Groomers aka sexual predators

mrussel1

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

But everyone makes choices for parents. I can't give my kid alcohol, let him smoke cigarettes because the government says its bad for them. I am required by law to make them attend school because the government doesn't want them to grow up and be idiots. I'm not even allowed to let them on the floor a casino to watch me gamble because I guess it could influence them to be gamblers? Sounds like they don't want a bunch of over-sexualized 6 year olds either. 

I'm fine with this.  I think the gov't has a role.  So the argument that the gov't should not pass that law in WA to protect children that they think are at risk, doesn't pass muster with me.  I'm okay with the law, and how I read it.  And I don't say "well they're telling parents how to raise kids".  The gov't does this all the time.  It just so happens that many on the right have an irrational fear of trans people and these arguments are rooted in that fear.  

Did you read the law and understand it? There doesn't have to be proof that the child is in danger. It can be made up and the state will go along with it and withhold the location of your child from the parent. That is not OK. 

Like I said earlier, I did no more research than reading the article you posted.  But why should a child "prove" they are in danger?  What is danger?  The child ran away from home for a reason and is now in custody of child services.  Kids don't do that unless there is something seriously wrong.  And how does the child prove their danger anyway?  Do they hire outside counsel, their own medical experts, a shrink?  Seriously, what do you expect of a child?  Running away is a clear, flashing signal of problems.  

mrussel1

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

Do you honestly believe that parents should be allowed to expose their kids to sexualized shows? I do believe there should be rules set by the government to protect children but there is a line that should not be crossed. You are conflating these issues.

Do you believe that it should be illegal to take a child to Rated R movies?  

I'm just trying to understand when you think it's okay for the gov't to dictate to parents and when it's not.  

I think a point you're missing is there's a difference between a parent deciding to let their kid watch an R rated movie, vs a sexualized show in public where children can congregate, like a family restaurant or public park. 
Don't you agree there's a big difference?

No.  What's the difference?  A public park, sure because who don't want to be see that could see it.  But not a theater, a restaurant or other private venue.  How is that different than a movie theater?

If you take your kids to a movie to see an R rated film, you can do research to see how much "sex" they'll be exposed to. I don't agree that parents should do this(in some instances) but it is their choice but there are tools to be informed on what you're taking them to. I've let my kids watch some R rated movies but not all. 

It isn't right to expect going to a G rated drag show and seeing an R rated drag show which has happened. Probably not super often but it has happened. If you were to ask me to vote on banning "sexualized" drag shows, I would vote no. I don't think I have that right to draw that line because it isn't fair to drag shows in general. I don't think it's worth punishing a whole group of people because of a few bad apples but that does happen all day long. 

Well don't parents have the right to make bad, uninformed decisions?  Or is that the gov't job only?  I really don't get your arguments.  You are against gov't interfering with parents rights in some cases, but then supportive in others.  It's confusing.  

JB16057

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

But everyone makes choices for parents. I can't give my kid alcohol, let him smoke cigarettes because the government says its bad for them. I am required by law to make them attend school because the government doesn't want them to grow up and be idiots. I'm not even allowed to let them on the floor a casino to watch me gamble because I guess it could influence them to be gamblers? Sounds like they don't want a bunch of over-sexualized 6 year olds either. 

I'm fine with this.  I think the gov't has a role.  So the argument that the gov't should not pass that law in WA to protect children that they think are at risk, doesn't pass muster with me.  I'm okay with the law, and how I read it.  And I don't say "well they're telling parents how to raise kids".  The gov't does this all the time.  It just so happens that many on the right have an irrational fear of trans people and these arguments are rooted in that fear.  

Did you read the law and understand it? There doesn't have to be proof that the child is in danger. It can be made up and the state will go along with it and withhold the location of your child from the parent. That is not OK. 

Like I said earlier, I did no more research than reading the article you posted.  But why should a child "prove" they are in danger?  What is danger?  The child ran away from home for a reason and is now in custody of child services.   And how does the child prove their danger anyway?  Do they hire outside counsel, their own medical experts, a shrink?  Seriously, what do you expect of a child?  Running away is a clear, flashing signal of problems.  

