Republican lawmakers want to make child drag shows illegal.

[Heathen Hammer]

I find it quite disturbing that some people go at great lengths to avoid denouncing things like pedophilia in its various aspects, that include involving children in "drag shows" or pornography.

So you agree there is no child abuse? Because their opinion doesn't trump the 1st Amendment.

1st Amendment doesn't allow child abuse.

Nope only one actually involves abuse. If child pagents were abusive they would be banned correct? Yet they are not. Do try again.

If such pagents sexualise children - yes, they should be banned.

[Basil II the B.S]

One of the most hilarious arguments by liberals is the one about the 1st Amendment. They want it to be limited for whatever they belive to be hate speech (changes every day) but they want at the same time the right to call for murder of political opponents, promote pedophilia or slander people, all things that are actually limited.

[Vanoi]

1st Amendment doesn't allow child abuse.

The First Amendment has nothing to do with it. What child abuse law are they breaking again?

If such pagents sexualise children - yes, they should be banned.

You want to ban the sexualization of children? Thats a lot of things to ban.

And Basil you care about free speech onky when it suits you or your ideology. No hate speech here in America nor do i support it so do please try and find a real point.

Or even better yet reply to mine since you ignored them.

[The spartan]

That's what the article whined about.

...Yeah, and you chose the article to share.

Both.

Ok, I feel like we're making progress here. Sorry if this sounds repetitive but the clarity is quite important; if the LGBT component is somehow significant here, do you think there should be a legal distinction between child beauty pageants and child drag shows? Should lawmakers form a law around the LGBT component of drag, or should it legally be treated the same as any other pageant?

Sexualization of children is bad, period. A movement whose focus is primarily sexual orientation should stay the away from kids.

If you want to talk about the more moral aspects of LGBT, and people's right to raise children, we can, but that is rather secondary to me than the legal aspect. My guess is that you view non-hetero sexuality as a form a deviancy (moral degeneracy) that would "corrupt" kids who are exposed, or something along those lines. Such arguments are rather dull to me; we allow parents to instill very unhealthy views of sexuality in their children all the time without demanding they be banned from doing so. It happens all the time. Should those people (such as religious fundamentalists) "stay the away from kids" in your view?

Where in the thread or ever?

Post 27 as a response to your post (20) which seemed like a non-answer to my post 19. But, if you were always wanting to legally treat straight child beauty pageants as the same as child drag shows, then I rescind my accusation that you wanted otherwise. I just wish you had made that clearer sooner rather than making it seem like this was a specific LGBT problem.

I find it quite disturbing that some people go at great lengths to avoid denouncing things like pedophilia in its various aspects, that include involving children in "drag shows" or pornography.

Wait, what do drag shows or pornography intrinsically have to do with pedophilia? I've experienced both without a hint of pedophilia anywhere.

[Basil II the B.S]

...Yeah, and you chose the article to share.

They made it. Blaming the messenger?

Ok, I feel like we're making progress here. Sorry if this sounds repetitive but the clarity is quite important; if the LGBT component is somehow significant here, do you think there should be a legal distinction between child beauty pageants and child drag shows? Should lawmakers form a law around the LGBT component of drag, or should it legally be treated the same as any other pageant?

I'm fairly sure a legislation that says ''don't sexualize children'' would be sufficient for all cases. Worst case scenario we examine the fallacies when and if they happen.

If you want to talk about the more moral aspects of LGBT, and people's right to raise children, we can, but that is rather secondary to me than the legal aspect. My guess is that you view non-hetero sexuality as a form a deviancy (moral degeneracy) that would "corrupt" kids who are exposed, or something along those lines. Such arguments are rather dull to me; we allow parents to instill very unhealthy views of sexuality in their children all the time without demanding they be banned from doing so. It happens all the time. Should those people (such as religious fundamentalists) "stay the away from kids" in your view?

No, this is what you are paiting as my view. I don't think pre-teens should be willingly exposed to sexuality. I'd question the motives of anyone who argues otherwise. Heterosexual or not.

Post 27 as a response to your post (20) which seemed like a non-answer to my post 19. But, if you were always wanting to legally treat straight child beauty pageants as the same as child drag shows, then I rescind my accusation that you wanted otherwise. I just wish you had made that clearer sooner rather than making it seem like this was a specific LGBT problem.

I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that a sentence saying ''sexualization of kids is bad period'' somehow treats differently beauty pageants from drag shows, but ok. Let's move on.

Wait, what do drag shows or pornography intrinsically have to do with pedophilia?

The part they involve kids, if they do. In this case, they do.

[The spartan]

They made it. Blaming the messenger?

Did they ask you to post the article here? If not, I don't know how you can be seen as a neutral messenger just doing his duty. You wanted people to engage with this article in particular, no? If mongrel started a thread which featured an article discussing the moral abhorrence of Christian Evangelicals and their treatment of children, would you afford him that benefit of the doubt that he is just a neutral party linking an article? Or would you think he is pushing a particular narrative you don't agree with?

