...where he could "accidently" expose his nasty crotch to her???
You've already provided the full upskirt photo and we can't see a penis there, so how are you asking such a STUPID fucking question you dirty old bastard?
I'll be sure to send a male stripper your way. Sounds like it might excite you.
phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 5:53 pm
Why do we have to be mindless zombies who approve of everything?
Why do we have to be labeled as fearful if we don't want something to be happening?
Why can't we decide that something is inappropriate for one or more reasons and that's the way it is? And we can act on that.
For example, Dean Martin was often shown with a glass of whiskey in his hand and "supposedly drunk". I don't think that should be shown to children because it's a bad example for them.
Do I need to shut up and pretend that I don't feel that way? Why? Why not?
Undoubtedly you feel the way you feel. So what? Many feelings are largely if not wholly void of reason.
By all means make a well-reasoned case as to why men - is it also always "bad" for women? - cross dressing is "bad" under all circumstances.
phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:00 pm
It's insulting to women?
If a guy is trying to sneak into a women's bathroom or wants to become a gold medalist in women's wrestling, then I would think it would be.
That's trans rather than drag.
A drag queen doesn't claim to be a woman.
OK. If they're willing to make that clear then someone can bring them to show and tell if they want, whatever. If the kids in class start breaking out in laughter or don't like it, or if the adults say, "don't be like that" to their children, then the drag queen is going to have to sit and take it. Not sure what the point of that would be.
If a guy is trying to sneak into a women's bathroom or wants to become a gold medalist in women's wrestling, then I would think it would be.
That's trans rather than drag.
A drag queen doesn't claim to be a woman.
OK. If they're willing to make that clear then someone can bring them to show and tell if they want, whatever. If the kids in class start breaking out in laughter or don't like it, or if the adults say, "don't be like that" to their children, then the drag queen is going to have to sit and take it. Not sure what the point of that would be.
An adult understands what's happening. A child may/probably does not.
An adult makes a choice to go to a drag show or not to go. A child does not have a choice.
phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 6:17 pm
Oh, it's only about the clothes that people wear?
Why do drag queens have makeup? Why to they "act" like women? What's that all about?
Makeup was invented for men. The government dictating what it means to "act like a man" or "act like a woman" seems as absurd as the government deciding that some clothes are men's clothes and some clothes are women's clothes. I don't see any angle of it that isn't inherently absurd.
What behaviours should the government classify as "female" behaviours that men cannot legally do?
Forget about "the government".
Why can't a person or a group of people decide that some things ought not to be shown to children?
They can, and they should have reasonable arguments as to why. So far I haven't seen any reasonable argument for giving the government the right to define what it means to act like a woman or dress like a woman, and then to limit those things to women. I haven't even seen a coherent definition of what it means to act or dress like a woman to begin with. What if a man crosses his legs like a woman? Should that be a crime if done in the presence of children? What if he laughs with a feminine laugh? Where does it start and where does it end? What are the parameters here?
I can't see any reasonable parameters where I would say, yes, more or less I agree that women should be allowed to do those things and men shouldn't.
There's a very small set of things that society has deliberately set aside for women, that I could see being justified in protecting from men. But those things aren't *general behaviours*, they are specific places and resources set aside for women for some reason or another. If a man wearing a dress doesn't encroach on those things, then why should the government say a man can't wear a dress but a woman can?
phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 6:17 pm
Oh, it's only about the clothes that people wear?
Why do drag queens have makeup? Why to they "act" like women? What's that all about?
Makeup was invented for men. The government dictating what it means to "act like a man" or "act like a woman" seems as absurd as the government deciding that some clothes are men's clothes and some clothes are women's clothes. I don't see any angle of it that isn't inherently absurd.
What behaviours should the government classify as "female" behaviours that men cannot legally do?
