There's several Shakespeare plays involving cross-dressing. So basically they're going to outlaw Shakespeare.
They already banned Shakespeare in several schools for being too sexual.
Sigh. Of course they did...
Anyone remember the bit in the Bible where lot gets drunk and rapes his daughters?
No but I remember the part where they get him drunk and they rape him.
Although it’s still fiction, one has to wonder whether it’s more common for a drunk father to sexually assault his children, or for children to get their father drunk in order to sexually assault him, and how it would be reported by said father if the former were the one to happen.
Yeah, I'm sure that's what he told everybody.
Oh that makes more sense.
Or Ezekiel 23:20
For those unaware, this is a verse about dudes with dicks like donkeys that shoot loads like horses.
The classic.
Ah, one can dream...
My freshman year of high school, my AP English teacher made sure to point out all the sexual stuff in Shakespeare, much to our chagrin.
My favorite things about Shakespeare as an English teacher was explaining the innuendos and explaining how Romeo and Juliet was absolutely not a love story lol
I had a young woman who was a freshman yell at me, crying, that Romeo and Juliet was the greatest love story of all time and it was adorable.
I feel like some of that comes down to... Well, us, the adults. For some ungodly reason, we've been calling it things like "a love story" and "a tragedy," and now people just don't know what to expect.
We've also somewhat sanitized it. The pop-culture focus on it tends to be the lengths they go to in order to be together, or the families coming together at the end; but we tend to ignore that the couple is just trying to be together to bone, it's full of dick jokes, and at the end they basically get cockblocked so hard that they die.
Actually, now that I think of it, Kenneth Branaugh is great and all, but I'd love to see a Seth Rogen adaptation of this one.
Totally agreed on all counts, especially the last bit.
It's sort of a love story, but it's obviously a tragic love story. I'm not sure I'd use the word "adorable" but it could certainly be touching, especially to a teen girl.
Bad punctuation on my part. The teen was adorable.
I think they meant the teen girl was adorable.
I'm a bit confused. Do the inuendos prevent it from being a love story? I always found it to be a tragic lovestory of two horny teenagers. I think hornyness is a common part of being in love.
It's a tragedy about two teens in who know each other for 4 days, get married after 24 hours, and cause the deaths of 6 people.
The story opens with Romeo pining after a totally different young woman, which is why his friends take him to the party in the first place
Ultimately, it's a warning about foolish love
I agree with most of this. I differ in that I think foolish love is a Natural and integral part of the age of the protagonists. The teenagers are not ať fault in my eyes. So to me, it seems more like a warning about foolish adults with the prime example being friar Laurence - seriously, wtf man, what were you thinking, you were supposed to know better!
Yeah, Romeo and Juliet is the story about how two naive but innocent kids ended up as the victims of their families' senseless feuding.
It's pretty fucked all around. It's not just any two teens, but the children of two powerful families who are feuding for no reason. I think we can generalize it as a warning against foolishness in general. In the end, all of them were Fortune's fool, not just Romeo.
It may not be a real love story, but Romeo and Juliet definitely go to bone town. And it was played by two men when Shakespeare wrote it.
That is a beautiful teacher
Republicans see no issue with banning Shakespeare and any other expression of art
Or knowledge. Keeping their constituents dumb and illiterate is the only way they can get votes.
The only book you need is the Bible and the only art is the CROSS. If you have time for entertainment you have time to work and if you're a kid, go see your local pastor for "work"
-- them, most likely
Republicans only care about Shakespeare, beethoven, and other such classical plays and music when they can use it as a dog whistle in order to imply an inherent criminality and inferiority present in Black Culture
And then they'll turn around and ban all of the ones that don't involve cross-dressing because in Shakespeare's time the female parts were all played by men.
They've unintentionally banned the Bible in their regressionist book burning jihad, so probably.
The longer the Americans focus their attention to the culture war, the less likely they pay attention to economic issues.
Or an ongoing, exponentially worsening global climate catastrophe.
Same tactics the Tories are using in the UK now, their deputy chairman has even admitted their record is so poor, the culture war is all they have left.
Shame that it seems to be working...
it seems to be a lot more effective on the right wingers
Both sides demonize each other. Both sides pay the large part of their attention span to the culture war and hate each other for it.
US politics is 2 parties on paper, but in reality, it is a 1 party state with the purpose of dividing the common people by groups so that they are weak against the ruling class.
US politics is multi-party on paper, bipartisan to the public eye, and one party in reality. Don't know why you are downvoted but it is the truth. I've been saying for years that both Democrats and Republicans are the same pieces of shit with the same goals, but they have different methods and as such separate from each other.
Don’t know why you are downvoted but it is the truth.
Most visitors on Lemmy.world are liberals (and by "liberals", I don't mean "democrats", I mean followers of liberalism, supporters of NATO, participators of the culture war). Liberals don't like changing their way. They rather hate the "other side" than revolutions, as you can see in under this comment section (my first comment which mentioned "culture war", lemmy seems unable to link comment), where all the people here rather blame the "Republicans" than self-reflect. Yet miraculously, both sides will unite when it comes to the so-called "authoritarian regimes".
It's not so much about changing ways as it is acknowledgeing that our system is not what it says it is, but you are right though.
Also, most democrats tend to be center right in my experience
Only one party has to pull this shit to drag everyone down. You can't just ignore dehumanization of LGBT people and continue to talk about the economy.
It reminds me a bit of comic book superheroes. The nature of Good means the hero needs to watch out for everyone, and prioritize protecting people and saving lives. If forced to choose between saving a bystander and the crippling the villain, they pick the bystander. On the other hand, Evil doesn't give a shit. Villains aren't usually bothered by morality or collateral, especially if the ends justify the means.
I know it's a cartoonish viewpoint on the topic, but I think it's applicable. We can't ignore persecution of minorities, even when it's very obviously an astroturfed cultural issue. Economic policy changes may help a greater number of people overall, but we can't achieve that at the cost of the bystander in danger.
We need to start hammering them. The media clearly is unwilling or unable to do it. Every time one of those right-wing family value fuckers starts talking about this stuff yell some catchphrase at them like
"How about rent?" "What about the rising debt?" "Why isn't insulin free?".
I am going to start with my local ones.
Don’t forget the infrastructure failures either. You know.. the train derailments, the collapsing bridges, the tens of thousands of people killed on our roads everyday. Point out that the right is waging a culture war at the expense of public safety. This is really fucking dangerous. Good luck as I am not sure much can be done because words have become meaningless.
Big hunk of my workload is for infrastructure. Doing my part every day I stagger into work.
For no reason whatsoever: If you are ever in Toronto ON, drink bottled water only.
This is the answer right here. Conservative politicians don't give a shit about any of this but as per usual they found het another irrelevant issue that they can use to rile ou their constituents to ensure the sheep folk votes for them and against their own interests.
and all the other issues
Economy is gone, look at the cumulated inflation over the last few years. And depleting Treasury.
Don’t let Republicans pretend they care about children while allowing them to get slaughtered in the classroom and raped at bible camp and forcing them to give birth,
Oops, too late!
They don't give a shit about children.
They care about people voting for them (and with that, against their own interests) and the only way to get that done is to rile these people up with irrelevant issues like drag queens. Why do you think fox news all of the sudden jumps on top of issues like this?
