Taking kids to drag queen shows, vs. taking kids to R rated movies

[Seymour Flops]

Yes, this topic was brought up in a thread, or maybe two threads, in the clean debate zone. It did not stay clean enough, so it was shut down. I hope this one can keep it together, because I think that it is an interesting topic.

So, first of all, why mention the two in the same breath? What is the similarity, if any?

I suppose it is that some parents would take their kids to a drag queen show, and some parents would take their kids to an R-rated movie, and some other parents and non-parents would be horrified at both, some horrified at one but not the other, and some horrified by neither.

So . . . the differences:

For one thing, I would say that the most common reason for taking a child to an R-rated movie is that the parent(s) wants to see the movie. I well remember my parents taking me to see "The Godfather," which came out in 1972, but we went to the drive in so it would have been more like 1973. So, I was eleven. I remember clearly my mother covering my eyes just before the horse head was revealed. I also remember that I was in line by myself waiting to buy a snack when the toll booth machine gunning scene played so I saw that with no motherly interference. Needless to say, I got little from the plot, and I doubt that my parents did either.

Anyway, I saw several R-rated movies because my parents wanted to see them. Not saying that they were horrible parents; they made sure we had a roof over our heads. But they had little money for entertainment, so they were not about to let kids interfere with their once a month movie night.

One difference that I see is that I don't believe that parents take their children to drag shows because the parent has a burning desire to go to one and can't afford or trust a baby sitter. I have to think that there is some other motive, which has something to do with virtue signaling.

Which is more harmful? Of course, it depends. "Midnight Cowboy" was an originally X-rated, R-rated movie and other than being depressing, I would have no objection to a kid watching it. On the other hand so was "Clockwork Orange," and I would think that sixteen is the minimum age to see that.

Is a drag show harmful? Again, it depends on your attitude toward drag and, more broadly, sexual deviance. If you think that all kinds of sexual expression is fine, then you only have to ask yourself how early is too early to expose children to adult sexuality of any kind, including "normal" heterosexual relations.

Clearly, as a poster said on another thread, the key is that parents make these decisions. I would be no less outraged if a school took my ten year old to see "Showgirls" as if they took him to see a drag show. If my kid were seventeen, I would still question the wisdom of taking them to either one. What is the educational value?

What say you (and please keep it as clean as possible)?

 

[Disir]

I would never take my kid to a drag show. Period. There is a time and a place for everything. I didn't take my kid to see R movies until he was about 12. Children don't have any business attending a drag show.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Nah, my kids watch R rated.

I'll put it like this, My kids love watching "Spine of Night." It's less an animated film and more of a spiritual experience. It's extremely violent and holds nothing back in terms of animated nudity, though there is no sex scenes.

I highly recommend watching the film, but if you don't want your kids to see animated hairy men's and women's genitals and extreme violence, then watch it alone.

Ideally, you'll smoke a joint before watching the film, as it is designed for the chemically enhanced.

Sounds disgusting. Where can it be viewed, just so I know to avoid it?

 

[Seymour Flops]

OK, what the actual Hell?

I called up IMDB, about ten seconds after I read Furries' post about Spine of Night, and sure enough, it was being advertised to me as IMDB opened up.

I guess I need to get some kind of privacy software.

EDIT: according to IMDB: Female lead is nude throughout the entire film. So, it is like Showgirls.

 

[whitehall]

It's your freaking decision. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks about a parental decision to expose kids to porn on their own time. The point is that parents expect the education system to leave it to them to determine whether or not to expose their kids to sexually explicit displays.

 

[Seymour Flops]

She's voiced by Lucy Lawless.

Then I'm sorry she's animated, then. Lucy should be just about ripe.

 

[otto105]

It's your freaking decision. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks about a parental decision to expose kids to porn on their own time. The point is that parents expect the education system to leave it to them to determine whether or not to expose their kids to sexually explicit displays.

What sexually explicit displays do schools teach?

 

[whitehall]

What sexually explicit displays do schools teach?

You want me to list them? Don't we agree that any potential sexually explicit display should be authorized by parents just like a movie?

 

[otto105]

You want me to list them? Don't we agree that any potential sexually explicit display should be authorized by parents just like a movie?

Yeah, I want you to post the evidence.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

It's your freaking decision. It doesn't matter what anybody else thinks about a parental decision to expose kids to porn on their own time. The point is that parents expect the education system to leave it to them to determine whether or not to expose their kids to sexually explicit displays.

I second this. The problem is that there are kids out there who don't have parents or a guardian in their lives to make such a call. My big question is why is stuff like this so important in the first place? What makes the powers that be think that stuff like this is going to be a huge enough issue on the minds of kids who don't have parents?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

 

[whitehall]

Yeah, I want you to post the evidence.

