The Hate Directed at the LGBTQ+

[Farfromgeneva]

Dude was doing drag in front of impressionable underage kids to boot. Lock him up.

Also, "get it to x" is apparently an expert on what is and isn't drag queen/king garb. Who would have known?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/16/93/9b ... 321c2a.gif

I go for the neither sex look. Sweats, a tee and sneakers. Better to leave them guessing. I sometimes go for '76's "Greenspring Valley" look. Loafers (no socks), Seersucker shorts, button-down Oxford shirt, Repp tie and a blue blazer.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/525513850281466984/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_(Sa ... ight_Live)

[Farfromgeneva]

Is this what they ultimately want?

https://twitter.com/_barringtonii/statu ... p6_4JgXSkQ

Who is "they"?

Pedophiles?

I watched what this guy is saying and understood him as being clear that "most" such events are abuse, but that people should not attempt to dissuade an adult looking back from saying that they had consented from being emotionally ok with that.

I disagree as I think the 9 year old never truly had independent 'consent', the event is by definition abuse; I don't want the now adult to be damaged emotionally today by being forced to admit that such consent was not given, but I think it is far, far more likely that such current belief is merely repression for the abuse that actually happened. A 9 year old's brain is simply not developed to make such consent with full understanding.

But I don't see him as saying he ("they") want pedopholes to not be considered abusers.

Putting that aside, I do think young adults can and do consent to one another to have sex and none of that is automatically abuse. Teenage brains do not process risk tolerance as well as adult brains do, and hormones are ranging, so "consent" is not well-informed, but it's not abuse. The only instances of abuse is where there's a real power imbalance between them.

So what then are you saying? You might want to re-listen a bit more intently. Seems like you are giving the pedophile a reprieve, because the 9 y/o said go for it at the time. I am sure all those pedophiles in prison hoped they could persuade those they abused to say "I consented" so they would not be in prison.

Not sure how you even found a way to begin justifying this.

It is never consensual for a child, ever.

.... what in the heck are you talking about??? There is no context to the video to reference this to pedophiles in prison. The only thing being stated here is life is messy and one size does not fit all. There is no attempt to justify, it is a statement of fact.



... it is akin to getting spun up over purple M&Ms'.

Not to mention a pedophile in prison can’t talk much as their teeth are knocked out in the first week and they are perpetually used as a “chinese finger trap” by all the other criminals who loathe their existence and actually do something about pedophiles rather than talk and accuse innocent, non heterosexual folks of all being pedophiles or suggesting they have that proclivity.

[Brooklyn]

Dude was doing drag in front of impressionable underage kids to boot. Lock him up.

Also, "get it to x" is apparently an expert on what is and isn't drag queen/king garb. Who would have known?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/16/93/9b ... 321c2a.gif

I go for the neither sex look. Sweats, a tee and sneakers. Better to leave them guessing. I sometimes go for '76's "Greenspring Valley" look. Loafers (no socks), Seersucker shorts, button-down Oxford shirt, Repp tie and a blue blazer.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/525513850281466984/

Bonus points for the pink shorts.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Is this what they ultimately want?

https://twitter.com/_barringtonii/statu ... p6_4JgXSkQ

Who is "they"?

Pedophiles?

I watched what this guy is saying and understood him as being clear that "most" such events are abuse, but that people should not attempt to dissuade an adult looking back from saying that they had consented from being emotionally ok with that.

I disagree as I think the 9 year old never truly had independent 'consent', the event is by definition abuse; I don't want the now adult to be damaged emotionally today by being forced to admit that such consent was not given, but I think it is far, far more likely that such current belief is merely repression for the abuse that actually happened. A 9 year old's brain is simply not developed to make such consent with full understanding.

But I don't see him as saying he ("they") want pedopholes to not be considered abusers.

Putting that aside, I do think young adults can and do consent to one another to have sex and none of that is automatically abuse. Teenage brains do not process risk tolerance as well as adult brains do, and hormones are ranging, so "consent" is not well-informed, but it's not abuse. The only instances of abuse is where there's a real power imbalance between them.

