smac97

.

No. Society meaning society. Again: "No. Parental rights are, and should be, broad and strong, but they are not unlimited." You and Nehor have amply demonstrated that the sexualization of children has plenty of eye-of-the-beholder components to it. The bulleted list I have provided several times now cumulatively describe grossly indecent, perverted, creepy sexualization of children. You and Nehor apparently have few or no objections to these events. Virtually no point of view is "universally agreed upon." I have never suggested otherwise. I think plenty of people agree with me about whether the events I have noted involve the sexualization of children. And some folks agree with your perspective that varies from mine on this matter. Quite an irrelevant aside. And yet I would not oppose other people from expressing their disagreement about that or any other topic. Would you? I've made no such assumption. My concern is about protecting children from exposure to adult sexual themes, performances, and imagery — whether at Mardi Gras parades with flashing and simulated sex acts, certain Pride events with highly provocative dancing and nudity in family sections, or Drag Queen Story Hours where performers use exaggerated sexualized attire and adult cabaret-style humor in front of young kids. This is, in some quarters, a controversial statement. Henry was right. Thanks, -Smac

I doubt it. Broadly, yes. But not in an unlimited way. Parents are constrained by the laws of the land. None of this is accurate. No. Parental rights are, and should be, broad and strong, but they are not unlimited. My concern is not about discomfort with any particular group of adults, nor am I seeking to impose my own morality (except insofar as I am a part of the electorate). Rather, my concern is about protecting children from exposure to adult sexual themes, performances, and imagery — whether at Mardi Gras parades with flashing and simulated sex acts, certain Pride events with highly provocative dancing and nudity in family sections, or Drag Queen Story Hours where performers use exaggerated sexualized attire and adult cabaret-style humor in front of young kids. I apply this standard consistently. I would object just as strongly to children being at a strip club, a burlesque show, a wet T-shirt contest, or any other event where adult sexual expression is the entertainment. The issue isn’t the orientation or identity of the adults. It’s the presence of sexual spectacle around children, which I find creepy and weird and perverse. Somehow, the foregoing is seen by some as an unreasonable or extreme position. Henry was right. Thanks, -Smac

Okay. Okay. I think many of the events I have described, and provided extensive citations and quotes about, are sexualizing children. Okay. True. But society also has some right and duty to speak about the welfare of children as well. It is a balancing act, to be sure. Thanks, -Smac