Drag queens are a sexually explicit segment of society. You can't bring a Bible into a elementary school but a drag queen can instill kids with the notion that it's OK to trust a hairy man in a dress holding a lollypop. You can put your boy in a dress if you are freaky enough to but parents have the right to control the education system.

 

[otto105]

You want me to post the evidence?

Did you read my post?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Yes, this topic was brought up in a thread, or maybe two threads, in the clean debate zone. It did not stay clean enough, so it was shut down. I hope this one can keep it together, because I think that it is an interesting topic.

So, first of all, why mention the two in the same breath? What is the similarity, if any?

I suppose it is that some parents would take their kids to a drag queen show, and some parents would take their kids to an R-rated movie, and some other parents and non-parents would be horrified at both, some horrified at one but not the other, and some horrified by neither.

So . . . the differences:

For one thing, I would say that the most common reason for taking a child to an R-rated movie is that the parent(s) wants to see the movie. I well remember my parents taking me to see "The Godfather," which came out in 1972, but we went to the drive in so it would have been more like 1973. So, I was eleven. I remember clearly my mother covering my eyes just before the horse head was revealed. I also remember that I was in line by myself waiting to buy a snack when the toll booth machine gunning scene played so I saw that with no motherly interference. Needless to say, I got little from the plot, and I doubt that my parents did either.

Anyway, I saw several R-rated movies because my parents wanted to see them. Not saying that they were horrible parents; they made sure we had a roof over our heads. But they had little money for entertainment, so they were not about to let kids interfere with their once a month movie night.

One difference that I see is that I don't believe that parents take their children to drag shows because the parent has a burning desire to go to one and can't afford or trust a baby sitter. I have to think that there is some other motive, which has something to do with virtue signaling.

Which is more harmful? Of course, it depends. "Midnight Cowboy" was an originally X-rated, R-rated movie and other than being depressing, I would have no objection to a kid watching it. On the other hand so was "Clockwork Orange," and I would think that sixteen is the minimum age to see that.

Is a drag show harmful? Again, it depends on your attitude toward drag and, more broadly, sexual deviance. If you think that all kinds of sexual expression is fine, then you only have to ask yourself how early is too early to expose children to adult sexuality of any kind, including "normal" heterosexual relations.

Clearly, as a poster said on another thread, the key is that parents make these decisions. I would be no less outraged if a school took my ten year old to see "Showgirls" as if they took him to see a drag show. If my kid were seventeen, I would still question the wisdom of taking them to either one. What is the educational value?

What say you (and please keep it as clean as possible)?

I certainly never took my children to R rated movies.
I would have to think about the first one... I think the first one with my son was a VHS of Office Space. He was in high school I know that. My daughter, again not sure. Whatever it was she would have been high school age.

The woke madness of parents so hell bent on virtue signaling, that they put their children in sex charged situations just so they look all "open and enlightened". People use to wear $1 rubber bracelets to virtue signal. Somehow that devolved to taking your fucking children to see a man dressed as a cheap hooker all dolled up as a parody of a woman. Like in some world that is a good idea. It is called "mind fucking".
Children get confused about obvious things.
Example: Not a story, this happened... a young boy was very upset that his young father, who was in the military, had to go away for 6 months. He would cry everytime his dad called. They would console him "he is okay" and the boy would get mad at his mother when she tried. It turned out, because everytime the father facetimed them it was at night in his bunk. The boy thought his mother was lying to him about where he was. He thought his mother had him put in a dungeon with Alligators. Absolute true story. He was 4 years old.
I can only imagine what confusion is going on in a young childs mind seeing this bizarre scene of an obvious man dressed like this exposing himself.
What's that? Exposing himself?
In that other thread I provided two photos of grown men doing exactly that. And I can show many more. The internet is awesome that way.
Human sexuality is complicated, we adults don't even understand it all. How the hell do we expect a 3-5 year old to???
It is woke madness and it needs to stop.

 

[Disir]

The woke madness of parents so hell bent on virtue signaling, that they put their children in sex charged situations just so they look all "open and enlightened". People use to wear $1 rubber bracelets to virtue signal. Somehow that devolved to taking your fucking children to see a man dressed as a cheap hooker all dolled up as a parody of a woman. Like in some world that is a good idea.

^^^^That was the most well written paragraph and it expresses what many of us are thinking.

 

[Borillar]

Sounds disgusting. Where can it be viewed, just so I know to avoid it?

It was so disgusting, I avoided it twice.

 

[Concerned American]

Yes, this topic was brought up in a thread, or maybe two threads, in the clean debate zone. It did not stay clean enough, so it was shut down. I hope this one can keep it together, because I think that it is an interesting topic.

So, first of all, why mention the two in the same breath? What is the similarity, if any?