"Kids don't do that unless there is something seriously wrong." Yes, some do that. You didn't read the story about my friend. Here it is again, 

I have a friend that as a child, went to the neighbors house and complained to them that his Mom wasn't feeding him. In reality, his mom wouldn't go to 7-11 and buy him top ramen. The neighbors called CPS while feeding him oatmeal which of course he hated. What a big ordeal because the kid lied and created an issue that wasn't true. 

mrussel1

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

But everyone makes choices for parents. I can't give my kid alcohol, let him smoke cigarettes because the government says its bad for them. I am required by law to make them attend school because the government doesn't want them to grow up and be idiots. I'm not even allowed to let them on the floor a casino to watch me gamble because I guess it could influence them to be gamblers? Sounds like they don't want a bunch of over-sexualized 6 year olds either. 

I'm fine with this.  I think the gov't has a role.  So the argument that the gov't should not pass that law in WA to protect children that they think are at risk, doesn't pass muster with me.  I'm okay with the law, and how I read it.  And I don't say "well they're telling parents how to raise kids".  The gov't does this all the time.  It just so happens that many on the right have an irrational fear of trans people and these arguments are rooted in that fear.  

Did you read the law and understand it? There doesn't have to be proof that the child is in danger. It can be made up and the state will go along with it and withhold the location of your child from the parent. That is not OK. 

Like I said earlier, I did no more research than reading the article you posted.  But why should a child "prove" they are in danger?  What is danger?  The child ran away from home for a reason and is now in custody of child services.   And how does the child prove their danger anyway?  Do they hire outside counsel, their own medical experts, a shrink?  Seriously, what do you expect of a child?  Running away is a clear, flashing signal of problems.  

"Kids don't do that unless there is something seriously wrong." Yes, some do that. You didn't read the story about my friend. Here it is again, 

I have a friend that as a child, went to the neighbors house and complained to them that his Mom wasn't feeding him. In reality, his mom wouldn't go to 7-11 and buy him top ramen. The neighbors called CPS while feeding him oatmeal which of course he hated. What a big ordeal because the kid lied and created an issue that wasn't true. 

Going next door isn't running away. 

BTW, your exception proves the point.  They called CPS and they came figured out what was really happening and returned him to the parents, right?  Or did the CPS take him and they had to go through long, involved court proceedings where the child attempted to "prove" that he was being abused?  Tell us how it ended. 

HughFreakingDillon

I once ran away…to borrow a cup of sugar. 

JB16057

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

But everyone makes choices for parents. I can't give my kid alcohol, let him smoke cigarettes because the government says its bad for them. I am required by law to make them attend school because the government doesn't want them to grow up and be idiots. I'm not even allowed to let them on the floor a casino to watch me gamble because I guess it could influence them to be gamblers? Sounds like they don't want a bunch of over-sexualized 6 year olds either. 

I'm fine with this.  I think the gov't has a role.  So the argument that the gov't should not pass that law in WA to protect children that they think are at risk, doesn't pass muster with me.  I'm okay with the law, and how I read it.  And I don't say "well they're telling parents how to raise kids".  The gov't does this all the time.  It just so happens that many on the right have an irrational fear of trans people and these arguments are rooted in that fear.  

Did you read the law and understand it? There doesn't have to be proof that the child is in danger. It can be made up and the state will go along with it and withhold the location of your child from the parent. That is not OK. 

Like I said earlier, I did no more research than reading the article you posted.  But why should a child "prove" they are in danger?  What is danger?  The child ran away from home for a reason and is now in custody of child services.   And how does the child prove their danger anyway?  Do they hire outside counsel, their own medical experts, a shrink?  Seriously, what do you expect of a child?  Running away is a clear, flashing signal of problems.  

"Kids don't do that unless there is something seriously wrong." Yes, some do that. You didn't read the story about my friend. Here it is again, 

I have a friend that as a child, went to the neighbors house and complained to them that his Mom wasn't feeding him. In reality, his mom wouldn't go to 7-11 and buy him top ramen. The neighbors called CPS while feeding him oatmeal which of course he hated. What a big ordeal because the kid lied and created an issue that wasn't true. 