I think I did define things fairly well here: By “sexualize,” I mean exposing children to adult sexual themes, behaviors, imagery, costumes, or performances — whether explicit or suggestive — that treat sexuality as public entertainment or spectacle rather than something private, intimate, and sacred. This includes highly sexualized dancing, revealing or exaggerated costumes, simulated sexual acts, sexual humor, or adults presenting themselves in overtly sexualized ways in front of minors. I apply this same standard across the board. I wouldn’t want young children at a strip club, a Hooters-style event with sexualized waitstaff, a burlesque show, or a wet T-shirt contest either. The issue isn’t the orientation of the adults — it’s the introduction of adult sexual expression into spaces where children are present. I believe sexuality is a beautiful and sacred gift from God, intended for marriage between a man and a woman and for creating eternal families. Because it is sacred, it deserves decorum and reverence — not casual public spectacle. Children are still developing their understanding of gender, modesty, and healthy boundaries. Exposing them to adult sexual contexts (even if not “explicit” in every moment) confuses that development and robs them of a protected childhood. Kids should be allowed to be kids. I’m not trying to ban adults from having adult spaces. I’m simply saying adult sexual performances and displays belong in adult-only environments, not mixed with children. I appreciate you clarifying what you mean by “sexualizing children.” I agree that one common usage of the phrase refers to turning children themselves into sex objects — for example, child beauty pageants that have little girls in heavy makeup, bikinis, and provocative poses. That is disturbing and I also oppose it (as I have noted previously). However, that is not the only meaning of the phrase, nor the one I’m using here. I’m using “sexualizing children” to mean exposing children to adult sexual themes, behaviors, or performances — even when the adults are the ones being sexualized. Examples: Highly sexualized dancing, simulated sex acts, or nudity at certain Mardi Gras parades where children are present. Some Pride parades that include provocative costumes, grinding, or adult cabaret-style performances in sections marketed as family-friendly. Drag shows or “Drag Queen Story Hours” aimed at or attended by young children, when the performers are in exaggerated sexualized attire and use adult-oriented humor or movements. Here are additional real-world parallels (heterosexual or otherwise) that introduce kids to adult sexual contexts, themes, or performances, even if not “explicit” in every moment. These mirror my concern about drag: the context and presentation sexualize or confuse, regardless of intent: Child beauty pageants (e.g., “Toddlers & Tiaras”-style events): Young girls (often preschool age) in heavy makeup, fake tans, hair extensions, bikinis, and provocative poses/outfits. Critics across the spectrum note this prematurely sexualizes children by equating worth with adult-style “sexiness.” Burlesque or pole-dancing performances at community festivals, fairs, or “family-friendly” events: Teasing, revealing costumes, and suggestive choreography that mimic strip-club or adult-entertainment styles. Certain cheerleading/dance recitals or competitions for preteens/teens: Routines with grinding, thrusting, or highly sexualized moves and skimpy costumes, often performed in school or public settings. Prime-time broadcasts like some Super Bowl halftime shows: Pole dancing, gyrating, crotch grabs, and near-nude costumes viewed by millions of families — widely criticized as soft-core burlesque in a family viewing slot. Carnivals/festivals with wet T-shirt contests, body-paint events, or bawdy sideshows: Public displays of adult sexual humor, partial nudity, or objectification. Overly provocative music concerts, award shows, or music videos marketed to general audiences but featuring explicit dancing, lyrics, and costumes (especially when children attend or watch at home). These examples keep the focus on any adult sexual expression invading children’s spaces — not orientation. The consistent principle: if it would be inappropriate at a strip club or Hooters, it doesn’t belong around kids. In each case, the children are not being turned into sex objects — they are being exposed to adult sexual expression as entertainment. That is the distinction I’m drawing. My position is consistent: adult sexual content and performances (whether at Mardi Gras, certain Pride events, strip clubs, burlesque shows, or anywhere else) belong in adult-only environments. Children should be protected from that exposure so they can develop a healthy, age-appropriate understanding of sexuality, modesty, and boundaries. Sexuality is sacred — not something to be turned into public spectacle for kids. That’s why I draw the line at events that mix adult sexual displays with children, regardless of the orientation of the adults involved. Does that make sense, or would you like me to clarify further? I appreciate you clarifying your view. I’m not claiming that every child who sees something “sexy” is being “sexualized” in the narrow sense of being turned into a sex object. That’s a different (and also wrong) thing. What I’m saying is this: exposing children to adult sexual themes, behaviors, costumes, or performances — whether it’s highly sexualized dancing, simulated sex acts, nudity, or cabaret-style entertainment — is inappropriate and does sexualize the environment for those children. That is the definition I’m using. It’s the same standard I would apply to a strip club, a burlesque show, or a wet T-shirt contest. The issue isn’t the orientation of the adults. It is the presence of adult sexual expression in spaces where children are present or invited. I’m not “fixating on queer people.” I’ve said repeatedly that I oppose the same thing at Mardi Gras parades, certain music festivals, or any event where highly sexualized behavior is on display around kids. My concern is consistent across the board. You’re right that there are very real sexual crimes against children. Protecting children from those crimes includes protecting their innocence and their developing understanding of sexuality. That’s not “pearl clutching.” It’s basic safeguarding. Children cannot meaningfully consent to or process adult sexual contexts. That’s why we draw lines around age-appropriate spaces. Sexuality is sacred — not something to be turned into public entertainment for kids. I believe adult sexual performances belong in adult-only environments. That’s the principle. It applies equally to everyone. Does that clarify where I’m coming from? I understand why you might see this as discomfort or bigotry — that’s a common accusation. But it’s not accurate here. My concern is not about discomfort with any particular group of adults. It’s about protecting children from exposure to adult sexual themes, performances, and imagery — whether at Mardi Gras parades with flashing and simulated sex acts, certain Pride events with highly provocative dancing and nudity in family sections, or Drag Queen Story Hours where performers use exaggerated sexualized attire and adult cabaret-style humor in front of young kids. I apply this standard consistently. I would object just as strongly to children being at a strip club, a burlesque show, a wet T-shirt contest, or any other event where adult sexual expression is the entertainment. The issue isn’t the orientation or identity of the adults. It’s the presence of sexual spectacle around children. “Protect the children” is not a smokescreen here. Children cannot consent to or meaningfully process adult sexual contexts. Their developing understanding of modesty, boundaries, and healthy sexuality deserves to be safeguarded. That’s not bigotry — it’s basic parental responsibility and common sense. Dismissing every concern about age-inappropriate sexual content as “bigotry” or “Satanic panic” simply shuts down discussion instead of engaging the actual principle. As a Latter-day Saint, and as a father, I believe sexuality is sacred — a gift from God meant for marriage and family, not public entertainment for kids. That belief leads me to draw a clear line: adult sexual performances belong in adult-only spaces. I’m not trying to ban adults from living as they choose. I’m saying children should be allowed to be children. If you genuinely believe no line should ever be drawn around children and adult sexual content, then we simply disagree on first principles. But please don’t assume my motive is hatred or fear. It’s concern for kids. I’ll wrap up with this: I find it disconcerting that our society appears to be granting a kind of special exemption — a sort of “No True Scotsman” privilege — to certain events that expose children to highly sexualized adult behavior. This double standard is especially noticeable with some Pride parades and Drag Queen events aimed at or attended by kids. We rightly call out the same kind of content at Mardi Gras, music festivals, or any other venue, yet with these particular events the concern is often dismissed as bigotry rather than taken seriously. I don’t believe that’s sustainable or fair. Children’s innocence and healthy development should be protected consistently, regardless of the identity or politics of the adults involved. I think I am not alone in this view. I think there are substantial numbers of people within the LGBT community who also object to sexualizing children at “gay” events in the ways I’ve described. Many of them have publicly said the same thing: adult sexual expression belongs in adult spaces, not around kids. We should be able to agree on that basic principle without accusations of hatred. Protecting children isn’t a partisan issue — it’s a human one. Thanks, -Smac

