Gold Star for Steve

[Fascist Flea]

The Sack-Shmoo's epic meltdown was memorable. Congrats.

[Art Sackman]

On Tuesday, May 23, 2023 at 11:09:44 PM UTC-4, Fascist Flea wrote:
> The Sack-Shmoo's epic meltdown was memorable. Congrats.

Stephanie is hiding it in her tuck'

[Fascist Flea]

Not better, but worse.

>
> > The Sack-Shmoo's epic meltdown was memorable. Congrats.
> Stephanie is hiding it in her tuck'
>

You're teetering. Incoherent babbling is a loud klaxon.

[mINE109]

He's reeling from the discovery Target sells a swimsuit for adults with
"extra crotch coverage" in a temporary Pride section.

[Art Sackman]

If I had some extra crotch, I wouldn't be trying to hide it.

[Art Sackman]

> He's reeling from the discovery Target sells a swimsuit for adults with
> "extra crotch coverage" in a temporary Pride section.

In your case, they are "TARGET"ing a tiny market niche.
Your demand for tuck space is not a "big thing"
It's entirely unnecessary for your swimwear, as cold water will provide adequate shrinkage, if
any is needed at all.

[mINE109]

But you'd cover it because of your concern for others.

[mINE109]

On 5/24/23 12:16 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
>
>> He's reeling from the discovery Target sells a swimsuit for adults
>> with "extra crotch coverage" in a temporary Pride section.
>
> In your case, they are "TARGET"ing a tiny market niche.

Yes, it's a single item, part of a seasonal promotion.

> Your demand for tuck space is not a "big thing"

It's not for "tuck space." It's clearly labeled "coverage." You're
getting info from people who think an adult item is for children and
don't understand the concept of lining.

> It's entirely unnecessary for your swimwear, as cold water will
> provide adequate shrinkage, if any is needed at all.

Coverage is good in public. I'm surprised you're against it.

[Fascist Flea]

Thuggery advances at the expense of tolerance.

The latest:

Target removes some Pride Month products after facing threats
Target will remove some of its LGBTQ+ merchandise from its Pride
Month collection after facing backlash that threatened the safety
of its workers, the company said.
...
The company did not specify which items were being removed, but
misinformation in recent days has centered on its children’s bathing
suits that were falsely labeled as “tuck-friendly” by prominent
conservative groups and media outlets. The tuck-friendly swimming
suits were only for adults, the Associated Press reported. Tuck-friendly
swimwear offers extra coverage to allow trans women without
gender-affirming operations to conceal their genitalia.

washingtonpost.com (conveniently paywalled to keep idiots out)

Next time anyone wants to light Shmoo-Sack's fuse, use the handy
phrase "gender-affirming operations". That notion invariably ignites
a volcanic spew of "mutilating children" horror scenarios.

[mINE109]

On 5/24/23 12:58 PM, Fascist Flea wrote:
> Thuggery advances at the expense of tolerance.

> The latest:
>
> Target removes some Pride Month products after facing threats
> Target will remove some of its LGBTQ+ merchandise from its Pride
> Month collection after facing backlash that threatened the safety
> of its workers, the company said.
> ...
> The company did not specify which items were being removed, but
> misinformation in recent days has centered on its children’s bathing
> suits that were falsely labeled as “tuck-friendly” by prominent
> conservative groups and media outlets. The tuck-friendly swimming
> suits were only for adults, the Associated Press reported. Tuck-friendly
> swimwear offers extra coverage to allow trans women without
> gender-affirming operations to conceal their genitalia.
>
> washingtonpost.com (conveniently paywalled to keep idiots out)
>
> Next time anyone wants to light Shmoo-Sack's fuse, use the handy
> phrase "gender-affirming operations". That notion invariably ignites
> a volcanic spew of "mutilating children" horror scenarios.

Wonkette has a recap, too, with snark. More Matt Walsh and "Gays against
groomers" than I want to see.