So what then are you saying? You might want to re-listen a bit more intently. Seems like you are giving the pedophile a reprieve, because the 9 y/o said go for it at the time. I am sure all those pedophiles in prison hoped they could persuade those they abused to say "I consented" so they would not be in prison.

Not sure how you even found a way to begin justifying this.

It is never consensual for a child, ever.

.... what in the heck are you talking about??? There is no context to the video to reference this to pedophiles in prison. The only thing being stated here is life is messy and one size does not fit all. There is no attempt to justify, it is a statement of fact.



... it is akin to getting spun up over purple M&Ms'.

Not to mention a pedophile in prison can’t talk much as their teeth are knocked out in the first week and they are perpetually used as a “chinese finger trap” by all the other criminals who loathe their existence and actually do something about pedophiles rather than talk and accuse innocent, non heterosexual folks of all being pedophiles or suggesting they have that proclivity.

[MDlaxfan76]

Dude was doing drag in front of impressionable underage kids to boot. Lock him up.

Also, "get it to x" is apparently an expert on what is and isn't drag queen/king garb. Who would have known?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/16/93/9b ... 321c2a.gif

I go for the neither sex look. Sweats, a tee and sneakers. Better to leave them guessing. I sometimes go for '76's "Greenspring Valley" look. Loafers (no socks), Seersucker shorts, button-down Oxford shirt, Repp tie and a blue blazer.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/525513850281466984/

You must have gone to different parties in the Valley than me...never seen those looks here.
But in Bermuda, yes, absolutely. Men wear jackets, tie, and bright shorts to work.

The St. Paul's crowd was more overtly preppy than my crowd, same for the BL and Loyola folk relative to the Gilman and McD types, and I suspect still are, certainly were during my son's HS era. But we did occasionally wear some darn preppy stuff, remember madras jackets and pants, yellow wide wales?

When I arrived at Dartmouth in'76 I had a pair of the yellow wide wale corduroys, thinking it's cold up there! My girlfriend and future bride took one look at them and asked what I was thinking...I opened my eyes and realized blue jeans, t-shirt or sweatshirt or a blue jean jacket were as "dressed up" as we were gonna get...a couple of the frats were more preppy but I recognized that the guys I liked most were the football, rugby, hockey etc types, not prone to the preppy look. I conformed...

[old salt]

Maybe he likes using gloryholes, closing his eyes and believing the scratchy feeling is just the wood not smoothed out?

Please explain that post for your son's benefit. He & his teammates might be reading this forum.

[Farfromgeneva]

Dude was doing drag in front of impressionable underage kids to boot. Lock him up.

Also, "get it to x" is apparently an expert on what is and isn't drag queen/king garb. Who would have known?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/16/93/9b ... 321c2a.gif

I go for the neither sex look. Sweats, a tee and sneakers. Better to leave them guessing. I sometimes go for '76's "Greenspring Valley" look. Loafers (no socks), Seersucker shorts, button-down Oxford shirt, Repp tie and a blue blazer.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/525513850281466984/

You must have gone to different parties in the Valley than me...never seen those looks here.
But in Bermuda, yes, absolutely. Men wear jackets, tie, and bright shorts to work.

The St. Paul's crowd was more overtly preppy than my crowd, same for the BL and Loyola folk relative to the Gilman and McD types, and I suspect still are, certainly were during my son's HS era. But we did occasionally wear some darn preppy stuff, remember madras jackets and pants, yellow wide wales?

When I arrived at Dartmouth in'76 I had a pair of the yellow wide wale corduroys, thinking it's cold up there! My girlfriend and future bride took one look at them and asked what I was thinking...I opened my eyes and realized blue jeans, t-shirt or sweatshirt or a blue jean jacket were as "dressed up" as we were gonna get...a couple of the frats were more preppy but I recognized that the guys I liked most were the football, rugby, hockey etc types, not prone to the preppy look. I conformed...

St Paul’s is focused on creating the next Weinstein and Polanski

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/ ... 3505c5f8b/

[CU88]

March 10, 2023
HEATHER COX RICHARDSON
MAR 11

At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) last weekend, Daily Wire host Michael Knowles said that “for the good of society…transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely—the whole preposterous ideology, at every level.” He worded his statement in such a way that it would inevitably create outrage that he could then angrily refute by insisting that “eradicating transgenderism” was not the same thing as eradicating transgender people. This sort of word game is a well-known right-wing tactic for garnering media attention.

