunting your sexuality all over the streets, forcing complete strangers to answer awkward questions about you from their young innocent children. Ban this filth. Stay at home. Confinement was good enough for medieval ladies.

 

[hitmouse]

Yes, I agree. But you need to be careful that that doesn't cross over into immediate dismissal of concerns, on the assumption that they come from a place of bad faith. Which becomes circular because expressing concerns is taken as evidence of bad faith in the first place.

I mean, for me the sticking point is, what are these concerns based on? Like, if this discussion was started by someone going "I went to this event and I don't think it was appropriate", then we'd be having a different conversation. Or if it was based on a first-hand report from someone who seems like a reliable source. But if, after a bit of prodding, the source of the concerns turns out to be "I saw an image that was being circulated by far-right bigots aiming to provoke an emotional reaction, and I am now having the reaction that said bigots are hoping for", or indeed "I read an article in the Sun/Mail/Spectator written by a journo who hadn't actually been there, based on the moral panic that had previously been whipped up by Raichik & co", then... I dunno, are we supposed to just pretend that those concerns are well-founded and informed to avoid hurting anyone's feelings?

 

[Rob Ray]

For me the most telling bit is that none of the more critical folks have expressed the slightest interest in the people behind the event, or anyone who went to it. The whole thing has been about pushing the validity of their own reactions.

 

[bimble]

if it's not your thing, don't go to it.

Exactly ! This should be the end of it but its not is it.
Speaking for myself only i have no 'concerns' or safeguarding worries at all about either of these events / business ventures, i just don't get it and am not interested, but that's true of 99% of the entertainments out there, i'm not their target market anyway and it should be fine for me to just not care about these events at all, be indifferent same as i am about panto or minigolf.

But because a handful of the shittiest conspiracy theorists in the world decide to picket these events , does that take away my right to just be nonplussed but basically indifferent and mean i have to "support" these business ventures and spend time arguing that they are Good ( good in a way that minigolf and strictly etc are not) I think its fair to argue that maybe yes it does, but do find it depressing that a handful of extremists can so easily dictate where people focus their rage and their effort & time.

 

[bellaozzydog]

Exactly ! This should be the end of it but its not is it.
Speaking for myself only i have no 'concerns' or safeguarding worries at all about either of these events / business ventures, i just don't get it and am not interested, but that's true of 99% of the entertainments out there, i'm not their target market anyway and it should be fine for me to just not care about these events at all, be indifferent same as i am about panto or minigolf.

But because a handful of the shittiest conspiracy theorists in the world decide to picket these events , does that take away my right to just be nonplussed but basically indifferent and mean i have to "support" these business ventures and spend time arguing that they are Good ( good in a way that minigolf and strictly etc are not) I think its fair to argue that maybe yes it does, but do find it depressing that a handful of extremists can so easily dictate where people focus their rage and their effort & time.

Its safe to say we should be challenging the narratives of “a handful of extremists” especially when the narrative is edging into the mainstream

 

[hitmouse]

Well we could compare and contrast that with how people dealt with racism in the pre-web era. What respectful conversations were possible in that area, what stories can people share of helping some people with problematic views progress via respectful discussions etc? I dont think there was a shortage of red lines being drawn, polarised battles, polarised struggles, and I think that many things attributed to the internet are just more visible via the internet and things being written down rather than shouted across the street.

Think I was away from my computer when this reply got posted (I'd either gone up to the big Tesco or else I was busy entertaining loads of Hungarian bisexuals who definitely agree with all of my opinions, one or the other), and the thread had moved on by the time I got back. But might as well go back to it now, cos the thread seems to have run out of steam a bit and I don't think we're any closer to having sorted everything out. Would also be helpful if other people could weigh in on this point, cos the pre-web era's not really something I have the most direct experience of.
I suppose I'd say that I would imagine that pre-online arguments would be more likely to take place between people who know each other and had a shared social context irl, which in turn would mean a higher cost to exclusions and self-exclusions, and so would give more of an incentive for people to find ways to live with each other even when they disagree? Also, in a broad sense, I feel like one of the big points of anti-racist/anti-fascist strategy historically has been finding ways to peel off the soft support who can be won over and to isolate them from the hardcore, I dunno if that's happening in the current situation or what that would look like?
Might be interesting to look at something like campaigns against the BNP in the areas where they got a really high vote, like the Isle of Dogs - what was effective in challenging their narratives, in a situation where a lot of people were sympathetic to them?