Let's see how Walsh's tweet aligns with Art's claim to want to live and
let live:

"The goal is to make “pride” toxic for brands. If they decide to shove
this garbage in our face, they should know that they’ll pay a price. It
won’t be worth whatever they think they’ll gain. First Bud Light and now
Target. Our campaign is making progress. Let’s keep it going."

[Art Sackman]

You are for genital mutilation and sterilization. Good for you

[Art Sackman]

> Target. Our campaign is making progress. Let’s keep it going."''I


I don't write Walsh's tweets. I don't read Walsh's tweets I am not on Twitter

Nobody is shoving anything i your face. You are an adult, you can go down to
your local club and see a drag show. You can buy your tuckware clothing at
local LGBTQTSGFXYZ+ specialty shops

[Fascist Flea]

The Sack o' Shmoo is verrrrry confused.

>
> > Let's see how Walsh's tweet aligns with Art's claim to want to live and let live:
> >
> > "The goal is to make “pride” toxic for brands. If they decide to shove
> > this garbage in our face, they should know that they’ll pay a price.
>

> I don't read Walsh's tweets I am not on Twitter
>

That may explain why you're trying to reply to Walsh's tweet on RAO.

>
> Nobody is shoving anything i your face. You are an adult, you can go down to
> your local club and see a drag show. You can buy your tuckware clothing at
> local LGBTQTSGFXYZ+ specialty shops
>

Why on Mars would you imagine Walsh is going to see your reply here?
How stupid are you, really?

[mINE109]

That's why I quoted it, so you could see what I'm talking about. Do you
think he is willing to "live and let live"?

> Nobody is shoving anything i your face.

I assure the you the cis-het world-view is omnipresent.

> You are an adult, you can go down toyour local club and see a drag

> show. You can buy your tuckware clothing at local LGBTQTSGFXYZ+
> specialty shops

If thugs can shut down a Pride display at Target, the specialty shop is
next.

[mINE109]

It's not clear he knows who Matt Walsh is! Is he reading this as Walsh
defending Target instead of as Walsh stating his goals?

I guess we now know which of them reads Daily Wire and which doesn't.

[Art Sackman]

On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 10:58:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
> On 5/25/23 10:43 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 2:44:20 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
> >> On 5/24/23 12:58 PM, Fascist Flea wrote:
>
> >>> Next time anyone wants to light Shmoo-Sack's fuse, use the handy
> >>> phrase "gender-affirming operations". That notion invariably
> >>> ignites a volcanic spew of "mutilating children" horror
> >>> scenarios.
> >> Wonkette has a recap, too, with snark. More Matt Walsh and "Gays
> >> against groomers" than I want to see.
> >>
> >> Let's see how Walsh's tweet aligns with Art's claim to want to live
> >> and let live:
> >>
> >> "The goal is to make “pride” toxic for brands. If they decide to
> >> shove this garbage in our face, they should know that they’ll pay a
> >> price. It won’t be worth whatever they think they’ll gain. First
> >> Bud Light and now Target. Our campaign is making progress. Let’s
> >> keep it going."''I
> >
> >
> > I don't write Walsh's tweets. I don't read Walsh's tweets I am not on
> > Twitter
> That's why I quoted it, so you could see what I'm talking about. Do you
> think he is willing to "live and let live"?

I have no idea.

> > Nobody is shoving anything i your face.
> I assure the you the cis-het world-view is omnipresent.

Not at Target and Dodgers Stadium

>
> > You are an adult, you can go down toyour local club and see a drag
> > show. You can buy your tuckware clothing at local LGBTQTSGFXYZ+
> > specialty shops
> If thugs can shut down a Pride display at Target, the specialty shop is
> next.

We are not thugs. Thugs are the ones who trash right to life displays and chase
reporters with a machete.

We have no interest in shutting down alternative specialty shops.
We just want to protect families and children shopping at main line chains stores.
Families and children need safe spaces when shopping.

[Art Sackman]

I don't know what Walsh reads. I read the Daily Wire occasionally.
It is included in the expansive array of my diverse reading material.