Make no mistake: this attack on transgender people represents a deadly attack on the fundamental principle of American democracy, the idea that all people are created equal.

CPAC and its representatives have become increasingly close to Hungarian president Victor Orbán as he has asserted autocratic power in his own country. Orbán has explicitly rejected the liberal democracy that his country used to enjoy, saying that its emphasis on multiculturalism weakens national cultures while its insistence on human equality undermines traditional society by recognizing that women and LGBTQ people have the same rights as straight white men. The age of liberal democracy is over, he says, and a new age has begun.

In place of equality, Orbán advocates what he calls “illiberal democracy” or “Christian democracy.” “Christian democracy is, by definition, not liberal,” he said in July 2018; “it is, if you like, illiberal. And we can specifically say this in connection with a few important issues—say, three great issues. Liberal democracy is in favor of multiculturalism, while Christian democracy gives priority to Christian culture; this is an illiberal concept. Liberal democracy is pro-immigration, while Christian democracy is anti-immigration; this is again a genuinely illiberal concept. And liberal democracy sides with adaptable family models, while Christian democracy rests on the foundations of the Christian family model; once more, this is an illiberal concept.”

Orbán has focused on LBGTQ rights as a danger to “Western civilization.” Arguing the need to protect children, his party has made it impossible for transgender people to change their gender identification on legal documents and made it illegal to share with minors any content that can be interpreted as promoting an LBGTQ lifestyle. After Orbán put allies in charge of Hungarian universities, his government banned public funding for gender studies courses. According to his chief of staff: “The Hungarian government is of the clear view that people are born either men or women.”

As the opening speaker at CPAC in Texas last August, Orbán called for the establishment of a global right wing to continue to work together to destroy liberal democracy and establish Christian democracy.

The American right wing has heard the call, openly embracing Orbán’s principles. Vox senior correspondent Zack Beauchamp, who is a crackerjack analyst of right-wing political ideology both in the U.S. and abroad, noted in 2021 the rise of right-wing ideologues who saw themselves as the vanguard of a “post-liberal order.”

Beauchamp explained that these ideologues reject American democracy. They argue that “religious liberty, limited government, ‘the inviolability of private institutions (e.g., corporations),’ academic freedom, constitutional originalism, free markets, and free speech”—all central tenets of democracy—have created “liberal totalitarianism” that has destroyed “all institutions that were originally responsible for fostering human virtue: family, ennobling friendship, community, university, polity, church.”

They see the government institutions that defend these democratic tenets as part of a totalitarian system designed to destroy national virtue. If this were truly the case (it is not), it would be an act of heroism to try to destroy those systems altogether. Right-wing attacks on the FBI, the Department of Justice, and even the government itself over the arrest of January 6th rioters who they insist were peaceful tourists shore up the idea that the FBI and DOJ are part of a government determined to crush Trump supporters. That ideology invites those who believe it to continue to attack our government.

Knowles’s statement last week that transgenderism must be eradicated from public life was not simply an attack on transgender individuals, although it was certainly that. Tapping into the anti-LGBTQ sentiment that Orbán and those like him have used to win voters, the statement was a crucial salvo in the attempt to destroy American democracy and replace it with Christian nationalism.

But there is a very simple answer to the radical right’s attack on LGBTQ people that also answers their rejection of democracy. It is an answer that history has proved again and again.

Once you give up the principle of equality, you have given up the whole game. You have admitted the principle that people are unequal, and that some people are better than others. Once you have replaced the principle of equality with the idea that humans are unequal, you have stamped your approval on the idea of rulers and subjects. At that point, all you can do is to hope that no one in power decides that you belong in the lesser group.

In 1858, Abraham Lincoln, then a candidate for the Senate, warned that arguments limiting American equality to white men and excluding black Americans were the same arguments “that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world…. Turn in whatever way you will—whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent.”

Either people—men, in his day—were equal, or they were not. Lincoln went on: “I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it…where will it stop?”

