Tennessee's Anti-Drag Bill Is a Gaudy Public Performance
It’s already illegal to expose minors to obscenity, so what is this bill really for?

Tennessee is on the verge of passing a law banning minors from attending drag shows, but it's not entirely clear—even when you ask its proponents—how broadly it's going to be enforced.
Tennessee's Republican-dominated House on Thursday passed an amended version of S.B. 3, a bill that would ban "adult cabaret performances" in public or anywhere where a minor could view it. The definitions of cabaret performances in the original draft of the bill include "topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration."
The bill makes the first offense a Class A misdemeanor and subsequent offenses a Class E felony, which can carry fines of up to $3,000 and prison sentences of one to six years.
The inclusion of "male and female impersonators" is intended to block children from attending drag performances, but the addition of the clause "that appeals to a prurient interest" makes the meaning vague. The bill's House sponsor, Rep. Chris Todd (R–Jackson), has been clear that he thinks any drag show is inappropriate for children, regardless of content. Last October, he got directly involved in a fight over whether minors should be allowed to attend what was being sold as a "family-friendly drag show" at Jackson, Tennessee's pride event. Todd went so far as to try to get an injunction to halt the show entirely. The event organizers eventually agreed to a compromise to prohibit minors from attending the drag show.
The Tennessean reported that the pride event organizers had thoroughly vetted the show to make sure it was appropriate for children and did not contain any lewd or sexual content. Todd, however, told The Tennessean he never even contacted the show organizers to determine the content before publicly calling it "child abuse." When the outlet pressed him on how he could classify the event as such without even knowing its content, he said, "this type of performance and its intent is the child abuse," accusing drag performers of attempting to "groom and recruit children to this lifestyle."
So Todd's feelings on the matter are clear, but his bill has been less so. After he introduced it in the House—and after the state Senate version was introduced by Sen. Jack Johnson (R–Brentwood)—it was amended. The vague "appeals to a prurient interest" section has been removed and replaced with "performances that are harmful to minors, as that term is defined in § 39-17-901." That's a reference to Tennessee's existing obscenity definitions.
Under the law, "harmful to minors" means representations "of nudity, sexual excitement, sexual conduct, excess violence or sadomasochistic abuse" that appeals to prurient interests, is "patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for minors," and "taken as whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific values for minors."
The amendment further specifies that what's banned is "a performance of actual or simulated specified sexual activities, including removal of articles of clothing or appearing unclothed" in a place where minors can see them.
It appears that the bill that has passed the House and will head to the Senate for a final vote before being sent to Republican Gov. Bill Lee doesn't actually ban minors from drag shows unless these shows violate the state's already existing obscenity laws. State Rep. Gloria Johnson (D–Knoxville) pointed this out on Thursday prior to the bill's passage: "If you're being obscene in front of children, it is already illegal, correct? If you're wearing lederhosen and being obscene in front of children, you'll be arrested, correct?"
In other words, this is a bill that criminalizes something that's already against the law in Tennessee. It's for show. In fact, The Tennessean notes that other Republicans have defended the law by saying it won't affect many of the drag shows that may take place in the state.
But Todd thinks it's going to, and he is probably not alone. Otherwise, why pass a bill at all? The Tennessean notes that LGBT activists worry that the law's passage will serve as a "chilling effect," making venues afraid to allow minors into any drag shows at all out of fear of police enforcement.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
What a drag.
Then why have there been reports of kids stuffing money into drag queens' underwear?
And again I'll ask, why was female genital mutilation such a horror just a few years ago, but fluid gender mutilation surgery on minors is such a thing of beauty today?
(It's a rhetorical question, Scott; you don't have to feel guilty about not answering. But you should feel guilty for the answer we all know you have.)
why was female genital mutilation such a horror just a few years ago
Shhh, the memory hole is supposed to go one-way only.
"Then why have there been reports of kids stuffing money into drag queens’ underwear?"
That's not obscenity.
"why was female genital mutilation such a horror just a few years ago, but fluid gender mutilation surgery on minors is such a thing of beauty today?"
Intent and context?
Contrary to your comment below, the difference is whether African tribal leaders or parents dictate the female genital mutilation, or whether government teachers and doctors mutilate kids.
Minors are well-known as not being able to sign contracts or make medical decisions for themselves; that is practically the definition of minor. Teachers and doctors certainly are not qualified to make such irreversible decisions in lieu of parents, let alone waiting for adulthood.
Fuck off, woke slaver.
"Teachers and doctors certainly are not qualified to make such irreversible decisions in lieu of parents, let alone waiting for adulthood."
That's why Jehovah Witnesses are never rightly stopped from prohibiting blood transfusions for their kids, right?