If people have nothing to freak out about they might look at real issues and notice that the conservative parties are working hard to thing their lives. Can't have that, so let's ruin the lives of others too by demonizing them. In the past it was the gays, this time it's the drag queens because let's face it: easy target and gays are acceptable now. Colored people and people with "funny" languages are also always a popular target for this bullshit.
This is exactly why the 1st amendment is so important.
I have no idea who down voted you, but here, have it back.
I drove through a tiny rural town, population 4300, in my province earlier this summer, which barely has enough people living there to support running a donut shop, let alone any sort of drag venue, and some idiot had signs at the end of his driveway saying "No more kids at drag shows!". I mean, it's literally the asshole of northern Ontario, a drag queen has never had a reason to go anywhere near there, he's obviously never left the town in his life, let alone seen a drag queen in person, and yet he paid to put up signs on his driveway people will mostly ignore about a subject that has nothing to do with him. Conservativism really is like a brain fever or something. The things they believe are so exquisitely stupid.
Anyway, I love drag and want to marry Naomi Smalls, and I'm hopeful this psychotic legislation in the US all gets struck down.
He's probably hoping for a protest against him with drag queens in attendance.
Probably so but the thing is most people wouldn't even notice his signs, I just happened to look up as a passenger at the right second, and he lives on a rural highway with few neighbours. He wants attention but isn't going to get it.
I know of a judge who would be happy to disagree… once he’s back from his 5th vacation trip this month.
You mean happy to agree, happy to disagree. Depends on who is paying for the vacation this month.
Well since his friend the nazi billionaire is the one always picking up the tap..
Oh I'm sure he's far from the only one to bribe Clarence Thomas.
Maybe, but even if so, the Venn diagram of the kind of person who'd want to have anything to do with him and the kind of person who thinks minorities should have rights is just two circles.
You would essential have to outlaw all acting.
Hmm... better outlaw dancing while we're at it.
And what causes dancing? Music! Probly should add it to the list.
The hell is this? Footloose?
And MTV … no more music videos. Oops, already done
Ordinarily I'd say no shit. But with Clarence getting a free ride...
Maybe they can pay for Rudy Giuliani to go down there and testify about that time he dressed up in drag and got motorboated by Donald Trump. Rudy's low on cash right now, I bet he would do it.
I find the whole concept of drag queen story hour confusing. Drag is this kind of specific performance art that seems like it is custom tailored for stage performance, so doing drag queen story hour seems as random as doing "the cast of the broadway musical cats!" story hour or something like that. What's the idea behind putting drag queens + story hour together at all?
It teaches children about acceptance and that they can be anything they want. Some children find it a calming environment to learn social skills because of dress up
Well, it started with libraries not having people volunteering to read to kids. And then adults who did read to kids wanted to make it fun and engaging for them, so they began dressing up in fantasy outfits and effectively cosplay. And then the gay community heard of it and likely just naturally fell into it. Some gay people grt very very excited about dressing up, doing theatrics, and drag.
Really?? Huh, well there you go. I'll switch my status from 'indifference' to 'supporting.' No one ever took me to the library to have books read to me.
That's really sad. I have treasured memories of going to the library and having one of the librarians read a picture book. I took my daughter to the library for the same reason when she was little.
That's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to libraries these days, by the way. My wife is a library administrator. This town has less than 80,000 people, but the library has three 3D printers 100% free for use, take-home kits of things like a ukulele with an instruction book, an HTC Vive and a PS5 for teens to play with any time they want, and they're building a new branch that includes a room (one person at a time with a lockable door) with a free washer/dryer and a shower!
Support your local library. Go there. Have fun. Buy something at the book sale to throw them a few bucks.
Our library is awesome in that way too. They have 3d printers as well, and they invest a lot in online resources as also. LinkedIn learning, Rosetta stone, O'Reilly's entire learning catalog, and a ton more, all free with a library card. AND they have a lot of good services for the homeless as well. I actually sent my city councilwoman a letter asking to increase funding to the library.
Awesome! That's great of you to do that!
I might just do that.
Great! I hope your library is at least as good as ours.
Ours is arguably too good about being online. I haven’t been there since before COViD, but read library books on my Kindle all the time
Yep. Libraries have ebooks for free. And audiobooks. My wife hasn't paid for either in years. I only have once because there was no other way to get a specific BBC radio drama I wanted.
Some libraries even have streaming movies!
That's pretty interesting! Do you know of any good articles that trace the history going that far back? Seems like it would be a good read.
The same as an astronaut reading a book about space or a mechanic one about cars rather then a nurse reading a book about ancient archeology. They know what they're talking about when someone asks a question when they read a book about gender or body dismorphia etc.
I find the comparison to clowns quite helpful, as they fill a weirdly similar niche -- in most cases a performance art with clearly defined tropes, based on exaggerated makeup, carefully choreographed routines, while retaining an ability to improvise with a crowd, and of course some people have an irrational fear of them. From that perspective, it makes perfect sense to have them do the reading for kids. The makeup turns them into a cartoon character that kids find exciting; the practice with improv means children, who aren't always the best listeners, can be managed without harshing the vibe; and their general stage experience and presence helps them retain that tough crowd to get them to listen to the story.
I can definitely see it. When I read to my kids when they were little, I’d at least do the voices and sound effects. However I would never do that in front of people I don’t know, let alone an audience. But I can see putting on a persona would help me drop that inhibition. Maybe that persona is represented by a funny hat or vest or glasses or something, or I can see drag being similar
Yeah that's where I fall as well. I'm not inherently opposed to it, it just seems like a wierd thing to exist.
Apparently 10 people think we're transphobic wrong word, uh.. dragphobic? for having this opinion too.
I think both drag performers and Broadway actors have the perfect skill set for reading books to kids. It's like the difference between reading the lyrics to a song and hearing a musician sing it, regardless of whether they're a country singer or an opera singer or a movie music composer. An actor, whether Broadway or not, would know exactly when to pause to create dramatic tension, be able to give characters their own unique voices or personalities, etc. And the fantastical, exaggerated costumes of drag I imagine just make it all the more exciting for the kids.
As for how drag performers reading books to kids started, I have no idea, but somebody else said it started from people volunteering to read books to kids at local libraries, and the LGBT community got into helping out in that way, which led to drag performers doing it. And that makes sense to me. The LGBT community seems to be heavily made up of people who want to support their communities. Probably because they've often had to band together and create their own.
Yeah another commenter explained that to me so it makes sense now.
I care much less about the trans position on this as much as I see SB12 affecting things like strip clubs or onlyfans
Yes, hopefully it would also affect those. If some people think that law could be narrowly used to oppress/repress drag performers, maybe they’ll change their mind after they see it applied consistently and it affects them.
Or I don’t know, maybe overall sexual repression is intended
I hope not. Why do we waste so much time on this stupid shit.
Username checks out. Fuck off, fossil.
Yes, why waste so much time trying to prosecute obviously protected expression?
The fuck they are not hahahhahah. Me showing my dick to small kids is protected by the 1st amedment hahahhaha lol
It might be worth checking out these drag shows rather than just basing your fears off of what appears to be a deep seated fantasy for you (how disturbung that it involved someone exposing their genitals to children?).
That's not what happens, but ok honey
Sure. Doesn't mean take your kid to one. This isn't that complicated.