I commented on this previously here I Can a person have faith in The Book of Mormon while simultaneously rejecting The Book of Mormon as to its historicity? I don't think so. Such a concept renders Joseph Smith a fraud and a liar, and the book itself a fraud and a lie. A fictional Book of Mormon has no real power, and renders it as nothing more than a quirky self-help book. It becomes no more relevant to the salvation of men than Awaken the Giant Within by Anthony Robbins or How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. These are useful books, to be sure. For some, they are even life changing. But The Book of Mormon declares itself to be the word of God through inspired prophets. Can a person have faith in Christ while simultaneously rejecting Christ as an actual, historical figure? I don't think so. Rejecting the historicity of Christ renders Christ a fictional role model, like Atticus Finch or Gandalf. A fictional Christ has no power to atone, no power to forgive, no power to save. I think the Inspired Fiction folks have not really thought through the ramifications of their proposal. The "fake but accurate," "I can reject what The Book of Mormon claims to be and what Joseph Smith represented it to be, but still accept it as scripture" type of reasoning is a fundamentally flawed line of reasoning. Elder Oaks aptly described it as "not only reject(ing) the concepts of faith and revelation that The Book of Mormon explains and advocates, but it is also not even good scholarship." This is why I find advocacy of this approach problematic. Such advocates are steering others up a spiritual blind alley; a path, I think, which sooner or later will culminate in a crisis of faith and/or a rejection of The Book of Mormon. After all, one who rejects its historicity has already rejected a substantive, even vital, part of the book. Rejecting the rest of it would seem to be just a matter of time. I think an affirmative denial of the book's historicity will, sooner or later, become fatal to a testimony of the book. Ambivalence about historicity is perhaps possible, but affirmative denial is, I think, not compatible with an enduring and efficacious testimony of The Book of Mormon. I've also previously quoted Elder Oaks (same link) (emphasis added) : I don't think we (that is, members of the Church) can say, regarding Jesus Christ, that quotations of Him in the Bible merely contain "high-minded sentiments and beautiful turns of phrase," and that we can enjoy such things while also rejecting His claims to be the Son of God and the Savior of Mankind. I have yet to see the Inspired Fiction folks (that is, those who are members of the Church) address this issue, which I believe is fatal to their proposal. If The Book of Mormon can be rejected for what it claims to be, and instead construed as fiction, then so can Jesus' claims of being the Son of God and our Savior. The value of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (which, for me, includes the Book of Mormon) is, for me, inextricably linked with its realness and authenticity, with what it claims to be. There are, of course, portions of the scriptures which are figurative, or which otherwise do not need to have historicity. But Jesus Christ really needs to have been an actual person and the actual Son of God. And the Book of Mormon really needs to be what it claims to be. A fictional Jesus puts Him on par with other fictional heroes. Admirable, but not needed, not the source of salvation. Some value, yes (again, like Gandalf or Atticus Finch or Captain America), but not salvific value. Thanks, -Smac