Fuck off, dimwit.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I'm now creating over $35,400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,400 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link--------------------------------------------->>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com
They're not, unless the child becomes a ward of the state through the Nazi collectivist CPS system. I'm willing to compromise with you, shreek: if you're willing to have Nazi collectivist CPS agents take custody of child trannies and let the state surgically alter their genitals, feel free to put that law up as a referendum.
“why was female genital mutilation such a horror just a few years ago, but fluid gender mutilation surgery on minors is such a thing of beauty today?”
No surgeon in the US is doing gender-confirming genital surgery on anyone under 18.
Fine if you want to make a law forbidding “top surgery” for minors, too, but then be consistent and ban “boob jobs” for minors, too. Those have been going on forever without becoming a football in the Team Red vs Blue culture wars.
And, conservatives, maybe show as much concern over girls under 18 getting boob jobs as you do about girls under 18 getting mastectomies. The thing about conservative outrage over top surgery is that it often seems to come from a place of partisanship rather than any genuine concern.
Thanks for the gaslighting there, Mike, but we've proven otherwise. Yet again, for the umpteenth time, you choose to lie and gaslight like this.
Your blinders are duly noted. Your ignorance of how to use Google is duly noted. Your strawman about top surgery not being mutilation is duly noted.
In fact, all those have been duly noted for a considerable time, and rebutted, and yet you continue pretending you have fresh insightful things to say.
No surgeon in the US is doing gender-confirming genital surgery on anyone under 18.
Sex change surgeon Dr. Marcy Bowers admits doing vaginoplasty on 16-year-olds in the documentary "What Is A Woman". Go to 58:46 in the film.
I've also informed you about doctors "transitioning" boys as a "treatment" for genital injuries or deformities. Yet, you continue to lie that this doesn't happen.
https://rumble.com/v1p12ub-what-is-a-woman.html
Ambiguous genitalia with perineoscrotal hypospadias in 46,XY individuals: long-term medical, surgical, and psychosexual outcome
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12205281/
Google paying a splendid earnings from domestic 6,850 USD a week, this is awesome a 12 months beyond I was laid-off in a totally horrible financial system. “w many thank you google every day for blessing the ones oa-11 guidelines and presently it’s miles my responsibility to pay and percentage it with all and Sunday.
.
.
Proper right here I started————————>>> GOOGLE WORK
Congenital micropenis: long-term medical, surgical and psychosexual follow-up of individuals raised male or female
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11815721/
"And, conservatives, maybe show as much concern over girls under 18 getting boob jobs as you do about girls under 18 getting mastectomies."
You think we do not? Seriously?
"The thing about conservative outrage over top surgery is that it often seems to come from a place of partisanship rather than any genuine concern."
That "do not mutilate children" is a partisan stance is a bit sad.
You think we do not? Seriously?
If it wasn't for strawmen and deliberately false accusations, Mike wouldn't have a narrative.
“You think we do not? Seriously?”
Absolutely I think most conservatives do not. (Maybe you personally do care.)
https://www.alamy.com/miss-teen-usa-2006-katie-blair-miss-universe-2006-natalie-glebova-miss-usa-2005-chelsea-cooley-with-donald-trump-red-carpet-at-the-launch-party-of-image443448198.html
Was a picture of 3 teenage girls without obviously un-augmented tits standing with Donald Trump for a photograph at a beauty pageant supposed to substantiate anything about your idiotic post there, Episiarch/Bo Cara Esq?
Go read some Fox News articles from back when Courtney Stodden got her tits done and married a guy in his 40s. The conservative media was ready to lynch her parents.
Also, how come you utterly ignored the half dozen links to genital surgery on minors, Episiarch/Bo Cara Esq? You know, the ones that utterly obliterated your lie that no surgeon in the United States is performing tranny surgery on minors?
I followed your link. What does that photo show that substantiates your claim that conservatives support boob jobs for underage girls? This is not a trick question, I genuinely do not understand.
The link was mostly sarcasm.
I cannot prove my perception any more than damikesc can prove his.
Since you wrote "And, conservatives, maybe show as much concern over girls under 18 getting boob jobs as you do about girls under 18 getting mastectomies. The thing about conservative outrage over top surgery is that it often seems to come from a place of partisanship rather than any genuine concern.", I do not know how a picture of teenage girls with what certainly do not look like augmented breasts have to do with it.
Do I LIKE beauty pageants for teens? No. Think they're creepy as all get out but I am not going to call for their banishment. But they are a dramatically different thing than drag shows for kids under 8.
"No surgeon in the US is doing gender-confirming genital surgery on anyone under 18."
This is a flat-out lie.
Not only is it a flat-out lie, but when you've claimed this in the past dozens of people here have given numerous citations covering thousands of cases of exactly that.