Do you know what goes on at drag shows or have you only been to the after hours nsfw shows?
I’ve been to many. No, I wouldn’t take my child to one.
What’s fine for adults, isn’t always fine for children.
Then you've only been to one type. There are family friendly shows that are no different content wise from taking your kid to see a face character actor at Disneyland.
Normally we attend them at gay clubs where heavy drinking is involved. It’s adult entertainment and why I wouldn’t take my child. Just like I wouldn’t take my kid to a strip club.
A good friend of mine is a drag performer. He wouldn’t take his children either.
Not everything is a child event nor should it be.
"I've only been to explicitly adult shows which is why I think they're adult shows"
Of course if you only go to gay clubs with heavy drinking you'd think those shows are for adults. Because those shows ARE for adults.
No one's getting naked or sexual, you extremely stupid fuck 🙄
Then you’re not going to fun shows.
Not fun shows for adults. They do shows that are explicitly for kids or families. They don't do sexual stuff at those shows and, believe it or not, kids like people in flamboyant outfits doing fun things like singing.
...right........ Who's taking their kids to bars? Anyone that takes their kid to a bar is a moron and probably shouldn't be allowed to have a kid anyway.
It's pathetic how lax America is with kids and alcohol. Yet they ban inconspicuous indoor medical grows from towns to save the kids from weed. America's dead ...it's a lost cause.
It's pathetic how lax America is with kids and alcohol.
Doesn't America have like, the highest drinking age in the West?
I hadn't heard that, but it wouldn't shock me. I always thought the drinking age should be 16 and the driving age should be 18. That gives kids two years to understand what being impaired from drinking means before ever getting behind the wheel of a car.
I personally consider the violence contained in the Bible much worse for children than anything I've seen in a drag show, even the more "adult" ones.
wtf does the Bible have to do with anything?
For anyone following this thread, this guy is a crazy guns don't kill kids, ex cop Black people commit all the crime kinda folk. Maybe the ex cop thing was a lie they seem to be doing in this thread. Doesn't matter.
Never said I was an ex-cop
Interesting you’d openly lie. I said quite the opposite about black people. I even cited the statistics.
Weird your lie when it’s there for people to read
yes everyone should go read your comment history to understand your position in this thread, i agree, it's something we both encourage
Then your kids would be missing out. Imagine sitting in the audience in a library with a bunch of children running around laughing. There’s an actor in front, in costume, reading from a book, and acting it out as he goes. He does the voices perfectly, and you hear laughter from the kids, knows when to pause for dramatic effect, and even does a sudden movement/loud voice to initiate an age appropriate jump scare that has the kids squealing with laughter.
But that’s just the one I took my kids to. I don’t know what else they’re like
So, "no I have no idea what goes on but I hate it anyway".
"Have you seen ?"
"I've seen parts of it"
If he’s seen “parts”, that was a strip show. I wouldn’t expect most bars to be ok with that
How much do you expect? I better things to do than watch bob in a dress give some one a lapdance.
That’s like saying you’ve seen a few videos of stand up comedy or live music in your news feed. Yeah don’t take your kid to fuckin Rammstein but whatever kid musician the kids these days like is probably fine
And there are even metal shows for kids. They make it kid-friendly. I'm not a fan, but Jim Breuer at least used to do a metal and comedy show for families, nothing inappropriate for kids.
As a parent I rather not have government tell me what is approved thing and what's not. I'm not LGBT and not interested in drag shows but honestly the whole thing is blown out of proportion.
I find it ridiculous that countries like Poland are heavily against LGBT, then the same people will turn on TV to watch cabaret (note the meaning in US is different than in Europe) and watch male comedians dressed as women for comedic effect (e.g. https://youtu.be/iM87cjLCCwI?t=63)
Gods why does this incredibly reasonable take feel like it's so fucking rare?
Pop politics. We might as well get lady Gaga to be a politician. America really is dead already. It's not about us and it never really was.
She couldn't possibly be any worse than the guy who hosted The Apprentice.
Oh you mean that Epstein guys friend there... What's his name?
I think he was a real estate guy, built his reputation on having a solid gold toilet, and being one of the few people able to bankrupt a casino, multiple times
I agree. Everyone should get able to raise their children within reason.
We didn’t take our kid to a drag show until she was 17 and it was a family safe drag show.
Did your kid request to go to a drag show?
When she was younger. We said no. There is nudity, sexual jokes and lots of drinking.
She has when she turned 18 and we found an appropriate one to take her too.
Now that she’s over 21 we would take her but due to Covid, we haven’t been in awhile.
She loves drag. So does my gf. I’m more impartial about it.
There is nudity, sexual jokes and lots of drinking.
Not in drag shows explicitly for kids and families. Which has been a thing for years now.
Just don't take your kid to a bar.
Do you hate movies and video games? How about the FCC?
You do realise neither video game or movie age ratings are government things in the US, right? They're run by the ESRB and MPAA respectively, neither of which are government entities.
In fact, just 12 years ago the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association that video games are protected speech and that a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors was illegal.
Even as private entities they don't prevent children from accessing the media. They only provide guidance for parents who can then use it to decide if the content is appropriate.
Well, technically, they do, if the store selling said items has a policy following the listed age ratings.
Pretty sure every kid in the 90s opened the black curtain at the rental shop to look at the back of the VHS.
My wife used to work at a video store in the 90s. They would catch kids in the adult room all the time. You didn't have to look at the back either. There was explicit porn right on the front of the box.
No, they don't. The private entities in question are the ESRB and MPAA.
They're run by the ESRB and MPAA respectively, neither of which are government entities.
...right, which is why I said, "if the store selling them has a policy not to." I didn't say anything about the government.
I didn't say anything about retailers or the government. Try reading before replying.
The MPAA and ESRB are neither.
I...did. I never claimed the MPAA or ESRB are either of those. I said that a store or business (i.e. movie theater) will follow a policy based on the rating those entities give a game or movie. I don't understand why you're disagreeing with my original comment when that is in fact what happens. Just ask a 13-year-old to try and get into an R-rated movie at the theaters where that theater enforces those policies. Same thing with buying M-rated games at a major retailer. The government nor those ratings companies don't enforce anything, the businesses do.
In context your comment said the MPAA and ESRB prevent children from accessing media. They do not.
Not only are they non-government, it is specifically setup so that retailers decide what they carry for sale. Most retailers choose not to carry unrated or AO-rated games for sale, but they are not prevented from doing so by any government organization. Those games aren't "banned", retailers simply choose not to carry them. Suprement court decisions like Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association uphold this structure, citing video games as protected speech.
I'll take my kids wherever I feel appropriate. You can do the same with yours, but don't you fucking dare tell me where I can or can't take me shithead. Go live your own life and don't try to live mine
So you dont support parental rights?
Do kids get to go see rated r movies? How about M rated games? Same concept.
Yes, Im aware kids get around them, but the principle is the same.
I mean yeah they do. My parents took me to r rated movies since I was in grade school if I wanted to see it, bought me m rated games etc. They had a right to raise me how they want and part of that was making sure I knew what make believe was beforehand and that some things are beyond me in years and I turned out just fine.
In my experience, people who say "I turned out fine" are usually incorrect.
I have a job, a partner, I pay taxes, what else do you want?
Would you prefer "and I didn't turn into a serial killer?" or would you not believe that claim either?