[NattyBohChamps04]

Texas Republican lawmaker introduces drag queen 'bounty hunting' bill

Policing the way people dress. how free of Texas.

They're greasing the already slippery slope with crisco...

[a fan]

Texas Republican lawmaker introduces drag queen 'bounty hunting' bill

Policing the way people dress. how free of Texas.

They're greasing the already slippery slope with crisco...

Trying to cancel other American's freedom----and use the government to do it. Fascists. We MUST conform. It's why hearing FoxNation idiots

Here ya go......Jack Nicolson on freedom from 50 years ago. Nailed it then. And you're seeing the same exact reaction now.

A bunch of scared Americans, who are out of their minds at the very idea that someone dares to ACTUALLY be different, and to enjoy the freedoms that they CLAIM to believe in.....

REAL conservatives shrug their shoulders at drag queens, and cheers their choices....and points out, proudly, that you can do this in America.....and would be killed for trying it in N Korea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc11mJGre10

[SCLaxAttack]

Texas Republican lawmaker introduces drag queen 'bounty hunting' bill

Policing the way people dress. how free of Texas.

They're greasing the already slippery slope with crisco...

No more Tyler Perry movies in Texas.

[a fan]

Texas Republican lawmaker introduces drag queen 'bounty hunting' bill

Policing the way people dress. how free of Texas.

They're greasing the already slippery slope with crisco...

No more Tyler Perry movies in Texas.

So f'ing stupid. I can't believe we're dealing with this stupid sh9t in 2023.

Move to N Korea or China if you're so worried about anyone who dares to be different from you. They'll make sure you conform.

[SCLaxAttack]

Texas Republican lawmaker introduces drag queen 'bounty hunting' bill

Policing the way people dress. how free of Texas.

They're greasing the already slippery slope with crisco...

No more Tyler Perry movies in Texas.

So f'ing stupid. I can't believe we're dealing with this stupid sh9t in 2023.

Move to N Korea or China if you're so worried about anyone who dares to be different from you. They'll make sure you conform.

This is the same party that wants to give heterosexual couples with children special tax deductions and constantly drills us about the importance of parental involvement with their children, but doesn't trust those same parents to decide what's acceptable for their families.

[youthathletics]

Texas Republican lawmaker introduces drag queen 'bounty hunting' bill

Policing the way people dress. how free of Texas.

They're greasing the already slippery slope with crisco...

No more Tyler Perry movies in Texas.

So f'ing stupid. I can't believe we're dealing with this stupid sh9t in 2023.

Move to N Korea or China if you're so worried about anyone who dares to be different from you. They'll make sure you conform.

This is the same party that wants to give heterosexual couples with children special tax deductions and constantly drills us about the importance of parental involvement with their children, but doesn't trust those same parents to decide what's acceptable for their families.

Uhhh, has nothing to do with how people dress.

So you guys are cool with allowing the below? Not sure any of you actually read it... .

(2)AA"Lascivious" means conduct of a sexual nature that
is offensive to community standards of decency. The term includes
the intentional exposure of genitalia in the presence of a minor.

Strange that you all disagree and are cool with behavior like this.

[a fan]

Uhhh, has nothing to do with how people dress.

So you guys are cool with allowing the below? Not sure any of you actually read it... .

I did. Did you? The entire law is based around cross dressing, my man.

Want my support? Take the cross dressing out, it's immaterial to what you want to stop. Then it does what you are claiming it does.....prevents kids from seeing a sex show.

But that's not what they want.

Hilariously, you can be as crude as you want in front of 16 year olds and younger, so long as you "wear the right clothes". SOOPER cool that these nutjobs keep that legal, don't you think?


(1) "Drag performance" means a performance in which a performer exhibits a gender that is different than the performer’s gender recorded at birth using clothing, makeup, or other physical markers and sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs in a lascivious manner before an audience.

(2) "Lascivious" means conduct of a sexual nature that is offensive to community standards of decency. The term includes the intentional exposure of genitalia in the presence of a minor.