Going next door isn't running away. 

BTW, your exception proves the point.  They called CPS and they came figured out what was really happening and returned him to the parents, right?  Or did the CPS take him and they had to go through long, involved court proceedings where the child attempted to "prove" that he was being abused?  Tell us how it ended. 

You are conflating things again. How about this? Stay the fuck away from my children and my parental rights and we'll call it a day. 

mrussel1

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

But everyone makes choices for parents. I can't give my kid alcohol, let him smoke cigarettes because the government says its bad for them. I am required by law to make them attend school because the government doesn't want them to grow up and be idiots. I'm not even allowed to let them on the floor a casino to watch me gamble because I guess it could influence them to be gamblers? Sounds like they don't want a bunch of over-sexualized 6 year olds either. 

I'm fine with this.  I think the gov't has a role.  So the argument that the gov't should not pass that law in WA to protect children that they think are at risk, doesn't pass muster with me.  I'm okay with the law, and how I read it.  And I don't say "well they're telling parents how to raise kids".  The gov't does this all the time.  It just so happens that many on the right have an irrational fear of trans people and these arguments are rooted in that fear.  

Did you read the law and understand it? There doesn't have to be proof that the child is in danger. It can be made up and the state will go along with it and withhold the location of your child from the parent. That is not OK. 

Like I said earlier, I did no more research than reading the article you posted.  But why should a child "prove" they are in danger?  What is danger?  The child ran away from home for a reason and is now in custody of child services.   And how does the child prove their danger anyway?  Do they hire outside counsel, their own medical experts, a shrink?  Seriously, what do you expect of a child?  Running away is a clear, flashing signal of problems.  

"Kids don't do that unless there is something seriously wrong." Yes, some do that. You didn't read the story about my friend. Here it is again, 

I have a friend that as a child, went to the neighbors house and complained to them that his Mom wasn't feeding him. In reality, his mom wouldn't go to 7-11 and buy him top ramen. The neighbors called CPS while feeding him oatmeal which of course he hated. What a big ordeal because the kid lied and created an issue that wasn't true. 

Going next door isn't running away. 

BTW, your exception proves the point.  They called CPS and they came figured out what was really happening and returned him to the parents, right?  Or did the CPS take him and they had to go through long, involved court proceedings where the child attempted to "prove" that he was being abused?  Tell us how it ended. 

You are conflating things again. How about this? Stay the fuck away from my children and my parental rights and we'll call it a day. 

Sorry you can't make an argument without getting upset. Don't mentally abuse your kids and I'm sure you won't have a problem.  The govt doesn't frighten me.  Not sure why it's so upsetting to you. 

Halifax2TheMax

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

But everyone makes choices for parents. I can't give my kid alcohol, let him smoke cigarettes because the government says its bad for them. I am required by law to make them attend school because the government doesn't want them to grow up and be idiots. I'm not even allowed to let them on the floor a casino to watch me gamble because I guess it could influence them to be gamblers? Sounds like they don't want a bunch of over-sexualized 6 year olds either. 

I'm fine with this.  I think the gov't has a role.  So the argument that the gov't should not pass that law in WA to protect children that they think are at risk, doesn't pass muster with me.  I'm okay with the law, and how I read it.  And I don't say "well they're telling parents how to raise kids".  The gov't does this all the time.  It just so happens that many on the right have an irrational fear of trans people and these arguments are rooted in that fear.  

Did you read the law and understand it? There doesn't have to be proof that the child is in danger. It can be made up and the state will go along with it and withhold the location of your child from the parent. That is not OK. 

Like I said earlier, I did no more research than reading the article you posted.  But why should a child "prove" they are in danger?  What is danger?  The child ran away from home for a reason and is now in custody of child services.   And how does the child prove their danger anyway?  Do they hire outside counsel, their own medical experts, a shrink?  Seriously, what do you expect of a child?  Running away is a clear, flashing signal of problems.  