So that's where you're trying to go now that you're shitty opinion is being called into question... shift it from parental rights, to non-government organization ratings systems. Okay, let's actually take a look at those since you seem to think they're some form of absolute decision:
Established by Motion Picture Association in 1968, the rating system was created to help parents make informed viewing choices for their children.
G – General Audiences
All ages admitted. Nothing that would offend parents for viewing by children.
PG – Parental Guidance Suggested
Some material may not be suitable for children. Parents urged to give "parental guidance". May contain some material parents might not like for their young children.
PG-13 – Parents Strongly Cautioned
Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13. Parents are urged to be cautious. Some material may be inappropriate for pre-teenagers.
R – Restricted
Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. Contains some adult material. Parents are urged to learn more about the film before taking their young children with them.
NC-17 – Adults Only
No one 17 and under admitted. Clearly adult. Children are not admitted.
The ESRB rating system was founded by the video game industry in 1994 after consulting a wide range of child development and academic experts, analyzing other rating systems, and conducting nationwide research with parents. ESRB found that parents wanted a rating system that has both age-based categories and concise and impartial information regarding content.
Everyone
Content is generally suitable for all ages. May contain minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence and/or infrequent use of mild language.
Everyone 10+
Content is generally suitable for ages 10 and up. May contain more cartoon, fantasy or mild violence, mild language and/or minimal suggestive themes.
Teen
Content is generally suitable for ages 13 and up. May contain violence, suggestive themes, crude humor, minimal blood, simulated gambling and/or infrequest use of strong language.
Mature 17+
Content is generally suitable for ages 17 and up. May contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.
Adults Only 18+
Content suitable only for adults ages 18 and up. May include prolonged scenes of intense violence, graphic sexual content and.or gambling with real currency.
Both of these systems exist specifically to educate parents for their children so they can make a decision. Both of these systems are run by non-government organizations related directly to the industries the ratings apply to. Stores can sell Adults Only 18+ games if they want, most choose not to. Likewise movie theaters can screen NC-17 films if they want, most choose not to. There are no laws requiring these ratings, or even requiring businesses to abide by these ratings suggestions. They are simply there to allow parents to make educated decisions.
Back to your assertion:
Do kids get to go see rated r movies? How about M rated games?
Yes kids go to see R-rated movies all the time. Parents take kids to see these in theaters every day. Parents buy M-rated video games for their children under 17 all the time as well. Because these are decisions being made by parents for their kids. It is not a government mandate and should not be one.
The exact same thing applies to drag shows. There is nothing inherently sexual about dressing in drag. Traditional theatre (like Shakespeare) had men playing all parts, including the female parts in female costume. Almost all media you see will have actors and hosts wearing makeup. All TV shows and movies obviously, but traditional theatre uses a lot of makesup as well to ensure the correct look is being provided to the audience. A stage actor in makeup often will look crazy when you're up close, because they need to compensate for things like extreme direct lighting on stage.
If you believe that dressing in non-traditional clothing and makeup is inherently sexual or deviant, that's entirely on your perception of the world, and you might want to do some deep introspection instead of tryung to force that belief on others.
Yes and yes. Any refusal to sell is purely at the retailer's discretion. Next question?
Do kids get to go see rated r movies? How about M rated games?
Yes. There are no laws preventing either.
So you dont support parents being allowed to make those choices for their own children?
Why dont you support parental rights?
Some parents also use their own discretion and let their kids enjoy that media.
It's really not, though; it's not violent and it's not sexual. Male-presenting children's characters wear female clothes all the time without any controversy; Bugs Bunny is constantly dressing up as a girl bunny, Donald Duck wears a dress in "Donald in Mathmagic Land," and you can literally make Mario wear a wedding dress in Super Mario Odyssey.
(I'm on team Let Your Kids Watch R-Rated Movies If You Want, but even if you think society should get to restrict what parents can show their kids, drag is not something people have generally considered obscene or otherwise had a problem with)
With parent’s permission? Yes. Yes they actually do. My parents bought me halo as a kid. They knew what kind of content it included. I have friends who grew up on horror movies, I wasn’t allowed to see those, but I was allowed to watch shit with more of a crass humor R rating. Hell my mom bought me animal house when I was 16.
It’s not kids “get around them” it’s that parents are informed of the potentially controversial content and have full permission to decide if they want to access it. All through a non governmentally mandated opt in industry standard.
Hell, in my state if you want a third glass of wine with dinner as a 14 year old you’re allowed to have it if your parent gives it to you. Horribly irresponsible parenting sure, and definitely something CPS would want to know more about, but it’s legal.
It's on the parents to figure out what's appropriate for their kids.
if you think about it, there's really only something wrong with drag queens reading children's books to kids if a) you're a pedophile and you assume they are too, (they're not.) or b) you're a religious zealot who likes to tell people what to wear.
Either way, you're allowed to decide your kids shouldn't see that. but then, parents of other kids get to make that same decision. Banning Drag Story Hour to protect the kids is a blatant and unnecessary intrusion.
I saw rated R movies as a kid in the 80s all the time. Believe it or not, I'm not a depraved psychopath.
Doesn't mean you get to decide how others raise their kids.
And these are the same people wanting schools to out transgender kids or banning books that reference anything but straight white life because "it's a parent's ultimate right to control how their children are raised!"
I mean, I support them and the people who perform in them, but you’re not wrong. And i think that’s the whole problem. You can simply choose not to attend or pay them no attention. It doesn’t fit Into everyone’s world view and that’s alright. But to say that you cannot do it or that it’s illegal is complety absurd and i agreee with that statement that it is petected under freedom of speech.
That's up to the parents to decide isn't it? I mean all of this supposedly started because "parental rights" somehow, even though it was parents taking their children to these shows in the first place. Once the mainstream stopped paying direct attention to it after that surface-level excuse, it was shifted to the real reason, just openly being anti-LGBTQ because the republicans hate anything that doesn't follows the Bible as they believe it should, ignoring the numerous contradictions within the damned book, and even related to similar issues.
1 Timothy 2:9-10 ESV
Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.
I guess every woman with braids, or wearing jewelry should be getting the same treatment. I mean it's in the book too after all.
Or how about tattoos:
Leviticus 19:28 ESV
You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the Lord.
This doesn't even get into things like how the Bible explains how to buy and trade slaves.
You know, I'm starting to think this book has a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense in a modern world and should not be applied to everyone. Religious beliefs should not be forced on everyone, and with these kinds of laws the religious roots are hidden behind claims of "parental rights" or various forms of "morality", to try and hide the religious roots they come from. The moderm Republican party loves to ignore the inconvenient fact that this is not a Christian country.
Our founding fathers explicitly warned about it. Madison praised the new Constitution for keeping faith out of federal officeholding, which would welcome individuals “of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.”
James Madison, in the Federalist Papers, challenged the idea that religion in politics would lead men to “cooperate for their common good” and asserted instead that it would make them “vex and oppress each other.”
Or if you want to ignore that commentary as being somehow "unofficial" as it is not a government document and "only" commentary from some of the founding fathers.. how about the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. Begun by George Washington, signed by John Adams and *ratified unanimously *by a Senate still half-filled with signers of the Constitution:
Article. 11.