And you've even acknowledged some of those examples.
So why are you lying about it again? Who do you imagine you're tricking?
When did all leftists become pedophiles?
Have they always been this way and just now feel comfortable enough to openly discuss their desire to molest and rape young children?
Trying to use the sexualization of children to subvert parental authority is just the latest front in that effort, although, pedophiles were prominent in "post-modernism". The real goal is to be able to influence children directly without the parents getting in the way. If that facilitates some of them fucking kids, that's just a bonus.
They didn't. You are the pedophiles. Apart from the actually unfathomable number of conservative priests and conservative politicians who've raped children, most everyday Republicans can't stop fucking talking about fucking children.
You people are sick. Normal people see you as sick. Your children should be removed from your households and educated by people who will keep them safe.
Like these conservatives, Tony, of the very socialist Chicago Teachers Union?
https://dailycaller.com/2023/01/06/chicago-sexually-assualted-teacher-student-lightfoot/
The Chicago Board of Education’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) annual report found hundreds of Chicago Public School (CPS) teachers were accused of adult-to-student sexual misconduct in the 2021-2022 school year.
“Over the past four years, the SAU’s accomplishments have been significant. It has opened 1,735 cases following allegations reported by students, alumni, parents, staff, and others. Of those, it has closed a total of 1,384 cases raising concerns of adult-on-student sexual misconduct, and substantiated policy violations in 302 investigations,” the report stated.
The OIG added that of the over 1,700 cases of alleged sexual misconduct between CPS-affiliated adults and students, sixteen criminal charges have been filed.
More on it:
https://chicagocitywire.com/stories/638582935-i-m-ready-to-f-right-now-i-m-not-gonna-be-gentle-either-oig-report-details-cps-teachers-sexual-grooming-assaults-of-their-students
Hundreds of Chicago Public Schools teachers sexually groomed, assaulted and raped CPS students last school year.
That's according to the report released this week by the CPS Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which said it received more than 600 "adult on student" misconduct allegations for the 2021-22 school year, substantiating more than half of them and initiating criminal charges in 16 cases.
And it's not new, it's been going on for years (from 2019):
https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/chicago-public-schools-sex-abuse/
The sex abuse scandal at Chicago Public Schools erupted last summer, revealing a least a decade of under-reporting or limited action by the district in cases of rape and sexual misconduct against students.
And now today, a former CPS security guard, James Wilson Jr., was charged with sexually abusing girls, who were as young as 7 years old. Some of those charges stem from alleged abuse that happened more than a decade ago, before Wilson left CPS in 2009.
"They didn’t. You are the pedophiles."
"Nuh-uh! U R the pedophiles because you can't stop condemning pedophiles cause U like talking about it."
That's some serious toddler-level sophistry, Tony. How the fuck did you think that retarded I'm-rubber-you're-glue drivel was some sort of cogent argument?
When Tulsa Community College sends us their queer studies associate of arts graduates, they're not sending their best.
Poor Tony. Dumbest post I have read today, but it's early.
"“Then why have there been reports of kids stuffing money into drag queens’ underwear?”
That’s not obscenity."
Very much is.
"“why was female genital mutilation such a horror just a few years ago, but fluid gender mutilation surgery on minors is such a thing of beauty today?”
Intent and context?"
"It's OK when we do it" is an impressive thought process.
Shut the fuck up or we're going to have to send drag queens back to the closet.
Dont ask why kids need to see drag queens doing erotic dancing up close. Ask why drag queens to have an audience of children for their erotic dancing.
And you think the force of government needs to intervene here?
Do you know where you're at?
i didnt comment on that. as a matter of fact i do not tthink government should get involved.
And i still think these are pervs and demented commies and no one should be taking thieir kids to shit, and it's a good question why they need to do it front of kids so badly.
Demented commies?
the "erotic drag shows for kids" crowd and the "transify all the kids crowd" and the commies are all together.
Demented commies indeed.
If you say so...
The founders of the drag queen story hour are queer theorists who actually wrote a paper on why they’re doing it.
Queer theory is queer Marxism. And the “queer” bit is about breaking the entire concept of normalcy to liberate humanity. It’s demented. And it’s marxified.
Demented commies is a fairly legit description.
There are many right-wing commenters who hang out here on this libertarian website, dissing the writers, bragging about how they don’t contribute to fundraising drives, being rude because it is one of the rare political sites on the Internet with virtually no moderation.
That explains some things.
there are more commies on this board than republicans tho
It explains that Mike is pissed that virtually nobody agrees with him, and he's furious that he can't police the comments and ban people who are rude to him.
Remember when he spent an entire year shilling his private Quora forum and claimed he was leaving for good, just like when sarcasmic claimed he was leaving for Glibertarians and then was back in less than 12 hours?