"Kids don't do that unless there is something seriously wrong." Yes, some do that. You didn't read the story about my friend. Here it is again, 

I have a friend that as a child, went to the neighbors house and complained to them that his Mom wasn't feeding him. In reality, his mom wouldn't go to 7-11 and buy him top ramen. The neighbors called CPS while feeding him oatmeal which of course he hated. What a big ordeal because the kid lied and created an issue that wasn't true. 

Going next door isn't running away. 

BTW, your exception proves the point.  They called CPS and they came figured out what was really happening and returned him to the parents, right?  Or did the CPS take him and they had to go through long, involved court proceedings where the child attempted to "prove" that he was being abused?  Tell us how it ended. 

You are conflating things again. How about this? Stay the fuck away from my children and my parental rights and we'll call it a day. 

Wow. Just wow. Mrussell is after your kids? Just when you think you’ve seen it all on the AMT.

mace1229

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

Do you honestly believe that parents should be allowed to expose their kids to sexualized shows? I do believe there should be rules set by the government to protect children but there is a line that should not be crossed. You are conflating these issues.

Do you believe that it should be illegal to take a child to Rated R movies?  

I'm just trying to understand when you think it's okay for the gov't to dictate to parents and when it's not.  

I think a point you're missing is there's a difference between a parent deciding to let their kid watch an R rated movie, vs a sexualized show in public where children can congregate, like a family restaurant or public park. 
Don't you agree there's a big difference?

No.  What's the difference?  A public park, sure because who don't want to be see that could see it.  But not a theater, a restaurant or other private venue.  How is that different than a movie theater?

A parent should have certain expectations when going to a family restaurant that is open to the public. I expect next time I walk into Denny's that there won't be a sex show next to my table. 
There are restaurants that allow that, and have requirements to get in, just like a movie theater does. A 12 year old can't walk up to the box office and buy a R rated movie ticket. He can walk into a Denny's and order a hamburger.

mace1229

Parents have rights. They can show their kids R movies if they want. They can give give them porn mags if they want. I disagree with that, and personally have issues, but that's my problem.
I shouldn't be allowed to walk down the street giving out the porn mags to children though. And that's what it looks like. Having sexualized shows in public (which includes restaurants open to the public without any restrictions on getting in) is very similar in my opinion and should not be allowed.
If I want to watch a sex show online and let my kids experience, that's my decision, it wasn't forced on me by some random stranger in public. 

Halifax2TheMax

It’s not fucking Amsterdam for crying out loud. Or Berlin. They’re not “sex shows.” Unless perhaps you don’t know what sex is? Keep your kid away from Denny’s with a sex show. Problem solved.

mrussel1

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

Do you honestly believe that parents should be allowed to expose their kids to sexualized shows? I do believe there should be rules set by the government to protect children but there is a line that should not be crossed. You are conflating these issues.

Do you believe that it should be illegal to take a child to Rated R movies?  

I'm just trying to understand when you think it's okay for the gov't to dictate to parents and when it's not.  

I think a point you're missing is there's a difference between a parent deciding to let their kid watch an R rated movie, vs a sexualized show in public where children can congregate, like a family restaurant or public park. 
Don't you agree there's a big difference?

No.  What's the difference?  A public park, sure because who don't want to be see that could see it.  But not a theater, a restaurant or other private venue.  How is that different than a movie theater?

A parent should have certain expectations when going to a family restaurant that is open to the public. I expect next time I walk into Denny's that there won't be a sex show next to my table. 
There are restaurants that allow that, and have requirements to get in, just like a movie theater does. A 12 year old can't walk up to the box office and buy a R rated movie ticket. He can walk into a Denny's and order a hamburger.

I have not heard about restaurants having these shows that are unannounced at the door.  