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The original pilgrims came here literally to escape persecution. The current Republican party is doing exactly that to anyone that believes differently than they do and falsely trying to claim it's how this country was meant to be from the very beginning.
Who gives a shit?
You apparently, and along with every other commenter.
Let them do whatever they want. You go ahead and raise your children properly and teach them properly. They're just making it very easy for your children to beat them in every aspect of life. Why are you upset?
When those guys complain that they're having a hard life, I just laugh and remember that my preschool children know more math that a 7th grader. That's how you win in life. They're punishing themselves. No need for us to fix any of this. The more they screw up the better it's for us. Let them enjoy their anti-depressants.
There's several Shakespeare plays involving cross-dressing. So basically they're going to outlaw Shakespeare.
They already banned Shakespeare in several schools for being too sexual.
Sigh. Of course they did...
Anyone remember the bit in the Bible where lot gets drunk and rapes his daughters?
No but I remember the part where they get him drunk and they rape him.
Although it’s still fiction, one has to wonder whether it’s more common for a drunk father to sexually assault his children, or for children to get their father drunk in order to sexually assault him, and how it would be reported by said father if the former were the one to happen.
Yeah, I'm sure that's what he told everybody.
Oh that makes more sense.
Or Ezekiel 23:20
For those unaware, this is a verse about dudes with dicks like donkeys that shoot loads like horses.
The classic.
Ah, one can dream...
My freshman year of high school, my AP English teacher made sure to point out all the sexual stuff in Shakespeare, much to our chagrin.
My favorite things about Shakespeare as an English teacher was explaining the innuendos and explaining how Romeo and Juliet was absolutely not a love story lol
I had a young woman who was a freshman yell at me, crying, that Romeo and Juliet was the greatest love story of all time and it was adorable.
I feel like some of that comes down to... Well, us, the adults. For some ungodly reason, we've been calling it things like "a love story" and "a tragedy," and now people just don't know what to expect.
We've also somewhat sanitized it. The pop-culture focus on it tends to be the lengths they go to in order to be together, or the families coming together at the end; but we tend to ignore that the couple is just trying to be together to bone, it's full of dick jokes, and at the end they basically get cockblocked so hard that they die.
Actually, now that I think of it, Kenneth Branaugh is great and all, but I'd love to see a Seth Rogen adaptation of this one.
Totally agreed on all counts, especially the last bit.
It's sort of a love story, but it's obviously a tragic love story. I'm not sure I'd use the word "adorable" but it could certainly be touching, especially to a teen girl.
Bad punctuation on my part. The teen was adorable.
I think they meant the teen girl was adorable.
I'm a bit confused. Do the inuendos prevent it from being a love story? I always found it to be a tragic lovestory of two horny teenagers. I think hornyness is a common part of being in love.
It's a tragedy about two teens in who know each other for 4 days, get married after 24 hours, and cause the deaths of 6 people.
The story opens with Romeo pining after a totally different young woman, which is why his friends take him to the party in the first place
Ultimately, it's a warning about foolish love
I agree with most of this. I differ in that I think foolish love is a Natural and integral part of the age of the protagonists. The teenagers are not ať fault in my eyes. So to me, it seems more like a warning about foolish adults with the prime example being friar Laurence - seriously, wtf man, what were you thinking, you were supposed to know better!
Yeah, Romeo and Juliet is the story about how two naive but innocent kids ended up as the victims of their families' senseless feuding.
It's pretty fucked all around. It's not just any two teens, but the children of two powerful families who are feuding for no reason. I think we can generalize it as a warning against foolishness in general. In the end, all of them were Fortune's fool, not just Romeo.
It may not be a real love story, but Romeo and Juliet definitely go to bone town. And it was played by two men when Shakespeare wrote it.
That is a beautiful teacher
Republicans see no issue with banning Shakespeare and any other expression of art
Or knowledge. Keeping their constituents dumb and illiterate is the only way they can get votes.
The only book you need is the Bible and the only art is the CROSS. If you have time for entertainment you have time to work and if you're a kid, go see your local pastor for "work"
-- them, most likely
Republicans only care about Shakespeare, beethoven, and other such classical plays and music when they can use it as a dog whistle in order to imply an inherent criminality and inferiority present in Black Culture
And then they'll turn around and ban all of the ones that don't involve cross-dressing because in Shakespeare's time the female parts were all played by men.
They've unintentionally banned the Bible in their regressionist book burning jihad, so probably.
The longer the Americans focus their attention to the culture war, the less likely they pay attention to economic issues.
Or an ongoing, exponentially worsening global climate catastrophe.
Same tactics the Tories are using in the UK now, their deputy chairman has even admitted their record is so poor, the culture war is all they have left.
Shame that it seems to be working...
it seems to be a lot more effective on the right wingers
Both sides demonize each other. Both sides pay the large part of their attention span to the culture war and hate each other for it.
US politics is 2 parties on paper, but in reality, it is a 1 party state with the purpose of dividing the common people by groups so that they are weak against the ruling class.
US politics is multi-party on paper, bipartisan to the public eye, and one party in reality. Don't know why you are downvoted but it is the truth. I've been saying for years that both Democrats and Republicans are the same pieces of shit with the same goals, but they have different methods and as such separate from each other.
Most visitors on Lemmy.world are liberals (and by "liberals", I don't mean "democrats", I mean followers of liberalism, supporters of NATO, participators of the culture war). Liberals don't like changing their way. They rather hate the "other side" than revolutions, as you can see in under this comment section (my first comment which mentioned "culture war", lemmy seems unable to link comment), where all the people here rather blame the "Republicans" than self-reflect. Yet miraculously, both sides will unite when it comes to the so-called "authoritarian regimes".
It's not so much about changing ways as it is acknowledgeing that our system is not what it says it is, but you are right though.
Also, most democrats tend to be center right in my experience
Only one party has to pull this shit to drag everyone down. You can't just ignore dehumanization of LGBT people and continue to talk about the economy.
It reminds me a bit of comic book superheroes. The nature of Good means the hero needs to watch out for everyone, and prioritize protecting people and saving lives. If forced to choose between saving a bystander and the crippling the villain, they pick the bystander. On the other hand, Evil doesn't give a shit. Villains aren't usually bothered by morality or collateral, especially if the ends justify the means.
I know it's a cartoonish viewpoint on the topic, but I think it's applicable. We can't ignore persecution of minorities, even when it's very obviously an astroturfed cultural issue. Economic policy changes may help a greater number of people overall, but we can't achieve that at the cost of the bystander in danger.
We need to start hammering them. The media clearly is unwilling or unable to do it. Every time one of those right-wing family value fuckers starts talking about this stuff yell some catchphrase at them like
"How about rent?" "What about the rising debt?" "Why isn't insulin free?".
I am going to start with my local ones.
Don’t forget the infrastructure failures either. You know.. the train derailments, the collapsing bridges, the tens of thousands of people killed on our roads everyday. Point out that the right is waging a culture war at the expense of public safety. This is really fucking dangerous. Good luck as I am not sure much can be done because words have become meaningless.
Big hunk of my workload is for infrastructure. Doing my part every day I stagger into work.
For no reason whatsoever: If you are ever in Toronto ON, drink bottled water only.
Ding ding ding!