Thanks for explaining to shreek's sock how things work around here, Episiarch/Bo Cara Esq. I'm sure he appreciates it since this is his first day on the site.
We use government to intervene and disallow those under 18 or 21 to partake in a gentlemen's club.
How is this different? Please explain.
You can't take your 14 year old son to a titty bar. Are you equally upset about that government interference, shreek? No? Why not? Hmmmmmmm.
It's amazing to watch the libs choose 'erotic drag queen dance shows for children' as one of their hills to die on.
They've never been seriously challenged on anything like this before. It's one thing to make the plebs bake the cake, but things change when they start fucking around with kids. The negative reaction's surprising to them so they're doubling down.
To be fair, leftists don't have a hill they won't die on. They're so used to dominating the culture war that they feel they'll get get their way no matter how ridiculous their demands are.
It's pretty simple: they're evil perverts who want to sexually abuse kids
We didn't bring it up!
We're just trying to stop politicians from using the government to censor free expression and shut down gay bars like it's 19 fucking 63 all over again.
There is no such thing as an erotic drag show anyway. You're just vomiting random words about something you presumably know nothing about.
"We’re just trying to stop politicians from using the government to censor free expression and shut down gay bars like it’s 19 fucking 63 all over again."
Nobody gives a shit about gay clubs or drag queens.
Adding the phrase "WITH CHILDREN" and then problems start.
Why, Tony, do you think all gay people are pedophiles? I do not but you seem to buy that any criticism of having kids at drag shows is an assault on GAY RIGHTS. I have never thought pedophilia was really tied to gay rights but you seem to believe it is.
Go fuck yourself. You'll end up ashes just like all fascists.
Tell me your economic policy plan. Then I'll listen to your dear concern for the children.
The children whose parents need the government to tell them where they can and can't go.
"Go fuck yourself. You’ll end up ashes just like all fascists.
Tell me your economic policy plan. Then I’ll listen to your dear concern for the children.
The children whose parents need the government to tell them where they can and can’t go."
Not sure what this has to do with your belief that pedophilia is apparently, for YOU, a necessary part of the gay experience. I certainly know plenty of gay people who do not seem to subscribe to that...but gay activists certainly DO seem to think it is.
But if all it takes for you to come out against pedophilia is me saying that a sales tax replacing income tax and reducing government spending to the levels of 10 years ago, and reducing regulations by 70%, then there you go.
Welcome to opposing pedophilia, Tony.
Raping children is already very illegal, dude. Nobody forgot to make it illegal (except in various places like Kentucky).
What does pedophilia have to do with drag queens?
"Raping children is already very illegal, dude. Nobody forgot to make it illegal (except in various places like Kentucky)."
Well, heavily left-wing Loudoun County did it. And there are sexual crimes besides rape.
I thought you'd come out against pedos when I gave you my economic system...wait, I guess you just clarified your position.
Not getting to strip for kids is nothing like pre-Stonewall, you disingenuous fuck.
During the early days of the gay rights movement activists had to fight against being conflated with pederasts in the public mind, but here you are in 2023 doing it yourself.
Faggots have always been disproportionately pedophiles. You were the moron for believing their propaganda for 30 years. Now that they're out in the open with it, maybe you'll wise up.
Just save it. Nobody believes you don't want to exterminate gays. I appreciate your Orwellian fucktardery, but go fuck yourself.
Are parents not allowed to decide whether their kids see a drag queen read them a book? Why do you want politicians deciding for them?
Go fuck yourself, Tony, you fascist piece of shit. Give me one example of me hating someone for being gay. And no, unlike you I don't count pederasty and boyfucking as being gay.
And speaking of hate-filled eliminationists, weren't you talking about killing evangelicals and rednecks just a little while ago?
But you're here accusing every political opponent you capture in your field of vision of being a pederast. Not only is this a common fascist tactic that was, yes, deployed against gays (because of course it was), it serves a very useful fascist purpose: crying wolf enough times so your leaders can rape children with impunity.
Can parents decide if their underage kids should have sex?
Just asking and you seem like you might well support it.
The point is that I don't trust Republican politicians to make any good law whatsoever, and I don't even need to pretend I don't understand that this is 100% bigoted culture war wedge fuckery.
FOX News keeps throwing you idiots chew toys, and you keep chewing on them. Is it that your brains are so addled with booze that memories can't stick? Do you never wonder why the last five hundred culture war freakouts went nowhere?
M&Ms are still on the loose and still wearing sneakers, for God's sake.
So, the answer is not "no". Got it.
Except when you started having convicted pedophiles dress in drag with their cock visible and read to children in public libraries. You shouldn't have brought it up. Most pedophiles don't like to advertise themselves. But you were stupid enough to do it.