Here's a good example of the state of FL trying to take away the liquor license of a hotel that served at a drag show.  The drag warned that it for adults, but allowed minors accompanied by an adult.  So here's yet another example of a state gov't deciding it knows better than parents.  And applying a standard to this subset of society that it does not apply to Rated R movies.  

https://apnews.com/article/desantis-lgbtq-drag-shows-florida-c353b4161c2bcb2770168187154797ee

The complaint says the state warned the hotel ahead of the Dec. 27 performance to stop children from attending, but the hotel only made it a recommendation and allowed minors who went with adults, the complaint says.

mace1229

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

Do you honestly believe that parents should be allowed to expose their kids to sexualized shows? I do believe there should be rules set by the government to protect children but there is a line that should not be crossed. You are conflating these issues.

Do you believe that it should be illegal to take a child to Rated R movies?  

I'm just trying to understand when you think it's okay for the gov't to dictate to parents and when it's not.  

I think a point you're missing is there's a difference between a parent deciding to let their kid watch an R rated movie, vs a sexualized show in public where children can congregate, like a family restaurant or public park. 
Don't you agree there's a big difference?

No.  What's the difference?  A public park, sure because who don't want to be see that could see it.  But not a theater, a restaurant or other private venue.  How is that different than a movie theater?

A parent should have certain expectations when going to a family restaurant that is open to the public. I expect next time I walk into Denny's that there won't be a sex show next to my table. 
There are restaurants that allow that, and have requirements to get in, just like a movie theater does. A 12 year old can't walk up to the box office and buy a R rated movie ticket. He can walk into a Denny's and order a hamburger.

I have not heard about restaurants having these shows that are unannounced at the door.  

Here's a good example of the state of FL trying to take away the liquor license of a hotel that served at a drag show.  The drag warned that it for adults, but allowed minors accompanied by an adult.  So here's yet another example of a state gov't deciding it knows better than parents.  And applying a standard to this subset of society that it does not apply to Rated R movies.  

https://apnews.com/article/desantis-lgbtq-drag-shows-florida-c353b4161c2bcb2770168187154797ee

The complaint says the state warned the hotel ahead of the Dec. 27 performance to stop children from attending, but the hotel only made it a recommendation and allowed minors who went with adults, the complaint says.

That is on the parents. I knew it was rare and not common. But thought there were a couple instances where it was unannounced. If not, then that's on the parents if they didn't want to go.

mace1229

Halifax2TheMax said:

It’s not fucking Amsterdam for crying out loud. Or Berlin. They’re not “sex shows.” Unless perhaps you don’t know what sex is? Keep your kid away from Denny’s with a sex show. Problem solved.

"sexualized show" Better?
Staying away from Denny's is just good advice in general. 

Merkin Baller

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

Do you honestly believe that parents should be allowed to expose their kids to sexualized shows? I do believe there should be rules set by the government to protect children but there is a line that should not be crossed. You are conflating these issues.

Do you believe that it should be illegal to take a child to Rated R movies?  

I'm just trying to understand when you think it's okay for the gov't to dictate to parents and when it's not.  

I think a point you're missing is there's a difference between a parent deciding to let their kid watch an R rated movie, vs a sexualized show in public where children can congregate, like a family restaurant or public park. 
Don't you agree there's a big difference?

No.  What's the difference?  A public park, sure because who don't want to be see that could see it.  But not a theater, a restaurant or other private venue.  How is that different than a movie theater?

A parent should have certain expectations when going to a family restaurant that is open to the public. I expect next time I walk into Denny's that there won't be a sex show next to my table. 
There are restaurants that allow that, and have requirements to get in, just like a movie theater does. A 12 year old can't walk up to the box office and buy a R rated movie ticket. He can walk into a Denny's and order a hamburger.