Ever see a HS play where they're short on talent? And a kid plays "a different gender"? I have. This makes that illegal so long as someone in the audience is offended. And read the law.....those who promote/manage the show are on the hook for it, too.











https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/b ... 04378I.pdf

[youthathletics]

Uhhh, has nothing to do with how people dress.

So you guys are cool with allowing the below? Not sure any of you actually read it... .

I did. Did you? The entire law is based around cross dressing, my man.

Want my support? Take the cross dressing out, it's immaterial to what you want to stop. Then it does what you are claiming it does.....prevents kids from seeing a sex show.

But that's not what they want.

Hilariously, you can be as crude as you want in front of 16 year olds and younger, so long as you "wear the right clothes". SOOPER cool that these nutjobs keep that legal, don't you think?


(1) "Drag performance" means a performance in which a performer exhibits a gender that is different than the performer’s gender recorded at birth using clothing, makeup, or other physical markers and sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs in a lascivious manner before an audience.

(2) "Lascivious" means conduct of a sexual nature that is offensive to community standards of decency. The term includes the intentional exposure of genitalia in the presence of a minor.

Ever see a HS play where they're short on talent? And a kid plays "a different gender"? I have. This makes that illegal so long as someone in the audience is offended. And read the law.....those who promote/manage the show are on the hook for it, too.











https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/b ... 04378I.pdf

Of course I read it, I linked and cited it. And agree with it completely. Your argument falls flat on its face b/c it refers to Lascivious. Did your HS play show their genitals? That’s what I thought.

[a fan]

Of course I read it, I linked and cited it. And agree with it completely. Your argument falls flat on its face b/c it refers to Lascivious. Did your HS play show their genitals? That’s what I thought.

And they defined the word lascivious. I cited it for you, again.

Did you REALLY read the definition.....or just gloss over it?

Have a look. Hint: the word "includes" is pretty important here.

[youthathletics]

Of course I read it, I linked and cited it. And agree with it completely. Your argument falls flat on its face b/c it refers to Lascivious. Did your HS play show their genitals? That’s what I thought.

And they defined the word lascivious. I cited it for you, again.

Did you REALLY read the definition.....or just gloss over it?

Have a look. Hint: the word "includes" is pretty important here.

Okay I’ve read it 4x now, and still agree with it. Kids don’t need to see genitals or sexually provocative acts.

[a fan]

Of course I read it, I linked and cited it. And agree with it completely. Your argument falls flat on its face b/c it refers to Lascivious. Did your HS play show their genitals? That’s what I thought.

And they defined the word lascivious. I cited it for you, again.

Did you REALLY read the definition.....or just gloss over it?

Have a look. Hint: the word "includes" is pretty important here.

Okay I’ve read it 4x now, and still agree with it. Kids don’t need to see genitals or sexually provocative acts.

I agree.

Your problem now is twofold: one, so long as you're "dressed correctly"? This law says that you can go right ahead and show kids your genitals. Please tell me that you think this is a flaw in the law.

Two? Guess who gets to decide what "is offensive to community standards of decency" Someone calling balls and strikes....or someone with an agenda?


And while we're here, let's have a look at a group that's performing in front of kids 16yo every day, all over America. They're barely wearing clothes, and what they're wearing is as tight as humanly possible. Lots of skin showing, and a whole mess of pelvic thrusts etc. for all to see.

Should they be jailed? And the schools that promote this sort of thing?

[DocBarrister]

Hundreds of armed far-right extremists, including “Sieg Heil” chanting neo-Nazis, joined by right-wing Christian groups, converged on a park in Ohio where parents and children had gathered to enjoy a drag queen story event Saturday. The extremists clashed with rainbow umbrella-wielding supporters who had shown up to protect the event.

At Wadsworth Memorial Park outside Akron, the Rock-n-Roll Humanist Drag Queen Story Hour ended in chaos as tensions raged between activists and protesters.

A number of far-right extremist and religious groups, including the Proud Boys, Patriot Front, III Percenters, “White Lives Matter of Ohio,” Blood Tribe (a neo-Nazi movement led by former Marine Chris Pohlhaus, who was armed), and unaffiliated conservatives, attended the event to disrupt it.

https://www.advocate.com/news/ohio-nazi-drag-story-hour

DocBarrister