Go back to your child bride and whiskey.
Keep away from kids and serving roofies in sippy cups, freakshow.
I can only assume that you Q freaks are accusing every second person of being a pedophile because you are totally incapable of thinking about children without also thinking about fucking children. Projection isn't just a river in Egypt.
I know who rapes children industrially. They wear priest collars and elephant broaches.
I too am amazed that pedophilia is openly embraced. By anybody. I am sure that some conservatives are pedophiles also, but the left has gone full retard here.
We Drag Queens so disoriented are;
baring our privates we travel so far,
school and library, tour the gay bars.
Our following is quite bizarre.
attempt at this law requires tarring & feathering.
So if the bill passes, it does nothing? This is perfect bill for republicans to support. All bark, no bite.
and also then why bother railing against it? dont understand this article or the point of it at all.
Agreed
If the law is redundant then I'll agree it shouldn't exist. What they seem to have a problem with is that it draws more attention to and makes it more difficult to groom and sexually propagandize children. It also makes the pedophiles more visible and keeps the eyes of the law in them. In the end, Reason and others defending this garbage are defending the sexualization of children out of either malignant intent or out of some sort of blind adherence to lgbt+ sexual deviance
So what if being obscene to a child is against the law. Drag shows are not per se obscene but there are things like community standards that are perfectly legal and proper.
Drag shows as they have been performed in gay bars for many years are by their very nature "sexual". They can be funny, campy and amusing for hetero adults but they are still adult entertainment to most of us. States have always banned minors from participating in all sorts of adult activities. But Scott believes that drag shows ought to have an exemption for some reason. I honestly don't see the logic.
A man dressed as a woman singing Save the Best For Last by Vanessa Williams is "by [its] very nature sexual?"
Dunno if you've ever seen a drag show at a gay bar. I have. These shows are clearly meant to arouse the clientele or they wouldn't bother doing it. I went with my wife and the whole thing seemed silly to me and I have no problem with people who get off on it. But to say these shows are not "sexual" is just stupid.
You saw a show and can generalize like this?
So you think it should be OK for minors to attend a gentlemen's club or see an NC-17 movie?
I'm constantly amazed how the commies are willing do die on the "erotic drag queens dancing in front of young children is ok" hill. It's amazing to watch.
It's just one front in a broader battle to subvert the authority of parents.
Damn right.
Parents do not own their children. Children have rights, chief among them to be educated beyond the grasp of their ignorant hick parents.
Thank you for your candor.
Your children have the internet in their pockets.
The only way you're going to be able to "protect" them from modern sensibilities is to go full Amish.
Kids have had the internet in their pockets for 20 years. What that has to do with you being a pedophile who can't stop showing your needle dick to little boys is anyone's guess.
You do realize that “some other people know better than parents” is the exact rationale behind anti-drag-show laws?
I cannot imagine you ever passing Logic 101.
(That was to Tony but it's hard to keep all the lines straight on the nesting.)
Yes. I am not dogmatic, though libertarians are supposed to be, especially with respect to politicians making cultural decisions for individuals.
I think the state should educate children apart from their parents' designs, and I also think parents should be free to take their children to drag queen reading hour if they want to. This is not a contradiction, it's nuance.
You literally used an imaginary anecdote to state that drag performances are never sexual, shreek. Goddamn you're a fucking retard.
A man dressed as a woman singing Save the Best For Last by Vanessa Williams is “by [its] very nature sexual?”
"dressed as a woman". I'm going to need some bright-line definitions here.
I bet most of the men in here are dressed more or less like KD Lang. Arrest them.
Since it's not 1993 anymore I bet you're probably wrong. They arguably should be arrested for having no fashion sense. But that's still different from showing your artificial tits and your actual cock to 8 year old little boys while you bend in a g-string, pedophile.
The 90s called, they want their fashion back, Tony.
A great many Monty Python sketches count as "drag shows". Yes, British humor requires some maturity to understand but no, seeing those old white guys dressed up as frumpy women was not inherently "adult entertainment".
This poorly written bill threatens to sweep in far too much. The attempted amendments reflect that inherent problem but they are still not solving it.
And frankly, it's the parents' responsibility to deal with this, not the government's.
Well I disagree that Monty Python sketches qualify as "drag shows". If Monty Python were appearing at the local gay bar I'd have front row seats. But that's not what they're offering.
But yeah the bill is probably poorly written and yeah it's the parent's responsibility. My point is that it's not particularly shocking for a state to place restrictions on minors. They do it all the time for better or worse. Seems like an odd issue for libertarians to freak out about.
