What is the sudden attraction to children?

[Always in His Presence]

If so, what's wrong with that? Drag queens are just as much a part of society as anyone else, why shouldn't they be accepted as such?

-- A2SG, after all, isn't this is just one of those personal liberties republicans are always claiming to be fighting for?

DING DING DING - and we have the answer -

While we are talking about acceptance - how about having heterosexual Christians participating in school and library Bible reading time? Can they be accepted also?

 

[Always in His Presence]

8 years ago, Drag Queen Story Hour got started when a San Francisco mom went to a children's book reading with her son, and felt the queer community was not being represented in the stories being offered. So she had an idea: "an event that was more inclusive and affirming to LGBTQ families"

DQSH was a success and has spread to other cities, and the audience has grown from its start in the queer community to a broader audience.

Thank you for the informative response and history behind it. I was unfamiliar with it. Much appreciated.

DQSH ( Drag Queen Story Hour) , has been in existence since 2015. They do not impose their story reading on anyone as a matter of fact , it must be requested by parents and or administrators. Take your fight to them. That being said, these are the reasons they exist.
Per DQSH...
Here are some of the benefits of drag queen story hour:

• It can help children to learn about diversity and acceptance.
• It can help children to develop a positive self-image.
• It can help children to develop their creativity and imagination.
• It can help children to learn about different cultures.
• It can help children to develop their literacy skills.

And it is their right to express what they believe.

It is also my right to offer a dissenting opinion without fear of being called any of the most common dog whistles current being used by others - Homophobe - transphobe etc.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'll repeat my challenge here, since I got no takers in the other thread, and this thread is far more appropriate anyway.

What book have they read at a Drag Queen Story Hour event for children that I would/should object to? And Tango Makes Three might be banned in at least one Florida county, but I have no problem with it.

That's largely going to depend on what each person's comfort level is.

But one that sticks out in my mind would be the "Dragtivity Book"

Book List | Drag Queen Story Hour NYC

www.dshnyc.org

By the book's own definition and stated purpose it's encourages boys to "explore your feminine side" activities like "Think up your own drag name", "which clothes would you pick if you were doing drag?", and other activities/games like "circle your pronouns"...and proports to "introduce kids to gender fluidity in a way that is easy for them"

Many of the other books are innocent enough.
Granted, you're still going to have some staunch conservatives who bristle at the premise of promoting inclusion.

But for most people, I think line of contention/concern is when it crosses the line of "promoting inclusion and tolerance" to "encouraging others to participate"


A potential analogy I would use would be the contrasts between simply promoting anti-bullying and being nice to overweight people, vs. the "fat acceptance/healthy at any size" stuff if it were being done in the context of a youth-targeted environment.

Most people wouldn't object to "Here's a book talking about how some people are different sizes, and why you shouldn't make fun of them, and why you can still be friends with them"

The reaction would be quite different to a book with things like "Did you know that being 300lbs is just as good as being 150lbs?" and "Since being 300lbs is good, which plus-size model would you want to look like?" and "Check off your favorite 5 toppings you want on your large pizza and circle which kind of cake you would have for dessert, then write a poem about why big is beautiful"

 

[peaceful-forest]

Out of curiosity...how many drag queens have you spoken to when coming to this conclusion?

Why do drag queens want to host a show with children as the audience? Why has it been reported that they do obscene sexual things in front of the children at these drag queen shows?

 

[USincognito]

But in the last 18 months they have been attracted to children (I am NOT speaking sexually) (repeat, I AM NOT SPEAKING SEXUALLLY) (REPEAT, I AM NOT SPEAKING SEXUALLY).

And yet you chose to use the phrase"attracted to".

To those not targeted by the red hat angertainment complex, it seems like some think tank or some influencers (Matt Walsh and Charlie Kirk being two of the higher profile ones) decided that myopically focusing on and attacking LGBT by stirring up hysteria about drag queens was a winning culture war
gambit that would help fund raise.

 

[Always in His Presence]

And yet you chose to use the phrase"attracted to".

To those not targeted by the red hat angertainment complex, it seems like some think tank or some influencers (Matt Walsh and Charlie Kirk being two of the higher profile ones) decided that myopically focusing on and attacking LGBT by stirring up hysteria about drag queens was a winning culture war
gambit that would help fund raise.