This is the answer right here. Conservative politicians don't give a shit about any of this but as per usual they found het another irrelevant issue that they can use to rile ou their constituents to ensure the sheep folk votes for them and against their own interests.
and all the other issues
Economy is gone, look at the cumulated inflation over the last few years. And depleting Treasury.
The economy is great, if you're a rich billionaire, according to Bloomberg - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-08-07/us-economy-is-strong-so-americans-should-stop-worrying-about-it
But the everyday person is struggling and Republicans aren't going to do anything about that.
Don’t let Republicans pretend they care about children while allowing them to get slaughtered in the classroom and raped at bible camp and forcing them to give birth,
Oops, too late!
They don't give a shit about children.
They care about people voting for them (and with that, against their own interests) and the only way to get that done is to rile these people up with irrelevant issues like drag queens. Why do you think fox news all of the sudden jumps on top of issues like this?
If people have nothing to freak out about they might look at real issues and notice that the conservative parties are working hard to thing their lives. Can't have that, so let's ruin the lives of others too by demonizing them. In the past it was the gays, this time it's the drag queens because let's face it: easy target and gays are acceptable now. Colored people and people with "funny" languages are also always a popular target for this bullshit.
This is exactly why the 1st amendment is so important.
I have no idea who down voted you, but here, have it back.
I drove through a tiny rural town, population 4300, in my province earlier this summer, which barely has enough people living there to support running a donut shop, let alone any sort of drag venue, and some idiot had signs at the end of his driveway saying "No more kids at drag shows!". I mean, it's literally the asshole of northern Ontario, a drag queen has never had a reason to go anywhere near there, he's obviously never left the town in his life, let alone seen a drag queen in person, and yet he paid to put up signs on his driveway people will mostly ignore about a subject that has nothing to do with him. Conservativism really is like a brain fever or something. The things they believe are so exquisitely stupid.
Anyway, I love drag and want to marry Naomi Smalls, and I'm hopeful this psychotic legislation in the US all gets struck down.
He's probably hoping for a protest against him with drag queens in attendance.
Probably so but the thing is most people wouldn't even notice his signs, I just happened to look up as a passenger at the right second, and he lives on a rural highway with few neighbours. He wants attention but isn't going to get it.
I know of a judge who would be happy to disagree… once he’s back from his 5th vacation trip this month.
You mean happy to agree, happy to disagree. Depends on who is paying for the vacation this month.
Well since his friend the nazi billionaire is the one always picking up the tap..
Oh I'm sure he's far from the only one to bribe Clarence Thomas.
Maybe, but even if so, the Venn diagram of the kind of person who'd want to have anything to do with him and the kind of person who thinks minorities should have rights is just two circles.
You would essential have to outlaw all acting.
Hmm... better outlaw dancing while we're at it.
And what causes dancing? Music! Probly should add it to the list.
The hell is this? Footloose?
And MTV … no more music videos. Oops, already done
Ordinarily I'd say no shit. But with Clarence getting a free ride...
Maybe they can pay for Rudy Giuliani to go down there and testify about that time he dressed up in drag and got motorboated by Donald Trump. Rudy's low on cash right now, I bet he would do it.
Do you have a link? xD
You asked for it...
https://youtu.be/qhtD0OtNfLQ
.... Rudy was still the mayor of NYC at the time
That was...something. Surprised that isn't being used as political ammo.
A classic 1st amendment case for inspiration. https://youtu.be/oNsdMFCXH9M (video)
I find the whole concept of drag queen story hour confusing. Drag is this kind of specific performance art that seems like it is custom tailored for stage performance, so doing drag queen story hour seems as random as doing "the cast of the broadway musical cats!" story hour or something like that. What's the idea behind putting drag queens + story hour together at all?
It teaches children about acceptance and that they can be anything they want. Some children find it a calming environment to learn social skills because of dress up
Well, it started with libraries not having people volunteering to read to kids. And then adults who did read to kids wanted to make it fun and engaging for them, so they began dressing up in fantasy outfits and effectively cosplay. And then the gay community heard of it and likely just naturally fell into it. Some gay people grt very very excited about dressing up, doing theatrics, and drag.
Really?? Huh, well there you go. I'll switch my status from 'indifference' to 'supporting.' No one ever took me to the library to have books read to me.
That's really sad. I have treasured memories of going to the library and having one of the librarians read a picture book. I took my daughter to the library for the same reason when she was little.
That's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to libraries these days, by the way. My wife is a library administrator. This town has less than 80,000 people, but the library has three 3D printers 100% free for use, take-home kits of things like a ukulele with an instruction book, an HTC Vive and a PS5 for teens to play with any time they want, and they're building a new branch that includes a room (one person at a time with a lockable door) with a free washer/dryer and a shower!
Support your local library. Go there. Have fun. Buy something at the book sale to throw them a few bucks.
Our library is awesome in that way too. They have 3d printers as well, and they invest a lot in online resources as also. LinkedIn learning, Rosetta stone, O'Reilly's entire learning catalog, and a ton more, all free with a library card. AND they have a lot of good services for the homeless as well. I actually sent my city councilwoman a letter asking to increase funding to the library.
Awesome! That's great of you to do that!
I might just do that.
Great! I hope your library is at least as good as ours.
Ours is arguably too good about being online. I haven’t been there since before COViD, but read library books on my Kindle all the time
Yep. Libraries have ebooks for free. And audiobooks. My wife hasn't paid for either in years. I only have once because there was no other way to get a specific BBC radio drama I wanted.
Some libraries even have streaming movies!
That's pretty interesting! Do you know of any good articles that trace the history going that far back? Seems like it would be a good read.
The same as an astronaut reading a book about space or a mechanic one about cars rather then a nurse reading a book about ancient archeology. They know what they're talking about when someone asks a question when they read a book about gender or body dismorphia etc.
I find the comparison to clowns quite helpful, as they fill a weirdly similar niche -- in most cases a performance art with clearly defined tropes, based on exaggerated makeup, carefully choreographed routines, while retaining an ability to improvise with a crowd, and of course some people have an irrational fear of them. From that perspective, it makes perfect sense to have them do the reading for kids. The makeup turns them into a cartoon character that kids find exciting; the practice with improv means children, who aren't always the best listeners, can be managed without harshing the vibe; and their general stage experience and presence helps them retain that tough crowd to get them to listen to the story.
I can definitely see it. When I read to my kids when they were little, I’d at least do the voices and sound effects. However I would never do that in front of people I don’t know, let alone an audience. But I can see putting on a persona would help me drop that inhibition. Maybe that persona is represented by a funny hat or vest or glasses or something, or I can see drag being similar
Yeah that's where I fall as well. I'm not inherently opposed to it, it just seems like a wierd thing to exist.
Apparently 10 people think we're
transphobicwrong word, uh.. dragphobic? for having this opinion too.I think both drag performers and Broadway actors have the perfect skill set for reading books to kids. It's like the difference between reading the lyrics to a song and hearing a musician sing it, regardless of whether they're a country singer or an opera singer or a movie music composer. An actor, whether Broadway or not, would know exactly when to pause to create dramatic tension, be able to give characters their own unique voices or personalities, etc. And the fantastical, exaggerated costumes of drag I imagine just make it all the more exciting for the kids.
As for how drag performers reading books to kids started, I have no idea, but somebody else said it started from people volunteering to read books to kids at local libraries, and the LGBT community got into helping out in that way, which led to drag performers doing it. And that makes sense to me. The LGBT community seems to be heavily made up of people who want to support their communities. Probably because they've often had to band together and create their own.
