Source: The American Spectator.
A few random thoughts…
This stuff needs to stop, but I don’t think it will.
Decadent culture poses a confusing chicken-and-egg style question: Which came first, the decadence or the decadence?
It is precisely because the phenomenon of drag boys eludes our understanding that it can be hard to talk about.
What virtues does the drag boy experience encourage or produce? Are they virtues we want more of?
It doesn’t make sense to claim that culture war is an over hyped political issue when media, books and public events feature drag content for children.
Because procreative sex is a biological, evolutionary necessity, there must be many associated, supporting necessities. Can we encourage the former by denying (or sublimating) the latter? Indeed, do the latter require amplification?
It is said that transgenderism may be related to autism. Is it likely that hazing rituals are an anthropological (even curative) response to autism?
Anthropologically, again, American Bacha Bazi may indicate that coming of age is no longer the significant or socially recognized event in the lives of our children it once was. I would describe that as love lost.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
What is wrong with you people?
Why do you search the internet to drag up this kind of stuff?
Sick and not in a good way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What is wrong with you, Mr. Murphy?
Complaining about other people seems to be your only form of intellectual expression.
LikeLike
What a dodge! You cannot answer the question – why do the supposedly “normal” grown men of the MAGA movement prowl the internet to find stories of this sort and then spread them?
“Complaining about other people”
Boo hoo.
You post intellectual garbage for discussion and expect what? An attaboy?
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “You cannot answer the question – why do the supposedly ‘normal’ grown men of the MAGA movement prowl the internet to find stories of this sort and then spread them?”
I wouldn’t presume to try.
RE: “You post intellectual garbage for discussion and expect what?”
What do you expect when you post irrelevant complaints?
LikeLike
Well, Pond Scum, are you expecting a medal for the incessant TDS and anti GOP posts you scour the internet for or the lame “loyalty” accusations you level against other forum members? Your loyalty to outright perversion is duly noted.
LikeLike
When faced with a disturbing phenomenon, it makes perfect sense to look to other, older cultures for antecedents that might explain it.
I don’t know if this is an explanation, I think this is different as our culture does not regularly indulge engage in child sex slavery of either heterosexual or homosexual basis. Our cultures are so different it is hard to make comparisons. Muslims will execute adult homosexuals and wink at pederasty. If this is related in some way, we need to get a lot more careful.
LikeLike
“Bobrsmith
Paul Murphy
15h ago
Well, Pond Scum”
Once again, Mr. Smith resorts to childish name calling and you IGNORE it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Boy play” is real. Just ask any number of priests, bishops, cardinals and popes.
No bouncy houses needed.
PS: Similar issues with the SBC, so this is an equal religious opportunity issue, IMO.
I suspect drag shows are innocuous. After all, coercion via power is absent. Such coercion is very much a part of the practices of abusing children for sex.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “I suspect drag shows are innocuous.”
I have wondered about that. A lot depends on how one approaches the question. For example:
Are drag shows innocuous so long as they are rare or do they become harmful as they increase in frequency?
Are drag shows innocuous for all children, or just some fraction of all children? Does it matter?
Is a world with drag shows for children better or worse than a world without drag shows for children? Or, is it possible for a world without drag shows for children to be healthy for them?
How appropriate is it to be insouciant about a topic that obviously concerns many people?
What is it, exactly, that really concerns adults who object to drag shows for children? Is the objection instinctual and therefore justifiable?
I conclude that drag shows for children cannot be innocuous, if only because they represent an opportunity cost. That is, there are better ways for children to spend their time.
LikeLike
“That is, there are better ways for children to spend their time.”
That standard applies to almost anything a child might do. Some parents take their kids fishing. By your standard, that “cannot be innocuous” so why should a parent taking a kid fishing be legal? Let’s ban it like some states have banned parents from letting their children see a drag queen reading a book.
In case you missed it, you logic has been subjected to a reductio ad absurdum.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You mean a fallacious reductio ad absurdum, since my commentary didn’t address legal questions. In other words, the absurdity derives from a premise you added.
LikeLike
LOL!
You cannot even follow the arguments you make yourself.
Your argument is :
1. An activity is not innocuous if a better use of a child’s time is foregone.
2. There are better uses of a child’s time than watching a drag show.
Therefore a child watching a drag show is not innocuous.
That is an absurd argument that follows from your absurd premise 1.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, Mr. Philosophy Major, it appears that Dartmouth didn’t teach you how to construct a formal syllogism. Here, your conclusion merely restates premise 1. Your error, which any 101 freshman would recognize, is that there is no syllogism to be made from my simple assertion:
“I conclude that drag shows for children cannot be innocuous, if only because they represent an opportunity cost.”
Were you sufficiently trained to understand my comment, you would have noticed that my conclusion was not Q.E.D., and needn’t have been.
LikeLike
I stated YOUR absurd logic fairly and accurately. I put it in the form of a syllogism that even you would be able to follow. I obviously over-estimated your ability. You are even dumber than I thought and that is pretty damn dumb.
And, BTW, the conclusion does NOT simply repeat Premise 1. Can’t you even read?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like I said, “Your error, which any 101 freshman would recognize, is that there is no syllogism to be made from my simple assertion.”
Yet again you provide evidence that you are not smart enough to see how stupid you are.
LikeLike
“… if only because they represent an opportunity cost.”
What is the opportunity that is missing?
Play, stories and make believe are all parts of childhood. What do you think should replace that because of greater value?
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “What is the opportunity that is missing?…What do you think should replace that because of greater value?”
It could be anything. Why is that important?