You have such an interesting vernacular - "red hat angertainment complex". How novel a phrase.

the phrase "attracted to" is an accurate term. They are not there for the books, or the little chairs - they are there for the children and if no children came, they would probably go someplace else. That is why I EXPRESSLY said it was not a sexual issue.

You will also note there was nothing attacking (a modern gas light) anyone - just opening a dialog as to reasons why. That would be looking to expand vision - not become myopic.

For a free exchange of ideas and thoughts sometimes questions have to be asked - even if they are uncomfortable. We cannot just automatically assume because a hard question is asked, it equates to either an attack or a fund raiser for those terrible boogeymen in the red hats - or for that matter the terrible boogeymen in the Blue ones.

You will notice in post #82 I thanked the poster for the informative response. I was looking for an intellectual exchange and he/she provided one. The moment we dramatize the subject and start with the race, or homophobe, or anti - whatever card, we curtail intellectual discourse and then is just becomes an accusation fest.

If you had read the rest of my OP (you only posted half of it), you would have read my purpose in asking.

My curiosity asks why? I'm not asking if it is right or wrong - I am asking what is their motivation to read books to children?

It's just so antithetical to their purposes and audiences of the past. Their mission has always been entertaining and titillating mostly a male dominated adult audience.

What is their purpose?

 

[USincognito]

You have such an interesting vernacular - "red hat angertainment complex". How novel a phrase.

If you're offended by it, please feel free to ignore it rather comment on my verbiage rather than the substance of my post.

the phrase "attracted to" is an accurate term. They are not there for the books, or the little chairs - they are there for the children and if no children came, they would probably go someplace else. That is why I EXPRESSLY said it was not a sexual issue.

The problem is with all the grooming, pedo, etc. accusations feely bandied about by the right in this context, "attraction" inherently suggests sexual attraction. A noun like interest would be more suggestively neutral.

You will also note there was nothing attacking (a modern gas light) anyone - just opening a dialog as to reasons why. That would be looking to expand vision - not become myopic.

I'm sorry if my post seemed like a response to you rather than your OP and the premise you raised for discussion. You know the Internet is an imperfect medium for communication.

For a free exchange of ideas and thoughts sometimes questions have to be asked - even if they are uncomfortable. We cannot just automatically assume because a hard question is asked, it equates to either an attack or a fund raiser for those terrible boogeymen in the red hats - or for that matter the terrible boogeymen in the Blue ones.

Which is off topic. You're attacking my reply rather than addressing the content.

If you had read the rest of my OP (you only posted half of it), you would have read my purpose in asking.

You're still talking about me rather than the content of my reply.

 

[Always in His Presence]

If you're offended by it, please feel free to ignore it rather comment on my verbiage rather than the substance of my post.

Not offended in any way shape or form. Just find it interesting

The problem is with all the grooming, pedo, etc. accusations feely bandied about by the right in this context, "attraction" inherently suggests sexual attraction. A noun like interest would be more suggestively neutral.

Again that is why I stated three times in all caps it was not in reference to sexual attraction. It’s amazing I said it three times and some still miss it

I'm sorry if my post seemed like a response to you rather than your OP and the premise you raised for discussion. You know the Internet is an imperfect medium for communication.

That is true my friend. No harm, no foul.

Which is off topic. You're attacking my reply rather than addressing the content.

No attack at all, just explaining the difference in opinions and what I was hoping for in the way of responses. Pointing out a dramatic statement is dramatic is an observation, not an attack.

You're still talking about me rather than the content of my reply.

I’ve done nothing but address the content of your post. I do not know you personally and have cast no personal impressions or disputes about you whatsoever.

What is have addressed are your posts and how they are helpful or not helpful to civil discourse.

 

[Always in His Presence]

If you're offended by it, please feel free to ignore it rather comment on my verbiage rather than the substance of my post.

Not offended in any way shape or form. Just find it interesting

The problem is with all the grooming, pedo, etc. accusations feely bandied about by the right in this context, "attraction" inherently suggests sexual attraction. A noun like interest would be more suggestively neutral.

Again that is why I stated three times in all caps it was not in reference to sexual attraction. It’s amazing I said it three times and some still miss it

I'm sorry if my post seemed like a response to you rather than your OP and the premise you raised for discussion. You know the Internet is an imperfect medium for communication.

