• @jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    41 year ago

    There is a difference between burlesque shows and drag shows. There is some overlap in the venn diagram, but not all drag queens are sexually explicit.

    The real question to ask, is if they are SOOOO concerned about sexual performances, why aren’t they banning heteronormative burlesque performances?

    Oh, right, because it’s not actually about being sexually explicit.

      • @jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        It specifically calls out drag shows. If you believe that all drag shows are inherently sexual, there wouldn’t be a need to say:

        “(B)AAa male performer exhibiting as a female, or a female performer exhibiting as a male, who uses clothing, makeup, or other similar physical markers and who sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs before an audience; and (2)AAappeals to the prurient interest in sex.”

        • @cricket97@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Maybe theres some confusion here. I don’t think that every single drag show out there has sexual elements in it. I’m sure there are some people who can put together a show that is kid friendly enough. But there is a lot of inherent sexuality in drag, people know this but they pretend not to admit it when this conversation comes up. There’s some pretty intentionally raunchy shit happening at some of them and a lot of drag queens did not appropriately reform their normal act to be suitable for kids. And i get why, because theres a fuckton of sexual stuff in drag shows. its in the culture.

          Thus, if we actually look at the bill, it doesn’t outlaw drag shows altogether. it outlaws sexually natured drag shows in front of children.

          • Solar Bear
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            Thus, if we actually look at the bill, it doesn’t outlaw drag shows altogether.

            Laws must be viewed wholistically. You cannot simply examine the text as if it somehow came into being on its own and enforces itself as a perfectly neutral rule of nature. It is written and applied by humans. So, you must also look at the framers who wrote it and those who will apply it.

            And if we do, we see that they mean all drag shows are sexual. You clearly do agree with this interpretation so I’m not sure why you’re trying to deploy this smokescreen. They intend to use this as a ban on children being “exposed” to drag in any form, and it’s hardly a stretch to argue it will be expanded to include trans people.

            If you’re not willing to engage with the honest reality, we’re forced to assume you are a disingenuous propagandist and treat you accordingly.

              • Solar Bear
                link
                fedilink
                English
                31 year ago

                I like how you completely ignored the premise of my criticism of only reading the exact text, and just referenced the exact text again. Incredibly naive view of government, but I can see I won’t be able to change that today.

                • @cricket97@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  I understand your criticism but I don’t think it’s informed or accurate. I can see how you would believe it if you only got your news through tabloid headlines. The bill in no way outlaws drag queens or drag shows. If they believed that all drag shows were sexual why did they make specific considerations that allow for drag shows to still exist?

                  it’s hardly a stretch to argue it will be expanded to include trans people. I argue it is a stretch. this bill is about sexual performances in front of children. It does not apply to anything else

                  • Solar Bear
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    I don’t think you do understand my criticism because you just again did the thing I’m criticizing. I’m saying the text of the law is not the whole picture because the real world application also matters and doesn’t always perfectly reflect the literal text, and you just keep referring me back to the text of the law. I’m doing my damnedest to assume good intent from you but you are making it so hard. I don’t think you’d be this deferential to government in most other situations.