The Monty Python sketches are meant to be comedy. Having a man dressed as a woman in those is meant to be ridiculous and absurd. A typical drag show as described herein is an adult show that has more in common with a gentlemen's club.
As described herein, maybe. As described in the bill, not so much. It's a poorly written bill and the amendments trying to make it clearer aren't working. Better to just walk away and let parents parent.
Everybody opposed to bills like this are even more opposed to letting parents parent.
I don't know the particular details of the law, or what Shackford the groomer presented, but the fact that people are defending a culture of sexually abusing children by nitpicking this law while offering no condemnation of the predators is disturbing.
On the contrary, as you have repeatedly admitted, you are the one trying to substitute the judgment of politicians for that of parents when it comes to child-rearing.
"You can't fuck your 8 year old son" is a pretty reasonable substitution of state authority over parental decision making, Tony. Considering you're a faggot who can't have children and supports putting kids in state custody to prevent them from being raised by Christians you should probably just shut the fuck up.
You guys all of a sudden have such broad expertise on what happens at drag shows. Just what is the nature of the research you've done?
Because I've been to more drag shows than I can count, and the sexy stuff does not happen on stage, believe me. It happens in the restrooms.
Shorter Tony: I was groomed in gay bars so your kids should be too!
The bill plainly says "purient interests" if people getting stoned to death is a purient interest of yours, I generally support legislation against you.
A great many Monty Python sketches count as “drag shows”.
^ Say "Men dressed as women stoning people to death appeals to my purient interests." without saying "Men dressed as women stoning people to death appeals to my purient interests." You sick fuck.
A drag show, or non-drag show, is obscene if it fits the criteria of obscenity. The former is not per se obscene. It's amazing to see so many here defend government intervention here.
You really aren't very good at this and your one or two sentence comments are tedious and lazy. Whatever you're being paid is clearly too much.
I like how you make this comment in reply to mine, which is the second to make the point. Truly you are a great keyboard warrior and I'm a paid foreign agent!
Sorry you're so transparent that everyone can spot your new socks within 18 seconds, shreek.
It’s amazing to see so many here defend government intervention here.
It's not intervention. The government already regulates obscenity. This is equity. Feel free to oppose equity, but you have to oppose all of it. Otherwise, you're just yet another fucked up authoritarian pretending your breed of authoritarianism isn't authoritarian because it wears a dress when banishing people to the Gulags and COVID camps. To wit, you can go fuck yourself just like the rest of the poseur libertarians who really want to sexualize kids and tell private businesses which bathrooms they can and can't use.
My favorite drag queen was Shirley Muldowney.
Mine is Michelle Obama.
"The inclusion of "male and female impersonators" is intended to block children from attending drag performances, but the addition of the clause "that appeals to a prurient interest" makes the meaning vague."
OK.
"Under the law, "harmful to minors" means representations "of nudity, sexual excitement, sexual conduct, excess violence or sadomasochistic abuse" that appeals to prurient interests, is "patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for minors," and "taken as whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific values for minors."
Seems considerably less than vague.
Lol, one thing obscenity law has not been criticized for before 'wokeism' is for being vague (I know it when I see it!).
The definition as used in this law is right there, shreek. If it's vague to you it's only because you're such a stupid illiterate piece of shit. Of course it isn't actually vague to you, you just want to fuck little boys. Which is why you got your original Sarah Palin's Buttplug account banned for posting dark web links to hardcore child pornography in the Reason comments.
“male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest”
This is where it gets into “in the eye of the beholder” territory. I can’t imagine my cis-hetero brain ever interpreting a man in drag acting “sexy” as actually being sexy to me. The language of the law is like an admission of something on the part of its authors.
Then change your perspective, Mike. Imagine for a moment that these aren't men, but women, and it's still just as stripperiffic.
he used "cis-hetero brain" with a straight face.
jesus christ, look at the reasoning white knight is using here.
"I myself dontt find that kind of thing to be erotic so therefore it's fine to do it to kids"
WTF
“I myself don't find that kind of thing to be erotic so therefore it’s fine to do it to kids”—Michael Jackson
"If you don't support faggot strippers showing their cock to 8 year old little boys while they stuff money in their g-string you're a closet homo" is definitely a good line of argumentation Episiarch/Bo Cara Esq. Stick with that.
The left really, really needs for men to dress up as women and then thrust their junk into the faces of small children ages 4 to 12. It really helps affirm their gender identity. Any attempts to keep them from doing so is offensive and transphobic. That's their position.
First, they lie and say such incidents are not happening, then once shown video, they switch to, yeah, it's happening but it is important that children be exposed to such so when we abuse the children, they will think it is normal. These people are child sex abusers and pedophiles.