That is true my friend. No harm, no foul.

Which is off topic. You're attacking my reply rather than addressing the content.

No attack at all, just explaining the difference in opinions and what I was hoping for in the way of responses. Pointing out a dramatic statement is dramatic is an observation, not an attack.

You're still talking about me rather than the content of my reply.

I’ve done nothing but address the content of your post. I do not know you personally and have cast no personal impressions or disputes about you whatsoever.

What is have addressed are your posts and how they are helpful or not helpful to civil discourse

 

[keith99]

DING DING DING - and we have the answer -

While we are talking about acceptance - how about having heterosexual Christians participating in school and library Bible reading time? Can they be accepted also?

Depends on which parts they choose.

The Prodigal Son or David and Goliath seem fine to me.

Same for the story of The Samaritan. (Scripture never calls him the good Samaritan).

But Christians might want to think twice about reading that story. There is a literary tradition of retelling stories in a more modern setting. West Side Story is pretty much Romeo and Julliet reset in the Upper Westside of Manhattan. The week after a Christian reads that story it just might be retold in a modern setting.

Resetting the story of the Samaritan would have those who walked by being the 'good Christians' of our time. While several things come to mind for the Samaritan, in the context of this thread it just has to be a drag queen!

 

[DaisyDay]

They are recruiting children to their side. They are grooming the children. There's no other explanation.

I know you said not sexually, but the thing is, it is about sex.

This post is heinous. It almost reads like projection. Yes, there is another explanation - they are entertainers.

This is something they have been practicing for awhile; they are becoming more and more open about it.

Think of Hollywood and actors that accuse them of sexual immorality towards children, like Corey Feldman.

Are you equating drag queens with pedophiles? Corey Feldman has not claimed that he was abused by drag queens, so what the hay?

 

[DaisyDay]

Nice try. It sounds good on the surface. More people so more gays. Look we havent increased because we're still at 6% or whatever....


Ok so now AIDS came out in 1981 ok? and if there was 6% gays then and over 1.2 million people have been infected with AIDS, I'd say it's a good bet that some of those 1.2 million people died. Most of them perhaps. 1981 was a long time ago. Many are dead. So how is that there are not less gays now because of deaths, but more gays than the world has ever seen before?!

And you have your answer. Children. Hey I know, let's whisper through the fence by the playground and tell the kids I know you, you were born gay and are very special...And this went mainstream because the internet kicked in in the 90's. And the gay culture are very good typists. So one can reasonably call it an advertising campagin.

You bet they're after the kids. Watch them try to distance themselves from responsibility! (I din' do nothing, he said he born gay...)

A shot is heard in the distance...

It sounds very like you are calling for violence to be perpetuated on gay and transgendered people. Your post demonizes the LBGT community, not just pedophiles - who are largely hetero; more girls than boys get molested if the statistics are to be believed.

 

[Pommer]

Most of those seem to be story hours, and similar events. Nothing inappropriate going on at all.

So...what, exactly, is the problem?

-- A2SG, what, you don't like adults having fun with kids at all?

The “problem” is that they happen at all.

 

[MehGuy]

We have had cross dressers and drag queens almost for as long as we have been a country. They have been in movies, in vaudeville, shows (Remember Rue Paul?) televisions shows etc. But in the last 18 months they have been attracted to children (I am NOT speaking sexually) (repeat, I AM NOT SPEAKING SEXUALLLY) (REPEAT, I AM NOT SPEAKING SEXUALLY).

My curiosity asks why? I'm not asking if it is right or wrong - I am asking what is their motivation to read books to children?

It's just so antithetical to their purposes and audiences of the past. Their mission has always been entertaining and titillating mostly a male dominated adult audience.

What is their purpose?

I don't really have strong feelings either way, although I am a little curious as to why as well. My gut reaction is that they just want to make the right mad.

I'm sure people do drag for various reasons. Some masochistic, some to express their feminine feelings. I know Nazi concentration camp guards would sometimes host drag shows, lol. Maybe I'm naïve about it.. but I don't really care too much one way or the other. If it's harming children, I'll be against it.. but I've never really been presented with evidence to persuade me. More just moral panic.

 

[Gene2memE]

So you are trying to say that they merely are the opposite sex inside of them somehow?

Yes, an individual's internal perception of gender identity (a social construct) may be different from their biological presentation. It's not a difficult concept.