[mINE109]

On 5/26/23 2:23 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 10:58:45 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
>> On 5/25/23 10:43 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 24, 2023 at 2:44:20 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
>>>> On 5/24/23 12:58 PM, Fascist Flea wrote:
>>
>>>>> Next time anyone wants to light Shmoo-Sack's fuse, use the handy
>>>>> phrase "gender-affirming operations". That notion invariably
>>>>> ignites a volcanic spew of "mutilating children" horror
>>>>> scenarios.
>>>> Wonkette has a recap, too, with snark. More Matt Walsh and "Gays
>>>> against groomers" than I want to see.
>>>>
>>>> Let's see how Walsh's tweet aligns with Art's claim to want to live
>>>> and let live:
>>>>
>>>> "The goal is to make “pride” toxic for brands. If they decide to
>>>> shove this garbage in our face, they should know that they’ll pay a
>>>> price. It won’t be worth whatever they think they’ll gain. First
>>>> Bud Light and now Target. Our campaign is making progress. Let’s
>>>> keep it going."''I
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't write Walsh's tweets. I don't read Walsh's tweets I am not on
>>> Twitter
>> That's why I quoted it, so you could see what I'm talking about. Do you
>> think he is willing to "live and let live"?
>
> I have no idea.

You could try reading his tweet to find clues whether he would or not.

>>> Nobody is shoving anything i your face.
>> I assure the you the cis-het world-view is omnipresent.
>
> Not at Target and Dodgers Stadium

The Dodgers were founded in 1896, so games without "Pride Night" greatly
outnumber the ten or so with.

Or do you mean any non-cis-het representation is a problem?

>>> You are an adult, you can go down toyour local club and see a drag
>>> show. You can buy your tuckware clothing at local LGBTQTSGFXYZ+
>>> specialty shops
>> If thugs can shut down a Pride display at Target, the specialty shop is
>> next.
>
> We are not thugs.

Why are you identifying with the thugs? And, yes, the "protesters" who
videoed themselves vandalizing Target Pride displays can be called
thugs. Remember Target didn't blame polite protesters, they were
concerned about actual violence when they chose to relocate or remove
displays.

> Thugs are the ones who trash right to life displays and chase reporters with a machete.

That's an oddly restricted definition, one not shared by many.

> We have no interest in shutting down alternative specialty shops.

If you get Target, you'll move on to whatever bondage wear emporia you
can find.

> We just want to protect families and children shopping at main line chains stores.
> Families and children need safe spaces when shopping.

There's nothing unsafe about LGBTQ representation. And I don't see a
similar concern that non-cis-het kids be protected from cis-het culture.

[mINE109]

I refer to you and Scott. Why would Walsh read himself?

> I read the Daily Wire occasionally. It is included in the expansive
> array of my diverse reading material.

You'll find he has a column there. On the plus side for you, your
sympathies may be partially excused since you're ignorant of the worst
extremists on the right.

[Art Sackman]

I know some of the most extreme , I am not ignorant of them, and I
mostly avoid them, so I don't know what they have been writing recently.
Examples: Coulter, Sailer, Alex Jones, and Paul Joseph Watson

[Art Sackman]

On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 7:32:47 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:

> The Dodgers were founded in 1896, so games without "Pride Night" greatly
> outnumber the ten or so with.

Stats are a lovely thing.
The States that banned slavery greatly outnumber the eleven or so that were slave states.

>
> Or do you mean any non-cis-het representation is a problem?
> >>> You are an adult, you can go down toyour local club and see a drag
> >>> show. You can buy your tuckware clothing at local LGBTQTSGFXYZ+
> >>> specialty shops
> >> If thugs can shut down a Pride display at Target, the specialty shop is
> >> next.
> >
> > We are not thugs.
> Why are you identifying with the thugs?

You fucking ignorant moron. I just told you that people opposed to
'the Target Pride display are NOT thugs.

> > Thugs are the ones who trash right to life displays and chase reporters with a machete.