It seems that there is a level of either dishonesty or delusion at work if a person wishes to present themselves as the opposite sex by wearing what is traditionally worn by the opposite sex. It's tolerable to a point, in a comedy show for example, but I for one don't want to wander through society trying to figure out who is male or female and who isn't. It's traditional for men and women to distinguish their sex when they're out and about. Like wedding rings are traditional to show someone that the person they're hitting on is already spoken for. Truth in advertising.
I mean, incest is illegal. Raping an underage child is illegal. Should the government stand clear of those affairs too? So far your argument seems to be that government shouldn't tell us what to do. That in itself is not a reason alone. Just because it's a written law doesn't mean it is a bad law. Just because "big government" is telling you not to do something doesn't necessarily mean it's perfectly fine to do it. Yelling fire in a movie theater is against the law. If a man is trying very hard to present himself as a woman, then if someone asks him if he's male or female and he demands that we address him as female also, then that's dishonest and probably a bit counter-productive in some social settings. A salesman rolling the mileage back on a car you're about to purchase and telling you it has fewer miles than it does is counter-productive to you acting in your own best interest. There's no law against people lying to each other in casual situations, however, it's not exaclty encouraged. A teacher teaching children should try to tell the truth as much as possible for the benefit of the kids.
How in the world is dressing however you want to dress similar to raping somebody?
I didn't say government shouldn't ever tell us what to do. I said some very specific things about areas of life where it doesn't make sense for the government to tell us what to do. If the government decided that your favourite genre of music was now illegal, you'd be wondering how the fuck you were harming anybody by listening to it.
Last edited by Flannel Jesus on Wed Mar 22, 2023 9:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:06 pm
I'll be sure to send a male stripper your way. Sounds like it might excite you.
You whine every day about nobody loving you. Maybe you need to find some skirt with a bit of dick to hold on to as well.
And you worry about everyone's reaction to everything if it doesn't suit your personal beliefs of what people should think and try to guilt people over it, whether it's any of your business or concern or not. Give it a rest, asshole.
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 8:06 pm
I'll be sure to send a male stripper your way. Sounds like it might excite you.
You whine every day about nobody loving you. Maybe you need to find some skirt with a bit of dick to hold on to as well.
And you worry about everyone's reaction to everything if it doesn't suit your personal beliefs of what people should think and try to guilt people over it, whether it's any of your business or concern or not. Give it a rest, asshole.
And you were giving me advie about male strippers as a sign of your support were you?
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 7:32 pm
Makeup was invented for men. The government dictating what it means to "act like a man" or "act like a woman" seems as absurd as the government deciding that some clothes are men's clothes and some clothes are women's clothes. I don't see any angle of it that isn't inherently absurd.
What behaviours should the government classify as "female" behaviours that men cannot legally do?
Forget about "the government".
Why can't a person or a group of people decide that some things ought not to be shown to children?
They can, and they should have reasonable arguments as to why. So far I haven't seen any reasonable argument for giving the government the right to define what it means to act like a woman or dress like a woman, and then to limit those things to women. I haven't even seen a coherent definition of what it means to act or dress like a woman to begin with. What if a man crosses his legs like a woman? Should that be a crime if done in the presence of children? What if he laughs with a feminine laugh? Where does it start and where does it end? What are the parameters here?
I can't see any reasonable parameters where I would say, yes, more or less I agree that women should be allowed to do those things and men shouldn't.
There's a very small set of things that society has deliberately set aside for women, that I could see being justified in protecting from men. But those things aren't *general behaviours*, they are specific places and resources set aside for women for some reason or another. If a man wearing a dress doesn't encroach on those things, then why should the government say a man can't wear a dress but a woman can?
I don't see you giving any reasonable arguments as to why this should be presented to children.
Why is the burden on me to show why it is wrong?
Why is not the burden on you to show why it is right?
phyllo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 9:11 pmI don't see you giving any reasonable arguments as to why this should be presented to children.
Why is the burden on me to show why it is wrong?
Why is not the burden on you to show why it is right?
What good comes from it?