Yeah another commenter explained that to me so it makes sense now.
I care much less about the trans position on this as much as I see SB12 affecting things like strip clubs or onlyfans
Yes, hopefully it would also affect those. If some people think that law could be narrowly used to oppress/repress drag performers, maybe they’ll change their mind after they see it applied consistently and it affects them.
Or I don’t know, maybe overall sexual repression is intended
I hope not. Why do we waste so much time on this stupid shit.
Username checks out. Fuck off, fossil.
Yes, why waste so much time trying to prosecute obviously protected expression?
The fuck they are not hahahhahah. Me showing my dick to small kids is protected by the 1st amedment hahahhaha lol
It might be worth checking out these drag shows rather than just basing your fears off of what appears to be a deep seated fantasy for you (how disturbung that it involved someone exposing their genitals to children?).
That's not what happens, but ok honey
Sure. Doesn't mean take your kid to one. This isn't that complicated.
Do you know what goes on at drag shows or have you only been to the after hours nsfw shows?
I’ve been to many. No, I wouldn’t take my child to one.
What’s fine for adults, isn’t always fine for children.
Then you've only been to one type. There are family friendly shows that are no different content wise from taking your kid to see a face character actor at Disneyland.
Normally we attend them at gay clubs where heavy drinking is involved. It’s adult entertainment and why I wouldn’t take my child. Just like I wouldn’t take my kid to a strip club.
A good friend of mine is a drag performer. He wouldn’t take his children either.
Not everything is a child event nor should it be.
"I've only been to explicitly adult shows which is why I think they're adult shows"
Of course if you only go to gay clubs with heavy drinking you'd think those shows are for adults. Because those shows ARE for adults.
No one's getting naked or sexual, you extremely stupid fuck 🙄
Then you’re not going to fun shows.
Not fun shows for adults. They do shows that are explicitly for kids or families. They don't do sexual stuff at those shows and, believe it or not, kids like people in flamboyant outfits doing fun things like singing.
...right........ Who's taking their kids to bars? Anyone that takes their kid to a bar is a moron and probably shouldn't be allowed to have a kid anyway.
It's pathetic how lax America is with kids and alcohol. Yet they ban inconspicuous indoor medical grows from towns to save the kids from weed. America's dead ...it's a lost cause.
Doesn't America have like, the highest drinking age in the West?
I hadn't heard that, but it wouldn't shock me. I always thought the drinking age should be 16 and the driving age should be 18. That gives kids two years to understand what being impaired from drinking means before ever getting behind the wheel of a car.
I personally consider the violence contained in the Bible much worse for children than anything I've seen in a drag show, even the more "adult" ones.
wtf does the Bible have to do with anything?
For anyone following this thread, this guy is a crazy guns don't kill kids, ex cop Black people commit all the crime kinda folk. Maybe the ex cop thing was a lie they seem to be doing in this thread. Doesn't matter.
Never said I was an ex-cop
Interesting you’d openly lie. I said quite the opposite about black people. I even cited the statistics.
Weird your lie when it’s there for people to read
yes everyone should go read your comment history to understand your position in this thread, i agree, it's something we both encourage
Then your kids would be missing out. Imagine sitting in the audience in a library with a bunch of children running around laughing. There’s an actor in front, in costume, reading from a book, and acting it out as he goes. He does the voices perfectly, and you hear laughter from the kids, knows when to pause for dramatic effect, and even does a sudden movement/loud voice to initiate an age appropriate jump scare that has the kids squealing with laughter.
But that’s just the one I took my kids to. I don’t know what else they’re like
Ive seen a few videos in my news feed.
So, "no I have no idea what goes on but I hate it anyway".
"Have you seen ?"
"I've seen parts of it"
If he’s seen “parts”, that was a strip show. I wouldn’t expect most bars to be ok with that
How much do you expect? I better things to do than watch bob in a dress give some one a lapdance.
That’s like saying you’ve seen a few videos of stand up comedy or live music in your news feed. Yeah don’t take your kid to fuckin Rammstein but whatever kid musician the kids these days like is probably fine
And there are even metal shows for kids. They make it kid-friendly. I'm not a fan, but Jim Breuer at least used to do a metal and comedy show for families, nothing inappropriate for kids.
What news feed is that?
As a parent I rather not have government tell me what is approved thing and what's not. I'm not LGBT and not interested in drag shows but honestly the whole thing is blown out of proportion.
I find it ridiculous that countries like Poland are heavily against LGBT, then the same people will turn on TV to watch cabaret (note the meaning in US is different than in Europe) and watch male comedians dressed as women for comedic effect (e.g. https://youtu.be/iM87cjLCCwI?t=63)
Gods why does this incredibly reasonable take feel like it's so fucking rare?
Pop politics. We might as well get lady Gaga to be a politician. America really is dead already. It's not about us and it never really was.
She couldn't possibly be any worse than the guy who hosted The Apprentice.
Oh you mean that Epstein guys friend there... What's his name?
I think he was a real estate guy, built his reputation on having a solid gold toilet, and being one of the few people able to bankrupt a casino, multiple times
I agree. Everyone should get able to raise their children within reason.
We didn’t take our kid to a drag show until she was 17 and it was a family safe drag show.
Did your kid request to go to a drag show?
When she was younger. We said no. There is nudity, sexual jokes and lots of drinking.
She has when she turned 18 and we found an appropriate one to take her too.
Now that she’s over 21 we would take her but due to Covid, we haven’t been in awhile.
She loves drag. So does my gf. I’m more impartial about it.
Not in drag shows explicitly for kids and families. Which has been a thing for years now.
Just don't take your kid to a bar.
Do you hate movies and video games? How about the FCC?
You do realise neither video game or movie age ratings are government things in the US, right? They're run by the ESRB and MPAA respectively, neither of which are government entities.
In fact, just 12 years ago the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association that video games are protected speech and that a California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors was illegal.
Even as private entities they don't prevent children from accessing the media. They only provide guidance for parents who can then use it to decide if the content is appropriate.
Well, technically, they do, if the store selling said items has a policy following the listed age ratings.
Pretty sure every kid in the 90s opened the black curtain at the rental shop to look at the back of the VHS.
My wife used to work at a video store in the 90s. They would catch kids in the adult room all the time. You didn't have to look at the back either. There was explicit porn right on the front of the box.
No, they don't. The private entities in question are the ESRB and MPAA.
...right, which is why I said, "if the store selling them has a policy not to." I didn't say anything about the government.
I didn't say anything about retailers or the government. Try reading before replying.
The MPAA and ESRB are neither.
I...did. I never claimed the MPAA or ESRB are either of those. I said that a store or business (i.e. movie theater) will follow a policy based on the rating those entities give a game or movie. I don't understand why you're disagreeing with my original comment when that is in fact what happens. Just ask a 13-year-old to try and get into an R-rated movie at the theaters where that theater enforces those policies. Same thing with buying M-rated games at a major retailer. The government nor those ratings companies don't enforce anything, the businesses do.
In context your comment said the MPAA and ESRB prevent children from accessing media. They do not.
Once again try reading before replying.