LikeLike
You brought it up. If a drag story time is not innocuous because of opportunity cost, then why is that so?
If anything can replace it, would playing Angry Birds be more useful, for example?
I posted that drag story time is innocuous. You disagreed without showing why.
If you don’t t know, I understand. But then my statement stands.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “If a drag story time is not innocuous because of opportunity cost, then why is that so?”
Because cost is harm. Period. Your demand for a measurement of the cost is superfluous, since you already accept the cost is real.
To illustrate: If not playing Angry Birds is the opportunity cost of attending a drag show, then I’m happy to note that Angry Birds and a drag show are of equal value. That being true, I’d be inclined to recommend Angry Birds over the drag show because the game — while trivial — doesn’t involve sexuality that is inappropriate for minors. Further, since both are trivial, I’d say there is no superiority of the drag show over Angry Birds.
LikeLike
This is really too serious to reduce to silly philosophical bickering.
Children are too impressionable to expose them to sexuality disguised as simple fun.
I’m not a philosopher. Anyone, Muslim, Priest, teacher, or drag queen who attempts to sexualize prepubescent children goes into the wood chipper.
I’m sure some philosophers will object. I don’t care.
LikeLike
“I’m sure some philosophers will object. I don’t care.”
Philosophers? You mean people with an ounce of basic decency?
“Children are too impressionable to expose them to sexuality disguised as simple fun.”
The obvious problem – and you, Smith and Roberts make it obvious – is the psychosexual hang-ups you people bring to the discussion. You are constantly seeking this sort of material on the internet. If you have some prurient interest in a drag queen reading a story book, it is not shared by children. There is no “sexuality” involved. It really is just entertainment and simple fun. But you want to deploy woodchippers?
And since you again invoke your barbarous solution, who is eligible? The jazz dance coach teaching 6 year olds in adult make up how to wriggle provocatively? There is infinitely more “sexualizing” of children in such “family friendly” studios than any drag queen reading story books.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Both my granddaughters are in dance, with a 10 year age difference. The competition organizations are getting more and more strict at stopping that kind of thing. They appear to be policing themselves though they bear watching.
LikeLike
“. . . they bear watching.”
Better get your woodchippers spinning because these kinds of hyper-sexualized pre-pubescent dances and “beauty” pageants are not going away.
Your double standard could not be more clear. The issue is not “sexualizing” children. That you tolerate in multiple “normal” forms. What we see clearly is unadorned homophobic bigotry complete with death threats.
And this bigotry is clearly “trumping” Libertarian principles of keeping the government out of our personal decisions. If a parent wants to take their child to hear a drag performer read a book, what business is it of yours or of DeSantis to say they cannot do that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You gonna put Mother Ginger in your woodchipper? The audience for New York City Ballet’s Nutcracker is full of young children being – according to you – sexualized.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ms Doubtfire and drag strippers are not the same thing.
LikeLike
“Ms Doubtfire and drag strippers are not the same thing.”
Pathetic. A drag entertainer reading kids a book is not doing a strip tease. You seem to think the law should enforce YOUR hang-ups? I disagree. Whatever happened to parental rights? Not allowed to make entertainment decisions for THEIR kids that you find icky?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the real question is WHY drag performers are so desperate to perform before children.
LikeLike
“I think the real question is WHY drag performers are so desperate to perform before children.”
Who says they are “desperate?” Oh, I know. Libs of TikTok.
I think their motives are pretty clear. Performers like to perform and people do not like being outcasts from the community they live in. So, performing a community service such as an entertainment for kids serves both motives.
If you think they are somehow “grooming” and “sexualizing” kids by performing a fairy tale while in the persona of a fairy queen then it is you who needs help.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lot’s of people take their kids to see World Wide Wrestling Entertainment. You gonna put the tag team known as “The Dicks” in your wood chipper?
https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/AA19EpGC.img?w=534&h=301&m=6&x=126&y=42&s=424&d=122
How about these other wrestling stars performing in women’s clothes . . .?
https://whatculture.com/wwe/10-wwe-superstars-that-were-forced-into-drag
Oh, I get it. Wrestling is family entertainment beloved by MAGATS, so probably not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Are their names “Richard”?
LikeLike
No. And they had preferred to be named “Dix”, but was overruled by management.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Children are too impressionable to expose them to sexuality disguised as simple fun.”
So once again, you want to take choice away form parents? I thought that was exactly what Libertarians espoused: CHOICE. Unless it is a choice YOU disagree with or goes against YOUR personal ethics or morals.
LikeLike
If parents are explicitly informed in advance, that is their choice, up to the point of abuse.
But they are not, classrooms are flying trans flags and the kids get access to books of questionable suitability for their age without the parents getting to weigh in.
Puberty blockers in children are abuse, period.
We don’t let parents sedate their kids with ketamine for their convenience, we shouldn’t let them sexually destroy their 10 year olds either.
LikeLike
“If parents are explicitly informed in advance, that is their choice, up to the point of abuse.”
We are talking about BOOKS being read to children by drag performers. The parents KNOW what they are taking their children to see. YOU, and your morals, are attempting to dictate what PARENTS can do with and for their children. If a drag performer reading a story to a group of children helps instill a love for reading, what is the harm?
“But they are not, classrooms are flying trans flags”…
My daughter displays the Gay Pride Flag in her classroom as a show of support and inclusion for ALL.
“We don’t let parents sedate their kids with ketamine for their convenience”…
But Adderall is JUST fine.
LikeLike
How old are your daughter’s students?
At what age is it appropriate to explain to kids what “gay” means?
And why is it so important to drag queens to perform for children?
LikeLike