> That's an oddly restricted definition, one not shared by many.

That is not a definition and not restrctive.
it us an EXAMPLW

You are far exceeding your usual level of stupidity and nincompoopedness tonight.

> > We have no interest in shutting down alternative specialty shops.
> If you get Target, you'll move on to whatever bondage wear emporia you
> can find.
> > We just want to protect families and children shopping at main line chains stores.
> > Families and children need safe spaces when shopping.


> There's nothing unsafe about LGBTQ representation. And I don't see a
> similar concern that non-cis-het kids be protected from cis-het culture.

There is nothing unsafe about criticizing the LGBTQ+Whatever Else movement.
There is nothing unsafe about telling trans activists that they are ridiculous fools

[mINE109]

Those are definitely extreme. Walsh is less so but still extreme.

[mINE109]

On 5/27/23 1:31 AM, Art Sackman wrote:
> On Friday, May 26, 2023 at 7:32:47 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
>
>> The Dodgers were founded in 1896, so games without "Pride Night" greatly
>> outnumber the ten or so with.

> Stats are a lovely thing.
> The States that banned slavery greatly outnumber the eleven or so that were slave states.

At the time of the Civil War, it was 19 free states to 15 slave
states. At the time of the Constitution, eight slave states to six free.

I don't see your point. Are you equating slavery bans with cis-het
culture? Slavery with LGBTQ?

>> Or do you mean any non-cis-het representation is a problem?
>>>>> You are an adult, you can go down toyour local club and see a drag
>>>>> show. You can buy your tuckware clothing at local LGBTQTSGFXYZ+
>>>>> specialty shops
>>>> If thugs can shut down a Pride display at Target, the specialty shop is
>>>> next.
>>>
>>> We are not thugs.
>> Why are you identifying with the thugs?

> You fucking ignorant moron. I just told you that people opposed to
> 'the Target Pride display are NOT thugs.

Swaggering into a public space in a physically imposing manner is
intimidation. Intimidation is an element of thuggery so I don't believe
you when you say someone who destroys a symbolic display isn't a thug.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/k7zbxe/target-pride-satan-boycott

“Knock down all the displays and stomp on them,” one person wrote in the
comment section of the Gateway Pundit. “Use a loud bullhorn or maybe a
paint/urine bomb.”

The Proud Boys Michigan chapter suggested people conceal bleach in
Starbucks drinking cups or water pistols and spill it over Pride flags
or clothing at their local Target stores.

End quote.

Would you agree that people who make bomb threats are thugs?

>>> Thugs are the ones who trash right to life displays and chase reporters with a machete.
>
>> That's an oddly restricted definition, one not shared by many.
>
> That is not a definition and not restrctive.
> it us an EXAMPLW

No, it attempts to exclude those who vandalized store displays from the
definition. Never mind muddying the waters with abortion protests, which
have many more examples of pro-life thuggery including arson and
assassinations.

> You are far exceeding your usual level of stupidity and nincompoopedness tonight.

Your penchant for taking criticism of others personally is at the usual
level.

>>> We have no interest in shutting down alternative specialty shops.
>> If you get Target, you'll move on to whatever bondage wear emporia you
>> can find.
>>> We just want to protect families and children shopping at main line chains stores.
>>> Families and children need safe spaces when shopping.

>> There's nothing unsafe about LGBTQ representation. And I don't see a
>> similar concern that non-cis-het kids be protected from cis-het culture.
>
> There is nothing unsafe about criticizing the LGBTQ+Whatever Else movement.

Unless you count the possibility of a return to the legal oppression and
threat of violence that was the rule only a few decades ago.

> There is nothing unsafe about telling trans activists that they are ridiculous fools

Maybe they don't see the nuance when you tell them they shouldn't exist
in society.

[Art Sackman]

On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 4:15:54 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:


> Maybe they don't see the nuance when you tell them they shouldn't exist
> in society.

Who said that?
I just want them out of elementary and high schools.
They can exist in adult society.
Even in beer commercials, if a beer company is stupid enough to do that.