Wow so in todays medical world that will be a small thing for them to take a chromosone count and prove that the sexual makeup is different inside than on the persons plumbing...

What does chromosome count have to do with someone's internal perception of gender identity? As far as I know, there's some genetic basis for gender incongruence (even some epigenetic basis), but little to do with chromosomal anomalies.

Except that it don't work like that. You can't refrence one person who has proven to have been born gay or transgender whatever. Science Mr. White, Yeah!

Well, I can. I have friends and acquaintances who report never having any opposite sex attraction, only ever same sex attraction. So in that sense, they were "born gay or transgender whatever".

The science on the genetic basis of human sexuality is complex with multiple interrelated factors, but there is at least a partial underlying genetic basis for homosexuality (and those genes tend to be strongly conserved). So, also in that sense, people are "born gay".

You are going to feel so dumb when you finally learn that those are lies that they talked you into believing.

What to believe:

My friends and acquaintances are lying to me about their personal experiences, while also the vast majority of experts in human sexuality are telling remarkably similar lies?
Or, a section of the population is engaged in a moral panic and practicing motivated bigotry informed by religious beliefs?

 

[MehGuy]

I don't really have strong feelings either way, although I am a little curious as to why as well. My gut reaction is that they just want to make the right mad.

I'm sure people do drag for various reasons. Some masochistic, some to express their feminine feelings. I know Nazi concentration camp guards would sometimes host drag shows, lol. Maybe I'm naïve about it.. but I don't really care too much one way or the other. If it's harming children, I'll be against it.. but I've never really been presented with evidence to persuade me. More just moral panic.

Long story short... as someone into the fetish scene... I've seen this hysteria with people who are different before. I think people with who are into different things from the norm have more varied motivations than simply wanting to rape children, lol. Some of the motivations might not even be good, but I think this "groomer" accusations is mostly hysteria.

 

[TheLastGeek]

We have had cross dressers and drag queens almost for as long as we have been a country. They have been in movies, in vaudeville, shows (Remember Rue Paul?) televisions shows etc. But in the last 18 months they have been attracted to children (I am NOT speaking sexually) (repeat, I AM NOT SPEAKING SEXUALLLY) (REPEAT, I AM NOT SPEAKING SEXUALLY).

My curiosity asks why? I'm not asking if it is right or wrong - I am asking what is their motivation to read books to children?

It's just so antithetical to their purposes and audiences of the past. Their mission has always been entertaining and titillating mostly a male dominated adult audience.

What is their purpose?

I don't think the majority of what we traditionally think of as "drag culture" is trying to target, groom, or entice children. I think we have a whole other problem, of very unstable, sick, perverted individuals who are using the guise of "drag" to get close to children, because they see the current culture and what is being allowed and promoted and praised, and they're taking advantage of it.

 

[Divide]

What does chromosome count have to do with someone's internal perception of gender identity? As far as I know, there's some genetic basis for gender incongruence (even some epigenetic basis), but little to do with chromosomal anomalies.

And you believe that?! So it's not showing up in the chromosones huh? But it somehow in a slippery way in a (goobledegook) fasion prevents the male traits to develop and it leaves them with a woman trapped inside of them...

So what your saying is that you wouldn't know the truth if it punched you in the face. But you know what? Billy was born with the wrong body!

How young are you? your brain isnt even finished developing until your around age 25. Giive yourself a break and be patient because with age comes wisdom.

You don't even suspect that they filled you up with lies!

 

[Divide]

I don't think the majority of what we traditionally think of as "drag culture" is trying to target, groom, or entice children. I think we have a whole other problem, of very unstable, sick, perverted individuals who are using the guise of "drag" to get close to children, because they see the current culture and what is being allowed and promoted and praised, and they're taking advantage of it.

That could be. All I know for sure is that all media is growing darker every day. Movies, radio, cartoons, television, even commercials! There are so many sexual innuendos in a lot of commercials now that never would have made the screen in the 80's or even 90's.

And yeah, they're taking advantage of it.

(Oh but he's one of the good ones, he was born that way...) Lol! They are liars, all of them.

 

[Belk]

Why do drag queens want to host a show with children as the audience? Why has it been reported that they do obscene sexual things in front of the children at these drag queen shows?

Reported by whom? Sounds like made up blood libel.