Reason writers can wrap it up in pretty words professing outrage that the majority of society recognizes those actions as child abuse. However, they are just confirming that they are part of the groomers as well. Anyone who supports drag "queens" exposing themselves to children and inviting the children to touch them, should be kept far, far away from anyone under the age of 18.
Is this law about people "exposing themselves" Cindy?
Yes it is, shreek.
Whatever might be happening out there, you and your politicians can mind your own sick business about it.
I've seen photos with children next to women in fishnets and pasties with a "fuck Biden" sign. And you think that's just hilarious. Fuck you and stop letting Tucker fucking Carlson tell you what to think every single day.
"I’ve seen photos with children next to women in fishnets and pasties with a “fuck Biden” sign."
Can you link to these photos? It sounds like you're making shit up, which is a theme for you.
Unless these imaginary women were also grinding their pussy on the children and having the children stuff money in their g-string it still wouldn't be an equivalence. Poor Tony can't even fabricate something comparably depraved. It's hard to believe he's that unimaginative.
I'm opposed to that as well, assuming this photo exists. It is so shocking to Tony and those like him that people can have actual principles and apply them equally to those they consider to be on their side. Go figure that normal people don't want their kids involved with Pride stuff when it so often is sexually explicit and deviant
First, they lie and say such incidents are not happening, then once shown video, they switch to, yeah, it’s happening but it is important that children be exposed to such so when we abuse the children, they will think it is normal. These people are child sex abusers and pedophiles
The loop isn't big enough. Again, we've been told for decades that LGBTQ children are disproportionately the victims of sexual abuse and more likely to commit suicide because of it and all the phobes need to change their behavior to be more accommodating. Even if that means accommodating the very behavior that exactly resembles the child sexual abuse that causes LGBTQ kids to want to kill themselves later in life.
They don't care about gays or children or sex abuse, or even really Conservatives. They only care about abusing people to advance their own social status. They didn't know the political leanings of Memories Pizza when they demanded they cater their gay wedding. They didn't even know the place didn't cater. They just need people to abuse and people to believe them when they claim to be the victim so they can conceal/maintain their abuse.
Aside from the luggage theft, Sam Brinton is not atypical. It's like these people live only to torture each other and others for their own amusement:
https://nypost.com/2023/02/19/family-claims-sam-brinton-lied-about-abuse-conversion-therapy/
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/doesn-t-surprise-me-conversion-therapy-survivors-another-ex-therapist-n1049781
Perhaps what we need is some kind of drag-show decency act that prohibits the display of offensive and sexual material to minors. That way we can get Reason to defend the law to the last *checks notes* person.
Boom
the addition of the clause "that appeals to a prurient interest" makes the meaning vague. The bill's House sponsor, Rep. Chris Todd (R–Jackson), has been clear that he thinks any drag show is inappropriate for children
The whole point of Drag is to appeal to a prurient interest in female sexuality, and to ridicule it, and so, yes, any Drag show is inappropriate for children. And no, not all performances by men dressed in women are Drag. Drag is a specific genre, and everyone who participates in it knows that.
"The whole point of Drag is to appeal to a prurient interest in female sexualit"
This is wrong on at least two levels. People do not go to drag shows to ogle drag queens. They are not dressed up as objects of sexual desire.
Also, most of the people in the audience don't even like females.
They are not dressed up as objects of sexual desire.
They are dressed in an insulting parody of female desirability.
most of the people in the audience don’t even like females.
Yes, that's one of my points. Drag intentionally denigrates women.
All of a sudden we have a humorless feminist screecher in our midst. Should government be legislating what shows people go to based on your opinion?
No.
So how about you avoid drag shows and let other people do what they want to do, and leave politicians out of it?
I remember when libertarians used to argue against even laws against obscenity.
No. I will continue to criticize people who take children to Drag shows, because children don’t belong there.
"Obscenity" should not be illegal, but it should not be shared with children. That's why we have laws in most states prohibiting sharing material "harmful to minors" with underage people.
So it should be illegal with respect to children. Fine. It's not an unreasonable opinion, although it has nothing to do with the libertarianism I grew up with.
Let's just agree that I'm pretty much the only libertarian left here, and I'm a fucking socialist.
But you also say children shouldn't go to drag shows. As in, there should be a law against it? I agree about some drag shows, mostly because I don't want children in my bars. But presumably there are some on Sunday mornings and such that are family friendly.
One of the most profitable movies of the 90s featured Robin Williams in drag. It was not a hardcore adult movie. You people have gone absolutely insane. You have let Tucker Carlson do literally all your thinking for you. You embarrass me as a member of this species.
The "libertarianism you grew up with" is what you've been railing against like a histrionic faggot for 15+ years on this website, Tony. If you liked it so much you should have defended it.