[mINE109]

On 5/27/23 7:48 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
> On Saturday, May 27, 2023 at 4:15:54 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
>
>
>> Maybe they don't see the nuance when you tell them they shouldn't exist
>> in society.
>
> Who said that?
> I just want them out of elementary and high schools.

That's a good example of what I mean.

[Art Sackman]

I'm not talking about as young students. I'm talking about adult drag queens.
They have no business plying their trade in public schools

[Fascist Flea]

What the *$#&% is in that Sack, anyway?

>
> I'm not talking about as young students. I'm talking about adult drag queens.
> They have no business plying their trade in public schools
>

"Plying their trade"? Earth to Sack-Shmoo... come in, CrapSack...

[mINE109]

They don't "ply their trade in schools." Drag is a specific art form in
specific locations, not schools. However, an age-appropriate show that
includes drag is not a problem in schools:

https://broadwayeducators.com/kinky-boots-not-so-kinky-themes/

https://www.playbill.com/article/watch-a-new-york-high-school-remounts-the-original-broadway-production-of-hairspray

Etc.

At best, you're mixing up schools and the successful age-appropriate
Drag Story Hour marketed to libraries.

[Art Sackman]

drag shows are not age appropriate for children. They are for adults

[Fascist Flea]

Sack o' Shit bloviates in abject ignorance.

>
> > At best, you're mixing up schools and the successful age-appropriate
> > Drag Story Hour marketed to libraries.
> drag shows are not age appropriate for children. They are for adults
>

On which statute, law, ethical precept, or regulation are you relying
for your edict, O Putrid Sack o' Crap?

[mINE109]

Drag Story Hour isn't a "drag show." It's a children's activity, a book
reading, with a performer in drag, although I'm sure your sources are
happy to mix you up by illustrating stories about libraries with video
from discos, drag bars and the like.

Children are already barred from adult drag shows in nightclubs.

You've reminded me of an elementary school teacher from back in the day
who wore garish makeup and wigs, a woman in "drag." Think Mimi in The
Drew Carey Show.

Costumed performers for children is not a new thing: clowns, "princess
parties," sports mascots, etc.

[Art Sackman]

>
> You've reminded me of an elementary school teacher from back in the day
> who wore garish makeup and wigs, a woman in "drag." Think Mimi in The
> Drew Carey Show.

I try NOT to think of Mimi
This is just GREAT for kids What a role model!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Sa3c3n9SmQ

speaking of Drew Carey

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOQbCTCB5-A

>
> Costumed performers for children is not a new thing: clowns, "princess
> parties," sports mascots, etc.

NONE of those involve sexualization.

But even clowns can be dangerous

https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Feature-image-of-John-Wayne-Gacy-in-and-out-of-clown-costume.jpg

[Art Sackman]

For adult viewing, dog shit eating Devine was funny, but not appropriate for kids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTOWIMJkKpc

[Art Sackman]

>
> You've reminded me of an elementary school teacher from back in the day
> who wore garish makeup and wigs, a woman in "drag."

Oh dear!! So, you were exposed to drag queens in elementary school.
No wonder you are so fucked up.

[mINE109]

On 5/29/23 1:26 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
>
>>
>> You've reminded me of an elementary school teacher from back in the day
>> who wore garish makeup and wigs, a woman in "drag." Think Mimi in The
>> Drew Carey Show.
>
> I try NOT to think of Mimi
> This is just GREAT for kids What a role model!!!

Yet acceptable.

>> Costumed performers for children is not a new thing: clowns, "princess
>> parties," sports mascots, etc.
>
> NONE of those involve sexualization.

Neither is drag necessarily and certainly not at library story time.

> But even clowns can be dangerous

Can't get anything past you.

[mINE109]

Hence the movie rating upon rerelease.

[mINE109]

No, it's you who exhibit an unhealthy obsession.