I'm fairly sure a legislation that says ''don't sexualize children'' would be sufficient for all cases. Worst case scenario we examine the fallacies when and if they happen.

That's a big part of why such legislation would have difficulty passing the scrutiny of a court: what counts as "sexualizing" children? As your article depicts it, the Ohio representatives are specifically referring to drag performance, but a court is going to want to know how to interpret "Prohibit performance in which a child simulates sexual activity". Should it be broadly interpreted as no possible visual sexualization in a child performance (such as gymnastics, as mentioned in the article), or a much more narrow interpretation in which even drag shows are permissible as long as the child is not simulating explicit sexual acts (which would seem to mean that the event mentioned in the article would be permissible as no reference was made to simulated sexual acts)?

No, this is what you are paiting as my view. I don't think pre-teens should be willingly exposed to sexuality. I'd question the motives of anyone who argues otherwise. Heterosexual or not.

Wait, when I asked you said that the LGBT component was important to your concern along with the general sexualization of children. Are you saying that is not the case? It is just the general sexualization of children you are concerned about?

I'm not sure how you reached the conclusion that a sentence saying ''sexualization of kids is bad period'' somehow treats differently beauty pageants from drag shows, but ok. Let's move on.

Because your OP and thread title specifically refer to drag shows (as they are related to the LGBT community) should be made illegal while making no reference to whether straight child pageants should be legal or not. "Sexualization of kids is bad period" doesn't exactly answer that question either; thinking something is bad is rather distinct from thinking something should be illegal.

The part they involve kids, if they do. In this case, they do.

Child porn literally involves sex acts with children; it is illegal because it is understood that that harms the child, not because pedophiles may enjoy it. This is why animated child porn isn't illegal, despite presumably being for pedophiles. A child drag show does not involve children engaging in sex acts; what specific activity did the child do in the drag show in the OP that warrants legal action? Rather, where did you think the 'abuse' of the child occurred?


Also, since we seem to be throwing around the term "pedophile" around as a buzz word here, we should probably clarify the difference between a pedophile and a child molester as they are not the same thing. Call me a Liberal, but I don't think people should be punished by the state for thought crimes; pedophiles don't bother me as near as much as child molesters, many of whom are not pedophiles.

[Heathen Hammer]

It seems that there is something that prevents liberals from outright denouncing pedophilia (in its aspects such "child" drag shows), which is quite disturbing. One would hope that like NAMBLA would die out, but reading the responses in this thread is outright depressing. It seems like liberals would justify anything (including pedophilic "drag" shows) as long as they'd get to "stick it to them conservatives".

[Vanoi]

Pedophila is the sexual attraction ti children. Not child drag shows. It seems like you simply oppose this because your offended. Typical alt-right.

[Heathen Hammer]

So basically opposing pedophilia in its various aspects (such as child pornography or "drag" shows) is an alt-right thing? Majority of the world is alt-right then. You are not doing anyone favors by defending pedophilia, dude.

[conon394]

It seems that there is something that prevents liberals from outright denouncing pedophilia (in its aspects such "child" drag shows), which is quite disturbing. One would hope that like NAMBLA would die out, but reading the responses in this thread is outright depressing. It seems like liberals would justify anything (including pedophilic "drug" shows) as long as they'd get to "stick it to them conservatives".

Again I don't see how drag = pedophilia. The point is if you dress up and makeup (as adults ) and then put 6 year old girls and up in beauty pageants what is wrong with a drag pageant?

Girl pageant completly asexual at 9



Maybe Epstein can say she looked 16...

[Vanoi]

So basically opposing pedophilia in its various aspects (such as child pornography or "drag" shows) is an alt-right thing? Majority of the world is alt-right then. You are not doing anyone favors by defending pedophilia, dude.

Changing definitions of words to suit your bias? Another classic alt right tactic. Thats a nice strawman too but child drag shows are not pedophila by definition. I can get a dictionary for you if you want.

[Heathen Hammer]

Changing definitions of words to suit your bias? Another classic alt right tactic. Thats a nice strawman too but child drag shows are not pedophila by definition. I can get a dictionary for you if you want.

I don't think the line of argument where you conflate opposition to pedophilia with alt-right would work in your favor. This will not signal any virtue, since majority of population finds pedophilia (which includes sexualization of children) disgusting and repulsive, as they should be. So you are saying pretty much everyone in the world is alt-right?

[conon394]

I don't think the line of argument where you conflate opposition to pedophilia with alt-right would work in your favor. This will not signal any virtue, since majority of population finds pedophilia (which includes sexualization of children) disgusting and repulsive, as they should be. So you are saying pretty much everyone in the world is alt-right?

No the problem is you are conflating a dress up contest with pedophilia. If you can have cos play dress up a 5 year old version of girls doing super miss america like events why is drag suddenly pedophilia. The OP is oddly specific to which potential costume show is immoral that is the argument you are ducking.