Not only are they non-government, it is specifically setup so that retailers decide what they carry for sale. Most retailers choose not to carry unrated or AO-rated games for sale, but they are not prevented from doing so by any government organization. Those games aren't "banned", retailers simply choose not to carry them. Suprement court decisions like Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association uphold this structure, citing video games as protected speech.
I'll take my kids wherever I feel appropriate. You can do the same with yours, but don't you fucking dare tell me where I can or can't take me shithead. Go live your own life and don't try to live mine
So you dont support parental rights?
Do kids get to go see rated r movies? How about M rated games? Same concept.
Yes, Im aware kids get around them, but the principle is the same.
I mean yeah they do. My parents took me to r rated movies since I was in grade school if I wanted to see it, bought me m rated games etc. They had a right to raise me how they want and part of that was making sure I knew what make believe was beforehand and that some things are beyond me in years and I turned out just fine.
In my experience, people who say "I turned out fine" are usually incorrect.
I have a job, a partner, I pay taxes, what else do you want?
Would you prefer "and I didn't turn into a serial killer?" or would you not believe that claim either?
So that's where you're trying to go now that you're shitty opinion is being called into question... shift it from parental rights, to non-government organization ratings systems. Okay, let's actually take a look at those since you seem to think they're some form of absolute decision:
https://www.motionpictures.org/film-ratings/
https://www.esrb.org/ratings-guide/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entertainment_Software_Rating_Board#Ratings
Both of these systems exist specifically to educate parents for their children so they can make a decision. Both of these systems are run by non-government organizations related directly to the industries the ratings apply to. Stores can sell Adults Only 18+ games if they want, most choose not to. Likewise movie theaters can screen NC-17 films if they want, most choose not to. There are no laws requiring these ratings, or even requiring businesses to abide by these ratings suggestions. They are simply there to allow parents to make educated decisions.
Back to your assertion:
Yes kids go to see R-rated movies all the time. Parents take kids to see these in theaters every day. Parents buy M-rated video games for their children under 17 all the time as well. Because these are decisions being made by parents for their kids. It is not a government mandate and should not be one.
The exact same thing applies to drag shows. There is nothing inherently sexual about dressing in drag. Traditional theatre (like Shakespeare) had men playing all parts, including the female parts in female costume. Almost all media you see will have actors and hosts wearing makeup. All TV shows and movies obviously, but traditional theatre uses a lot of makesup as well to ensure the correct look is being provided to the audience. A stage actor in makeup often will look crazy when you're up close, because they need to compensate for things like extreme direct lighting on stage.
If you believe that dressing in non-traditional clothing and makeup is inherently sexual or deviant, that's entirely on your perception of the world, and you might want to do some deep introspection instead of tryung to force that belief on others.
Yes and yes. Any refusal to sell is purely at the retailer's discretion. Next question?
Yes. There are no laws preventing either.
So you dont support parents being allowed to make those choices for their own children?
Why dont you support parental rights?
Some parents also use their own discretion and let their kids enjoy that media.
It's really not, though; it's not violent and it's not sexual. Male-presenting children's characters wear female clothes all the time without any controversy; Bugs Bunny is constantly dressing up as a girl bunny, Donald Duck wears a dress in "Donald in Mathmagic Land," and you can literally make Mario wear a wedding dress in Super Mario Odyssey.
(I'm on team Let Your Kids Watch R-Rated Movies If You Want, but even if you think society should get to restrict what parents can show their kids, drag is not something people have generally considered obscene or otherwise had a problem with)
With parent’s permission? Yes. Yes they actually do. My parents bought me halo as a kid. They knew what kind of content it included. I have friends who grew up on horror movies, I wasn’t allowed to see those, but I was allowed to watch shit with more of a crass humor R rating. Hell my mom bought me animal house when I was 16.
It’s not kids “get around them” it’s that parents are informed of the potentially controversial content and have full permission to decide if they want to access it. All through a non governmentally mandated opt in industry standard.
Hell, in my state if you want a third glass of wine with dinner as a 14 year old you’re allowed to have it if your parent gives it to you. Horribly irresponsible parenting sure, and definitely something CPS would want to know more about, but it’s legal.
It's on the parents to figure out what's appropriate for their kids. if you think about it, there's really only something wrong with drag queens reading children's books to kids if a) you're a pedophile and you assume they are too, (they're not.) or b) you're a religious zealot who likes to tell people what to wear.
Either way, you're allowed to decide your kids shouldn't see that. but then, parents of other kids get to make that same decision. Banning Drag Story Hour to protect the kids is a blatant and unnecessary intrusion.
I saw rated R movies as a kid in the 80s all the time. Believe it or not, I'm not a depraved psychopath.
Doesn't mean you get to decide how others raise their kids.
And these are the same people wanting schools to out transgender kids or banning books that reference anything but straight white life because "it's a parent's ultimate right to control how their children are raised!"
I mean, I support them and the people who perform in them, but you’re not wrong. And i think that’s the whole problem. You can simply choose not to attend or pay them no attention. It doesn’t fit Into everyone’s world view and that’s alright. But to say that you cannot do it or that it’s illegal is complety absurd and i agreee with that statement that it is petected under freedom of speech.
That's up to the parents to decide isn't it? I mean all of this supposedly started because "parental rights" somehow, even though it was parents taking their children to these shows in the first place. Once the mainstream stopped paying direct attention to it after that surface-level excuse, it was shifted to the real reason, just openly being anti-LGBTQ because the republicans hate anything that doesn't follows the Bible as they believe it should, ignoring the numerous contradictions within the damned book, and even related to similar issues.
I guess every woman with braids, or wearing jewelry should be getting the same treatment. I mean it's in the book too after all.
Or how about tattoos:
This doesn't even get into things like how the Bible explains how to buy and trade slaves.
You know, I'm starting to think this book has a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense in a modern world and should not be applied to everyone. Religious beliefs should not be forced on everyone, and with these kinds of laws the religious roots are hidden behind claims of "parental rights" or various forms of "morality", to try and hide the religious roots they come from. The moderm Republican party loves to ignore the inconvenient fact that this is not a Christian country.
Our founding fathers explicitly warned about it. Madison praised the new Constitution for keeping faith out of federal officeholding, which would welcome individuals “of every description, whether native or adoptive, whether young or old, and without regard to poverty or wealth, or to any particular profession of religious faith.”
James Madison, in the Federalist Papers, challenged the idea that religion in politics would lead men to “cooperate for their common good” and asserted instead that it would make them “vex and oppress each other.”
Or if you want to ignore that commentary as being somehow "unofficial" as it is not a government document and "only" commentary from some of the founding fathers.. how about the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. Begun by George Washington, signed by John Adams and *ratified unanimously *by a Senate still half-filled with signers of the Constitution:
The original pilgrims came here literally to escape persecution. The current Republican party is doing exactly that to anyone that believes differently than they do and falsely trying to claim it's how this country was meant to be from the very beginning.
Who gives a shit?
You apparently, and along with every other commenter.
Let them do whatever they want. You go ahead and raise your children properly and teach them properly. They're just making it very easy for your children to beat them in every aspect of life. Why are you upset?
When those guys complain that they're having a hard life, I just laugh and remember that my preschool children know more math that a 7th grader. That's how you win in life. They're punishing themselves. No need for us to fix any of this. The more they screw up the better it's for us. Let them enjoy their anti-depressants.