[Art Sackman]

On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 4:43:25 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
> On 5/29/23 1:26 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> You've reminded me of an elementary school teacher from back in the day
> >> who wore garish makeup and wigs, a woman in "drag." Think Mimi in The
> >> Drew Carey Show.
> >
> > I try NOT to think of Mimi
> > This is just GREAT for kids What a role model!!!
> Yet acceptable.

At any rate Mimi was not a crossdresser nor a drag queen, just a very ugly biological woman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Kinney

[Art Sackman]

Live performances should have ratings also

[Art Sackman]

Not wanting to sexually mutilate children and not wanting to sterilize them
is a very healthy obsession.

Your obsession with sexualizing minors and grooming them to be gender confused
is what's unhealthy.

[Fascist Flea]

Spin, whirl, dervish away...

>
> > > Oh dear!! So, you were exposed to drag queens in elementary school.

> > No, it's you who exhibit an unhealthy obsession.
> Not wanting to sexually mutilate children and not wanting to sterilize them
> is a very healthy obsession.
>

That's quite a leap. Are you tripping?

>
> Your obsession with sexualizing minors and grooming them to be gender confused
> is what's unhealthy.
>

You and your doctor need to revisit your prescriptions.

[Art Sackman]

I am not on gender changing hormone blockers, nor do I plan to have my genitals removed.

[Fascist Flea]

Old Sack-Shmoo was blind, and could not see...

That's a start. Keep going, and eventually you'll hit on the meds that
turn you into a lunatic.

[mINE109]

Bars and strip clubs are already age-restricted.

[mINE109]

Exaggerated feminine qualities in dress, makeup and vocal style are the
essence of drag. And 'ugly' is in the eye of the beholder. You could
also compare that teacher to country-era Dolly Parton.

[mINE109]

On 5/29/23 7:00 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 4:57:24 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
>> On 5/29/23 1:42 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You've reminded me of an elementary school teacher from back in the day
>>>> who wore garish makeup and wigs, a woman in "drag."
>>>
>>> Oh dear!! So, you were exposed to drag queens in elementary school.
>>> No wonder you are so fucked up.
>> No, it's you who exhibit an unhealthy obsession.
>
> Not wanting to sexually mutilate children and not wanting to sterilize them
> is a very healthy obsession.

No, mischaracterizing gender-affirming medical care is unhealthy. While
I do not concede that surgery should be forbidden for minors, I will
point out that it's so rare that it shouldn't be a concern of yours.

> Your obsession with sexualizing minors and grooming them to be gender confused
> is what's unhealthy.

Rubber, glue. As if there'd be no LGBTQ+ if only you could repress them
to the point of no representation.

[Art Sackman]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 11:00:58 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
> On 5/29/23 7:00 PM, Art Sackman wrote:

> Rubber, glue.

Idiot, ignoramus

[Art Sackman]

Thanks for validatng my point.
Any venue showing such stuff that is not not a bar or strip club should be age restricted.
Like libraries and public schools.
Or parks, or concert venues, and whatever else.

[mINE109]

On 5/30/23 7:03 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 10:42:28 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
>> On 5/29/23 6:58 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 4:48:15 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
>>>> On 5/29/23 1:32 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:24:24 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Costumed performers for children is not a new thing: clowns, "princess
>>>>>> parties," sports mascots, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> For adult viewing, dog shit eating Devine was funny, but not appropriate for kids.
>>>> Hence the movie rating upon rerelease.
>>>
>>> Live performances should have ratings also
>> Bars and strip clubs are already age-restricted.
>
> Thanks for validatng my point.

When schools serve alcohol and allow naked dancing, get back to me.

> Any venue showing such stuff that is not not a bar or strip club should be age restricted.
> Like libraries and public schools.

You lose the argument with "such stuff" because you include being LGBTQ
in it.

> Or parks, or concert venues, and whatever else.