[Infidel144]

The OP is oddly specific to which potential costume show is immoral that is the argument you are ducking.

The first post is about what the article says the proposed law is about, but Basil, the original poster, has specified that he is against all sexualization of children.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Perhaps the proposed law should be read.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

What seems to be the relevant changes to the law:
[what I have placer in brackets {} indicates struck out, what is underlined indicates add to the law]
[edit: the idiotic censorship, replaces the word for 'self pleasure' with 'smilies' or 'wub']
(c) "Sexually oriented matter" means any {material} of the
following:
(i) Material or performance that shows a minor
participating or engaging in sexual activity, :wub:, or
bestiality;
(ii) Performance that suggests a minor is participating or
engaging in sexual activity, :wub:, or bestiality and
that, taken as a whole by the average person applying
contemporary community standards, appeals to prurient interest;
(iii) Performance that shows a minor simulating sexual
activity, :wub:, or bestiality and that, taken as a whole
by the average person applying contemporary community standards,
appeals to prurient interest.

and:
Sec. 2945.63. (A) As used in this section:
(1) "Child pornography" means any obscene material
involving a juvenile, any sexually oriented matter involving a
juvenile, or any material that is harmful to juveniles.
(2) "Juvenile," "harmful to juveniles," "material,"
"sexual activity," and "performance" have the same meanings as
in section 2907.01 of the Revised Code.
(3) "Sexually oriented matter" {has the same meaning as in
section 2919.22 of the Revised Code} means any material or
performance that shows a minor participating or engaging in
sexual activity, :wub:, or bestiality.

[The spartan]

It seems that there is something that prevents liberals from outright denouncing pedophilia.

Why denounce a mental disorder? We tend to treat people with disorders, not excise them from society. You are rambling on while begging the question that pedophiles=child molesters. Last time I checked, pedophilic relationships are not widely accepted in the US; though marriages of minors still occur mainly in the South and Mid West (not liberal urban centers):

Child marriage is generally more common in the Southern United States.

According to Pew Research Center, the highest incidence of child marriages is in West Virginia, Texas, Nevada, Oklahoma, Arkansas, California, Tennessee, and North Carolina.

According to Frontline and Unchained At Last, the states with the highest rates (not incidence) of child marriage in 2010 were: Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia and Missouri. Meanwhile the states with the lowest rates were Delaware, New Jersey, Montana, Indiana, North Dakota, Ohio, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. However, data was not available for 10 states including California, North Carolina, Georgia and Oklahoma.

The Koski/Heymann study found prevalence of child marriage varied from more than 10 per 1,000 in West Virginia, Hawaii and North Dakota to less than four per 1,000 in Maine, Rhode Island and Wyoming.

Where did you come down on the whole Roy Moore fiasco? He admitted to dating much younger women (as young as 16) and had accusations against him of actual abuse and molestation from girls who were even younger at the time. Didn't you defend him at the time?

[athanaric]

It's actually amazing how liberals are desperately trying to turn this about child pageants. Can you guys for once stick to the topic? Ever?

Why not ban both, though? Seems like an awful, disgusting tradition in general, and the drag stuff is just the icing on top, so to speak. What kind of people come up with the idea of a child pageant (in drag or not), anyway? IMO they should be put on a watch list.

[Basil II the B.S]

I'm fully in favour of that.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Why denounce a mental disorder? We tend to treat people with disorders, not excise them from society. You are rambling on while begging the question that pedophiles=child molesters. Last time I checked, pedophilic relationships are not widely accepted in the US; though marriages of minors still occur mainly in the South and Mid West (not liberal urban centers):


Where did you come down on the whole Roy Moore fiasco? He admitted to dating much younger women (as young as 16) and had accusations against him of actual abuse and molestation from girls who were even younger at the time. Didn't you defend him at the time?

This. ^^

And thats why does fake outrage by those "moralistic conservatives" is soo hypocritical.

Those child pageant shows are way more meat market than child drag shows, where singing, dressing up and perfoming is way more in the foreground.

[The spartan]

The disillusionment with child beauty pageants is big part of Little Miss Sunshine (great movie). Which culminates in the daughter doing a ridiculous performative piece to the song "Super Freak" which brings out the hypocrisy of the more serious child pageant people who view it as obscene.

[Heathen Hammer]

No the problem is you are conflating a dress up contest with pedophilia. If you can have cos play dress up a 5 year old version of girls doing super miss america like events why is drag suddenly pedophilia. The OP is oddly specific to which potential costume show is immoral that is the argument you are ducking.

Sexualization of children can and should be related to pedophilia. You keep asserting that people who oppose child abuse in "children's" drag shows all of a sudden approve of some other thing that is similar, in this case pagents, which nobody said that they did. I'm okay with book being thrown at any event that condones child abuse. Yet for the left, it is very difficult to just denounce pedophilia.