Senate Bill 12 would have prohibited performers from dancing suggestively or wearing certain prosthetics in front of children. Critics sued the state, saying it violated the First Amendment.
No. It wouldn't. Because you're a prude, and your definition of "sexually explicit actions" is almost certainly over-the-top pearl-clutching nonsense to me.
I know you don't. You don't care about children being exposed to sexually explicit things. Thanks for being honest about it. But understand that some people do give a fuck, and you should respect that. You don't even have kids so you don't really get a seat at this table.
I have a kid, and I have taken my kid to Pride events, because I am not a prude. I have taken her to drag queen story hours, because its fun. I grew up fundie evangelical and given a choice between corn-fed closeted authoritarian men trying to indoctrinate my kid to believe God's divine order makes her subserviant to a male/creep into her pants, vs. a drag queen playing on social constructs of sexuality, I'll take the latter every time.
Alright then I consider you a terrible parent if you don't care about them being exposed to sexually explicit material at a young age. I'm not religious, so your whining about that does not mean anything to me. I simply believe that parents have an obligation to shield their children from shit like this, and you disagree.
given a choice between corn-fed closeted authoritarian men trying to indoctrinate my kid to believe God’s divine order makes her subserviant to a male/creep into her pants, vs. a drag queen playing on social constructs of sexuality,
Those aren't the only two options. You can do neither. Not sure what kind of point you are making. Question, should children be allowed to look at porn?
Yes, you can choose not to take your kids to those events. Versus BAN BAN BAN PERSECUTE BAN FOMENT VIOLENCE and do anything to perpetuate the over-the-top prudishness of a loud minority.
No. It wouldn't. Because you're a prude, and your definition of "sexually explicit actions" is almost certainly over-the-top pearl-clutching nonsense to me.
Would you say simulating jerking off in front of children is a "sexually explicit action"
I don't give a fuck about your video of a drag performer in Essex pretending the microphone is a phallus. Prude elsewhere.
I know you don't. You don't care about children being exposed to sexually explicit things. Thanks for being honest about it. But understand that some people do give a fuck, and you should respect that. You don't even have kids so you don't really get a seat at this table.
ASSUMER. I am done talking the moment someone assumes something about me without any evidence.
I bet I'm right though
I have a kid, and I have taken my kid to Pride events, because I am not a prude. I have taken her to drag queen story hours, because its fun. I grew up fundie evangelical and given a choice between corn-fed closeted authoritarian men trying to indoctrinate my kid to believe God's divine order makes her subserviant to a male/creep into her pants, vs. a drag queen playing on social constructs of sexuality, I'll take the latter every time.
Alright then I consider you a terrible parent if you don't care about them being exposed to sexually explicit material at a young age. I'm not religious, so your whining about that does not mean anything to me. I simply believe that parents have an obligation to shield their children from shit like this, and you disagree.
Those aren't the only two options. You can do neither. Not sure what kind of point you are making. Question, should children be allowed to look at porn?
Yes, you can choose not to take your kids to those events. Versus BAN BAN BAN PERSECUTE BAN FOMENT VIOLENCE and do anything to perpetuate the over-the-top prudishness of a loud minority.