When did Denny's start hosting "sex shows", unannounced or other? 

mrussel1

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

JB16057 said:

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

mrussel1 said:

See, here's a bill I have no issue with.  TX has removed the language around drag queens from their bill that would seek to ban sexualized performances to children.  This was both smart and the right thing to do as the bill as originally written would likely violate the 14th Amendment.  This new bill would ban anyone from performing sexually.  I have no problem with that.  It's not singling out one class, which is how the bill started. Further, a drag queen doing story hour at the library would be legal, as it would not be sexual.  No problem.  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/house-version-of-texas-drag-ban-bill-strips-mention-of-drag-queens-ahead-of-next-debate/ar-AA1aXfj2

It makes sense to word it that way. But when this all started becoming news, I remember seeing footage of drag shows in restaurants with kids. It seemed to me the bill was written that way because those were the shows performing to kids. It makes sense to word it that way, but its not surprising it started out as a drag show ban either to me. 
Yeah, there's probably some examples of straight sex shows, but in a lot less kid friendly areas, like Vegas strip or downtown Venice Beach, where a family is a lot less likely going to be surprised by one or where kids are just banned altogether. 

FTR, this is another example where the gov't is making choices for parents, something that @JB16057 railed against.  Why should parents be prohibited by law from taking their kids to a show that could be sexualized?  Sounds like the gov't knowing what's best for kids, regardless of their parents views.  

Do you honestly believe that parents should be allowed to expose their kids to sexualized shows? I do believe there should be rules set by the government to protect children but there is a line that should not be crossed. You are conflating these issues.

Do you believe that it should be illegal to take a child to Rated R movies?  

I'm just trying to understand when you think it's okay for the gov't to dictate to parents and when it's not.  

I think a point you're missing is there's a difference between a parent deciding to let their kid watch an R rated movie, vs a sexualized show in public where children can congregate, like a family restaurant or public park. 
Don't you agree there's a big difference?

No.  What's the difference?  A public park, sure because who don't want to be see that could see it.  But not a theater, a restaurant or other private venue.  How is that different than a movie theater?

A parent should have certain expectations when going to a family restaurant that is open to the public. I expect next time I walk into Denny's that there won't be a sex show next to my table. 
There are restaurants that allow that, and have requirements to get in, just like a movie theater does. A 12 year old can't walk up to the box office and buy a R rated movie ticket. He can walk into a Denny's and order a hamburger.

I have not heard about restaurants having these shows that are unannounced at the door.  

Here's a good example of the state of FL trying to take away the liquor license of a hotel that served at a drag show.  The drag warned that it for adults, but allowed minors accompanied by an adult.  So here's yet another example of a state gov't deciding it knows better than parents.  And applying a standard to this subset of society that it does not apply to Rated R movies.  

https://apnews.com/article/desantis-lgbtq-drag-shows-florida-c353b4161c2bcb2770168187154797ee

The complaint says the state warned the hotel ahead of the Dec. 27 performance to stop children from attending, but the hotel only made it a recommendation and allowed minors who went with adults, the complaint says.

That is on the parents. I knew it was rare and not common. But thought there were a couple instances where it was unannounced. If not, then that's on the parents if they didn't want to go.

Well that's right.  I would be shocked if they were unannounced.  There's a small restaurant by me that does this for Sunday Brunch every week.  It's impossible to get in.  But it's completely announced that it's happening.  I have no problem with it.  It's called 'freedom'. 

Halifax2TheMax

God forbid our kids be exposed to drag queens or human sexuality but seeing their classmates or parents brains splattered on the floor at school or the mall seems genuinely acceptable. Not to mention watching the gratuitous violence on television and in video games. Talk about “groomers”, sheesh.

Halifax2TheMax

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

It’s not fucking Amsterdam for crying out loud. Or Berlin. They’re not “sex shows.” Unless perhaps you don’t know what sex is? Keep your kid away from Denny’s with a sex show. Problem solved.

"sexualized show" Better?
Staying away from Denny's is just good advice in general. 

How is it “sexualized?” Have you ever attended a drag show, mace? 

tbergs

Funny, no one is complaining about Hooters or similar restaurants that employ scantily clad females. Something about drag really makes conservatives uncomfortable. Must be that closet homosexuality that they're trying to hide while putting on good front for their church going community.

mrussel1

tbergs said:

Funny, no one is complaining about Hooters or similar restaurants that employ scantily clad females. Something about drag really makes conservatives uncomfortable. Must be that closet homosexuality that they're trying to hide while putting on good front for their church going community.

That's a great example.  Pretty sure I would call that placed "sexualized".