 

[bimble]

Its safe to say we should be challenging the narratives of “a handful of extremists” especially when the narrative is edging into the mainstream

But the whole damn dog is being wagged by this stupid qanon-ish tail. As far as I know. I know daily mail has bought into it but they hate almost everyone, for profit.

 

[smokedout]

Its safe to say we should be challenging the narratives of “a handful of extremists” especially when the narrative is edging into the mainstream

I think that's the point. It's a trap to get drawn into debates about whether these events are 'good', it's about the sentiment behind the objection to them when similar, heterosexual coded or gender conforming entertainment does not draw objections. I don't particularly approve of children being indoctrinated into religion. I would never have taken my child to a religious service. But if fascists were protesting outside the local Mosque backed by a frenzied campaign in the right wing press that would be worrying, not because I think Islam is great but because the sentiment behind the protests would be racism.

 

[bimble]

I think that's the point. It's a trap to get drawn into debates about whether these events are 'good', it's about the sentiment behind the objection to them when similar, heterosexual coded or gender conforming entertainment does not draw objections. I don't particularly approve of children being indoctrinated into religion. I would never have taken my child to a religious service. But if fascists were protesting outside the local Mosque backed by a frenzied campaign in the right wing press that would be worrying, not because I think Islam is great but because the sentiment behind the protests would be racism.

Agree, that’s what I meant about how “if you don’t like it don’t go” isn’t actually the end of it.
So if arguing that they’re ‘good’ is a trap what then?

If it comes to physically protecting the mosque or the story hour from a fascist mob and you’re ready to fight then it’s clear what to do but, outside of that, would you approach the mosque’s locals who say they’re worried about immigration / sharia or whatever by ridiculing them & lampooning their ignorance or would you try to think of something else. Idk.

 

[bellaozzydog]

But the whole damn dog is being wagged by this stupid qanon-ish tail. As far as I know. I know daily mail has bought into it but they hate almost everyone, for profit.

Its culture wars, It’s in the Houses of Parliament, all over society!

It’s a difficult one because challenging it gives it oxygen, fans the flames and polarises further, social media has democratised idiocy and it’s got all the fuel (fool) it needs

People are under so much pressure in life, there is a lot of hopelessness, anger, doubt about and society is emotionally ripe for manipulation, the shitbag click bait algorithms and misery media do the rest.

The only option is to push back against it, ridicule it, call it out and factually challenge it

why are such complex creatures so fucking easy to manipulate. We should have evolved passed this shit

 

[not henry]

After 46 pages, and a wealth of opinion,
has anyone actually attended one of these events especially the people who are on this thread with robust opinions

 

[Santino]

I mean, for me the sticking point is, what are these concerns based on? Like, if this discussion was started by someone going "I went to this event and I don't think it was appropriate", then we'd be having a different conversation. Or if it was based on a first-hand report from someone who seems like a reliable source. But if, after a bit of prodding, the source of the concerns turns out to be "I saw an image that was being circulated by far-right bigots aiming to provoke an emotional reaction, and I am now having the reaction that said bigots are hoping for", or indeed "I read an article in the Sun/Mail/Spectator written by a journo who hadn't actually been there, based on the moral panic that had previously been whipped up by Raichik & co", then... I dunno, are we supposed to just pretend that those concerns are well-founded and informed to avoid hurting anyone's feelings?

The nature of social media is that anything can end up in anyone's feed. The Daily Mail are cunts, but if they have evidence of something that's genuinely concerning, then you have to take that seriously, maybe while muttering 'I still hate these cunts and the way they exploit this for their culture war' under your breath.

 

[izz]

I agree with Bella, we should have evolved beyond knee-jerk reactions but I think it's only going to get worse before we all learn to be more questioning in our outlooks and more diligent in pursuing truth rather than just accepting any old bollicks.

 

[bimble]

challenging it gives it oxygen, fans the flames and polarises further,

The only option is to push back against it, ridicule it, call it out and factually challenge it

Are these two different options?

 

[bellaozzydog]

Are these two different options?

No you missed off the “it’s a difficult one”

“It’s a difficult one because challenging it gives it oxygen, fans the flames and polarises further,”

It’s difficult but we need to challenge it

 

[bimble]

No you missed off the “it’s a difficult one”

“It’s a difficult one because challenging it gives it oxygen, fans the flames and polarises further,”

Ok, well that sounds shit.