You'll be all for this:

https://www.texastribune.org/2023/05/28/texas-legislature-drag-show-bill/

"Under Senate Bill 12, business owners would face a $10,000 fine for
hosting sexually explicit performances in which someone is nude or
appeals to the “prurient interest in sex.” Performers caught violating
the proposed restriction could be slapped with a Class A misdemeanor,
which carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $4,000 fine...

The bill classifies as sexual conduct the use of “accessories or
prosthetics that exaggerate male or female sexual characteristics,”
accompanied with sexual gesticulations."

Good-bye, Hooters! Good-bye, Twin Peaks! Watch out, Dallas Cowboy
Cheerleaders!

"Brigitte Bandit, an Austin-based drag performer, criticized the
addition of “accessories or prosthetics” to the bill. Drag artists
performing in front of children don’t wear sexually explicit costumes,
Bandit said, adding that this bill creates a lot of confusion over what
is and isn’t acceptable to do at drag shows.

“Is me wearing a padded bra going to be [considered] enhancing sexual
features?” Bandit asked. “It’s still really vague but it’s still geared
to try to target drag performance, which is what this bill has been
trying to do this entire time, right?”"

This still won't cover Drag Story Hour due to the lack of prurient interest.

[Art Sackman]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 8:42:15 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
> On 5/30/23 7:03 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
> > On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 10:42:28 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
> >> On 5/29/23 6:58 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
> >>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 4:48:15 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
> >>>> On 5/29/23 1:32 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:24:24 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Costumed performers for children is not a new thing: clowns, "princess
> >>>>>> parties," sports mascots, etc.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For adult viewing, dog shit eating Devine was funny, but not appropriate for kids.
> >>>> Hence the movie rating upon rerelease.
> >>>
> >>> Live performances should have ratings also
> >> Bars and strip clubs are already age-restricted.
> >
> > Thanks for validatng my point.
> When schools serve alcohol and allow naked dancing, get back to me.

LOL!!!!!!
You brought up bars and strip clubs to support your point, now
you say they are irrelevant!!!!!!

> > Any venue showing such stuff that is not not a bar or strip club should be age restricted.
> > Like libraries and public schools.
> You lose the argument with "such stuff" because you include being LGBTQ
> in it.

We are talking about drag shows
stay on point!

> > Or parks, or concert venues, and whatever else.
> You'll be all for this:
>
> https://www.texastribune.org/2023/05/28/texas-legislature-drag-show-bill/
>
> "Under Senate Bill 12, business owners would face a $10,000 fine for
> hosting sexually explicit performances in which someone is nude or
> appeals to the “prurient interest in sex.” Performers caught violating
> the proposed restriction could be slapped with a Class A misdemeanor,
> which carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $4,000 fine...
>
> The bill classifies as sexual conduct the use of “accessories or
> prosthetics that exaggerate male or female sexual characteristics,”
> accompanied with sexual gesticulations."
>
> Good-bye, Hooters! Good-bye, Twin Peaks! Watch out, Dallas Cowboy
> Cheerleaders!

Hooters? My hot wings didn't "come" with dildo fries.

>
> "Brigitte Bandit, an Austin-based drag performer, criticized the
> addition of “accessories or prosthetics” to the bill. Drag artists
> performing in front of children don’t wear sexually explicit costumes,
> Bandit said, adding that this bill creates a lot of confusion over what
> is and isn’t acceptable to do at drag shows.
>
> “Is me wearing a padded bra going to be [considered] enhancing sexual
> features?” Bandit asked. “It’s still really vague but it’s still geared
> to try to target drag performance, which is what this bill has been
> trying to do this entire time, right?”"
>
> This still won't cover Drag Story Hour due to the lack of prurient interest.

I only care about this stuff when its in front of kiddies.
STAY ON POINT!!!!!!

[ScottW]

Took me 30 scrolls to get this in front of me. I've got blisters on my finger.

ScottW

[Fascist Flea]

Stubborn is as stupid does.

>
> > This still won't cover Drag Story Hour due to the lack of prurient interest.
> I only care about this stuff when its in front of kiddies.
>

So you're in favor of keeping "kiddies" locked away from everything
that unsettles *you*. Neurotic much?