And as soon as Robin Williams resurrects from the dead and shoves his cock in an 8 year old boy's face while the 8 year old boy stuffs singles into his g-string we can talk about banning the PG-13-rated Mrs. Doubtfire or pretend it's in any way equivalent.
Let’s just agree that I’m pretty much the only libertarian left here
I unaware of any libertarianism that holds that children should not be protected from being harmed by their parents.
But you also say children shouldn’t go to drag shows. As in, there should be a law against it?
You just asked me if I thought there should be law against it and I said no. This is one of the ways you reveal there is nothing libertarian about you—you assume that if someone criticizes a behavior, they are advocating making it illegal. That is the knee-jerk of a statist.
Robin Williams in drag.
No. Robin Williams dressed as a woman. There is a huge difference between that and a Drag show. You know that and are bullshitting.
You have let Tucker Carlson do literally all your thinking for you.
I do not have cable TV and don't watch television news at all.
I unaware of any libertarianism that holds that children should not be protected from being harmed by their parents.
I'm unaware of any child who has been harmed by a visible breast or whatever it is you count as obscenity. Let's be clear, religious freaks want to protect children from knowledge about sex. Let's be clear, religious freaks have built entire industries around coercing children into sex. Drag queens are not the threat here, and I am afraid most conservative politicians and religious leaders know this all too well.
you assume that if someone criticizes a behavior, they are advocating making it illegal.
We are talking about laws being passed. I'm watching what you're focusing on. You're criticizing something free people are doing with their free time. I'm criticizing laws and politicians. If you want me to discuss things that merely annoy me, we can be here all day if you like.
Robin Williams dressed as a woman. There is a huge difference between that and a Drag show.
How many drag shows have you been to? They are enormously varied and tailored to their audience. If children are allowed in an establishment, I assure you, the show is child-friendly. Unless you just have a problem, again, with children learning things about gender.
Knowledge is the enemy of conservatives. That's why they're also banning books, you know.
Even if they aren’t specifically denigrating of women, they are still are specifically of purient interest. Lucille Ball impersonating Charlie Chaplin isn’t a drag performance. Tim Curry parading around in a bodice and fishnet stockings is a drag performance.
And despite popular retardation, patronage or audience is immaterial. Straight women buying lap dances from female strippers can’t do so in front of minors just because they’re straight and/or strictly doing it for performative or demonstrative purposes.
We are born naked. The rest is drag.
Also, I'm fine if you want to be a cowering fascist freak instead of a libertarian. Just own up to it.
Calling people cowering fascist freaks for stating that you can't show your cock to 8 year old boys when you spent 3 years with multiple masks strapped to your cock holster and insisting that anyone who refused to do likewise should be shot by government agents is a good look Tony. Run with that.
+1 was going to say the same, if not be more derisive of Scott lying in defense of pedophiles.
To be honest, drag performers and trannies are fucking weird, and exposing children to them is not healthy.
It's possible to take tolerance too far.
These people don't need to be hunted down or anything, but when appearing publicly its appropriate for others to respond that they're fucking weird and disgusting.
We're trying to have a civilization here.
That's how I feel about Republicans. All of your children should be taken away, and you should all be held indefinitely for questioning.
It's nice when you drop the mask and contradict yourself within minutes within the same thread. At 50 cents a post you are probably the most overpaid person on the internet, Tony.
Tony are you ever able to argue points? no one cares to respond to your cry baby posts grow up.
Many progressives understand Republicans' culture freakout du jour as a means of distracting you, yes you, ignorant rubes while they fleece the country of its money for their donors.
I wonder if we might not be surprised. The Republican party has been in a devolutionary spiral since Nixon. Each generation brings a crop of politicians who actually buy the horseshit the last sold to them.
Eventually we'll get to a level even dumber than Marjorie Taylor-Greene who forget to insist upon low taxes for oil barons. They might even see the benefit of putting them up against the wall along with everyone else.
That's when the spigot will get turned off. Don't say you weren't warned.
So, you're saying people become leftists when they get stupid enough. Again, thank you for your candor.
The party out of power is using you showing your cock to 8 year old boys as a distraction so they can use their minority position to extract money from the federal government by cutting spending, which you've been histrionically screeching about for 20 years? Jesus Christ, Tony. Lay off the drano.
Now do the anti-lynching bill and "hate crimes."
There are no trans kids. There are pedos and groomers. Why would a female stripper pole dance for a 10-year-old boy? They don't. Why would a gay adult man pole dance for a 10-year-old boy? They do and that is the problem. Scott's tribe would be smart to repudiate the pedos and MAP movement which they have been making excuses for decades. These people are sick. Pretending you are another gender is a mental illness not a choice. They can pretend they are the other sex but to groom kids is abhorrent in a moral society.