Because I didn't say it should be. I didn't say "we as a society have a moral obligation to dress like the opposite gender in front of children." I certainly don't think I should, and I'm not claiming you should either. You aren't understanding the burden because you aren't understanding the claims.
One group is saying "the government should make this behaviour illegal." It's reasonable to ask, why? Why should the government make this illegal? Is that not a reasonable question to ask? Or should we just assume all claims of "the government should make this illegal" are acceptable by default?
Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 22, 2023 7:32 pm
Makeup was invented for men. The government dictating what it means to "act like a man" or "act like a woman" seems as absurd as the government deciding that some clothes are men's clothes and some clothes are women's clothes. I don't see any angle of it that isn't inherently absurd.
What behaviours should the government classify as "female" behaviours that men cannot legally do?
It seems that there is a level of either dishonesty or delusion at work if a person wishes to present themselves as the opposite sex by wearing what is traditionally worn by the opposite sex. It's tolerable to a point, in a comedy show for example, but I for one don't want to wander through society trying to figure out who is male or female and who isn't. It's traditional for men and women to distinguish their sex when they're out and about. Like wedding rings are traditional to show someone that the person they're hitting on is already spoken for. Truth in advertising.
I mean, incest is illegal. Raping an underage child is illegal. Should the government stand clear of those affairs too? So far your argument seems to be that government shouldn't tell us what to do. That in itself is not a reason alone. Just because it's a written law doesn't mean it is a bad law. Just because "big government" is telling you not to do something doesn't necessarily mean it's perfectly fine to do it. Yelling fire in a movie theater is against the law. If a man is trying very hard to present himself as a woman, then if someone asks him if he's male or female and he demands that we address him as female also, then that's dishonest and probably a bit counter-productive in some social settings. A salesman rolling the mileage back on a car you're about to purchase and telling you it has fewer miles than it does is counter-productive to you acting in your own best interest. There's no law against people lying to each other in casual situations, however, it's not exaclty encouraged. A teacher teaching children should try to tell the truth as much as possible for the benefit of the kids.
How in the world is dressing however you want to dress similar to raping somebody?
I was pointing out that "we don't want the government interfering in our lives", alone (as your statement seemed to indicate) is not a sufficient reason to create or not create laws concerning people's behavior. Those in favor of the law would need to show that the behavior to be prohibited is sufficiently harmful to society and those opposed to the law would have to show that its proponents are wrong.
It seems that there is a level of either dishonesty or delusion at work if a person wishes to present themselves as the opposite sex by wearing what is traditionally worn by the opposite sex. It's tolerable to a point, in a comedy show for example, but I for one don't want to wander through society trying to figure out who is male or female and who isn't. It's traditional for men and women to distinguish their sex when they're out and about. Like wedding rings are traditional to show someone that the person they're hitting on is already spoken for. Truth in advertising.
I mean, incest is illegal. Raping an underage child is illegal. Should the government stand clear of those affairs too? So far your argument seems to be that government shouldn't tell us what to do. That in itself is not a reason alone. Just because it's a written law doesn't mean it is a bad law. Just because "big government" is telling you not to do something doesn't necessarily mean it's perfectly fine to do it. Yelling fire in a movie theater is against the law. If a man is trying very hard to present himself as a woman, then if someone asks him if he's male or female and he demands that we address him as female also, then that's dishonest and probably a bit counter-productive in some social settings. A salesman rolling the mileage back on a car you're about to purchase and telling you it has fewer miles than it does is counter-productive to you acting in your own best interest. There's no law against people lying to each other in casual situations, however, it's not exaclty encouraged. A teacher teaching children should try to tell the truth as much as possible for the benefit of the kids.
How in the world is dressing however you want to dress similar to raping somebody?
I was pointing out that "we don't want the government interfering in our lives", alone (as your statement seemed to indicate) is not a sufficient reason to create or not create laws concerning people's behavior. Those in favor of the law would need to show that the behavior to be prohibited is sufficiently harmful to society and those opposed to the law would have to show that its proponents are wrong.
I didn't say the government shouldn't interfere in our lives