[mINE109]

On 5/30/23 11:10 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 8:42:15 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
>> On 5/30/23 7:03 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 10:42:28 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
>>>> On 5/29/23 6:58 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 4:48:15 PM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/29/23 1:32 PM, Art Sackman wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, May 29, 2023 at 8:24:24 AM UTC-4, mINE109 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Costumed performers for children is not a new thing: clowns, "princess
>>>>>>>> parties," sports mascots, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For adult viewing, dog shit eating Devine was funny, but not appropriate for kids.
>>>>>> Hence the movie rating upon rerelease.
>>>>>
>>>>> Live performances should have ratings also
>>>> Bars and strip clubs are already age-restricted.
>>>
>>> Thanks for validatng my point.
>> When schools serve alcohol and allow naked dancing, get back to me.
>
> LOL!!!!!!
> You brought up bars and strip clubs to support your point, now
> you say they are irrelevant!!!!!!

They don't need ratings because the it's already in the liquor license.
Schools don't need ratings because they don't host alcohol and
"prurient" performances.

>>> Any venue showing such stuff that is not not a bar or strip club should be age restricted.
>>> Like libraries and public schools.
>> You lose the argument with "such stuff" because you include being LGBTQ
>> in it.

> We are talking about drag shows
> stay on point!

You're carefully separating your anti-trans arguments from your
anti-drag? You're also not known for staying on point, indeed you often
seem to be answering a completely different post than the one to which
you reply.

>>> Or parks, or concert venues, and whatever else.
>> You'll be all for this:
>>
>> https://www.texastribune.org/2023/05/28/texas-legislature-drag-show-bill/
>>
>> "Under Senate Bill 12, business owners would face a $10,000 fine for
>> hosting sexually explicit performances in which someone is nude or
>> appeals to the “prurient interest in sex.” Performers caught violating
>> the proposed restriction could be slapped with a Class A misdemeanor,
>> which carries a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $4,000 fine...
>>
>> The bill classifies as sexual conduct the use of “accessories or
>> prosthetics that exaggerate male or female sexual characteristics,”
>> accompanied with sexual gesticulations."
>>
>> Good-bye, Hooters! Good-bye, Twin Peaks! Watch out, Dallas Cowboy
>> Cheerleaders!
>
> Hooters? My hot wings didn't "come" with dildo fries.

But your waitress is wearing accessories that exaggerate female sexual
characteristics like push-up bras and short shorts.

>> "Brigitte Bandit, an Austin-based drag performer, criticized the
>> addition of “accessories or prosthetics” to the bill. Drag artists
>> performing in front of children don’t wear sexually explicit costumes,
>> Bandit said, adding that this bill creates a lot of confusion over what
>> is and isn’t acceptable to do at drag shows.
>>
>> “Is me wearing a padded bra going to be [considered] enhancing sexual
>> features?” Bandit asked. “It’s still really vague but it’s still geared
>> to try to target drag performance, which is what this bill has been
>> trying to do this entire time, right?”"
>>
>> This still won't cover Drag Story Hour due to the lack of prurient interest.

> I only care about this stuff when its in front of kiddies.
> STAY ON POINT!!!!!!

Then you've lost: Drag Story Hour doesn't have prurient interest.

[Art Sackman]

> Then you've lost: Drag Story Hour doesn't have prurient interest.

I direct you back to the main point:
It sexualizes children

[Fascist Flea]

Blither, blather, bluther...

>
> > Then you've lost: Drag Story Hour doesn't have prurient interest.
> I direct you back to the main point:
> It sexualizes children
>

What on earth does that mean? People cannot be "sexualized".
Images, effigies, art, and other constructs can be sexualized.
But not actual people.

God, you are one sick puppy.

[mINE109]

You have a strange definition of "sexualizes" because by any standard
measure, it does not.

Yes, this relates:

https://nypost.com/2023/05/24/margot-robbie-barbie-cant-feel-sexual-desire/