Xorkoth
Bluelight Crew
What about this? It’s basically human art. So much to learn, why deprive the children? You some sort of chud
![]()
![]()
"but i don't see what the problem is?"
"krink thinks he knows better but he doesn't!"
yea yea
Ugh, those are both 100% wildly inappropriate and troubling/upsetting. I doubt anyone in this thread is okay with that, although I realize there are some ultra-woke liberals who are.
Nudity is not innately sexual. Going to a nude beach will teach anybody that.
Sexualized performances are sexual.
So is exposing children to the genitalia of in-person performers.
So is doing performances that are traditionally meant for adults only, even if they are so-called "modified".
I think the left focusing so much on getting access to children is really bad optics. Even if the intentions are benign, it signals suspicion.
This is how I feel. I spent some time in France when I was 17, and they have a lot of nude beaches. So of course, being a horny 17 year old boy from the land where nudity is considered automatically sexual/dirty, I was having a field day with all the boobs. But for the French/European people there, it was just the beach. There were plenty of kids, and nobody was making it sexual. We all have dicks or boobs and vaginas. When I was really young, my dad was trying to get me used to taking showers, and so I'd shower with him, to make sure I didn't hurt myself. I have one distinct memory of seeing his dick. I remember being like whoa, it's so much bigger than mine! And why was there hair around it? I asked him about it, and he said that when you get older that's what happens. No part of me has ever felt like there was anything remotely sexual, or inappropriate, about that. But a sexualized performance or flashing a kid your genitals is an entirely different thing.
I think the question that we're all arguing over in this thread is what constitutes "sexual". Is a man dressed up as a woman, reading a story to kids, who isn't gyrating or flashing the kids or having kids stuff dollar bills in their underwear, putting on a sexual performance? I would say, resoundingly, no.
However, I've been thinking about this a lot, and I am starting to think that, whether it's sexual or not for a drag queen to read books to children (and I don't think it is), the whole thing doesn't make sense and is causing harm to the progress we're trying to make towards trans rights and trans people being seen as just regular people worthy of the same level of respect as anyone else. And this is because like mal was trying to say a few pages back, drag queens are not trans people. Whether or not I believe there SHOULD be outrage over drag queen storytime (to be clear, ones where nothing unwholesome is happening, not ones like the two photos I quoted), the act is, that there IS outrage over it, a lot of it. If the point is to get kids to realize that trans people are perfectly nice and acceptable people, too, why aren't they doing "trans person storytime"? That would accomplish the goal in a clear way, it seems like the left who is putting these on is also confusing cross dressing with transgender. I'm quite sure there would still be people up in arms about normal trans people reading to kids too, same as they would have felt any exposure to gay people would corrupt children several decades ago.
But would you guys in this thread find that problematic? If a normal person who is transgender, and just trying to be themselves and fit in, a person who happened to be trans reading books to children? This person isn't an adult entertainer, they're not a straight or gay person dressed up in costume, they're someone born a women, or a man, and attempting to live a normal life and blend in as the opposite gender.