I suppose it is that some parents would take their kids to a drag queen show, and some parents would take their kids to an R-rated movie, and some other parents and non-parents would be horrified at both, some horrified at one but not the other, and some horrified by neither.

So . . . the differences:

For one thing, I would say that the most common reason for taking a child to an R-rated movie is that the parent(s) wants to see the movie. I well remember my parents taking me to see "The Godfather," which came out in 1972, but we went to the drive in so it would have been more like 1973. So, I was eleven. I remember clearly my mother covering my eyes just before the horse head was revealed. I also remember that I was in line by myself waiting to buy a snack when the toll booth machine gunning scene played so I saw that with no motherly interference. Needless to say, I got little from the plot, and I doubt that my parents did either.

Anyway, I saw several R-rated movies because my parents wanted to see them. Not saying that they were horrible parents; they made sure we had a roof over our heads. But they had little money for entertainment, so they were not about to let kids interfere with their once a month movie night.

One difference that I see is that I don't believe that parents take their children to drag shows because the parent has a burning desire to go to one and can't afford or trust a baby sitter. I have to think that there is some other motive, which has something to do with virtue signaling.

Which is more harmful? Of course, it depends. "Midnight Cowboy" was an originally X-rated, R-rated movie and other than being depressing, I would have no objection to a kid watching it. On the other hand so was "Clockwork Orange," and I would think that sixteen is the minimum age to see that.

Is a drag show harmful? Again, it depends on your attitude toward drag and, more broadly, sexual deviance. If you think that all kinds of sexual expression is fine, then you only have to ask yourself how early is too early to expose children to adult sexuality of any kind, including "normal" heterosexual relations.

Clearly, as a poster said on another thread, the key is that parents make these decisions. I would be no less outraged if a school took my ten year old to see "Showgirls" as if they took him to see a drag show. If my kid were seventeen, I would still question the wisdom of taking them to either one. What is the educational value?

What say you (and please keep it as clean as possible)?

I was turned away at the ticket booth to see Steve McQueen in Hud in 1963 and I was 12 yr. old. Morality has slowly disintegrated in this country. Re: your OP I equate Drag Queens with X rated films and I wouldn't allow anyone under the age of 17 to see either.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You can put your boy in a dress if you are freaky enough to but parents have the right to control the education system.

So...................would you consider parents in the late 1800's to early 1900's t be "freaky"? During that time, boys generally wore dresses until they were considered old enough to wear pants. The term for a young boy getting to wear trousers was called "breeching".

Breeching (boys) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Breeching was the occasion when a small boy was first dressed in breeches or trousers. From the mid-16th century[1] until the late 19th or early 20th century, young boys in the Western world were unbreeched and wore gowns or dresses until an age that varied between two and eight.[2] Various forms of relatively subtle differences usually enabled others to tell little boys from little girls, in codes that modern art historians are able to understand but may be difficult to discern for the layperson.

Breeching was an important rite of passage in the life of a boy, looked forward to with much excitement, and often celebrated with a small party. It often marked the point at which the father became more involved with the raising of a boy.[3]

 

[Seymour Flops]

So...................would you consider parents in the late 1800's to early 1900's t be "freaky"? During that time, boys generally wore dresses until they were considered old enough to wear pants. The term for a young boy getting to wear trousers was called "breeching".

Breeching (boys) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Breeching was the occasion when a small boy was first dressed in breeches or trousers. From the mid-16th century[1] until the late 19th or early 20th century, young boys in the Western world were unbreeched and wore gowns or dresses until an age that varied between two and eight.[2] Various forms of relatively subtle differences usually enabled others to tell little boys from little girls, in codes that modern art historians are able to understand but may be difficult to discern for the layperson.

Breeching was an important rite of passage in the life of a boy, looked forward to with much excitement, and often celebrated with a small party. It often marked the point at which the father became more involved with the raising of a boy.[3]

Yes and our primitive ancesters put no clothes at All on their kids.

Only freak parents would send their kids to school like that now.

I probably shouldn't give Democrats any more ideas though.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Some parents took their under six years olds to see "the Mist." Halfway through the kids were screaming and crying.

I'd proffer violence is a good deal worse. How about No to both?
Exorcist, Silence of the Lambs, Inglorious Basterds, Saw, Schindler's List, Lolita, Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman...terrifying.

Birdcage was hilarious however.

 

[ABikerSailor]

A really good, EXTREMELY violent movie was Rob Zombie's "The Devil's Rejects". DEFINITELY an R rated movie, especially with all the detailed violence and gore.

But...................also a pretty decent movie. My favorite character in that was the sheriff who was chasing down the psycho mass murdering gang.

Sherri Moon Zombie was hot in that movie as well.