I got the point, I just disagreed with and chose not to address portions of it, as it was not very responsive to my post. I am expressing concern about the sexualization of children. You are finding fault with that. I find that weird. I have done nothing of the sort. I have specifically and emphatically condemned all forms of sexualizing children. Meanwhile, you have effectively nothing to say about the bulleted list describing events which, in my view, are clearly sexualizing children. Here's a thought experiment: Imagine someone coming forward with credible evidence that the following events were taking place at events sponsored by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: "This...er...performer? In spandex, standing next to men in thongs, shouting 'We have bandanas and lube!' from a float parading in front of young kids." "Christina Aguilera sporting a green strap-on penis at a concert advertised as an 'all-ages' pride event in Los Angeles." "This man in drag exposing his pantyhose-clad crotch at a 'kid-friendly' brunch." "A toddler watches as men in thongs and bondage gear whip one another at a pride parade." "A group of half-naked people - including men and women - gyrate on stage and simulate sex acts at a 'family-friendly' drag and pride event in Austin, Texas." "This drag queen wearing pop-up prosthetic genitalia that actually sprayed liquid on to a crowd that included kids." "Drag queens and men in women's lingerie danced provocatively in front of a crowd that included one very confused little girl." "This bare-breasted person twerking and gyrating near a cop, only feet from children marching in the same parade in Washington, D.C. " Children watching a public event involving "a bunch of men that are butt naked and they’re riding around on bicycles ... exposing their genitalia to children who came to attend the event, which was advertised as a family friendly event." "{S}ome of these cyclists were covered in body paint while the majority were fully exposed, leaving nothing unseen to the eye." "{D}ozens of fully naked men and women playing in the fountain with children." "'{A} man with breasts' marching ahead of young children wearing little more than a bikini bottom walking straight up to a police officer, bending over, and shaking his rear at the cop." "{O}ther men walked by {children}, clad in rainbow-colored speedos with tight bulges on display." "{A} drag queen standing on an eggplant emoji float, proclaiming — with young children present — 'We have genitals and lube.'" "{C}hildren were present at a drag show featuring several men disrobing and suggestively dancing on stage." "Christina Aguilera was seen wearing a green, bejeweled phallus, with which she repeatedly stroked during her performance at the all-ages event on Saturday night." "{A}n adult forcing her reluctant child to watch the Pride parade." "Young children can be seen handing money to twerking drag queens. A bright pink neon sign saying 'It’s Not Going to Lick Itself!' added an extra layer of creepiness." "{Yale University associate professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Joseph J. Fischel} attempts to justify his argument that children should be exposed to public displays of kink and gay sexuality by taking the laughable position that such exposure will help combat 'racism and homophobia.'" "{Fischel inquires} 'What is the presumptive harm if a child …. sees an adult’s butt cheeks, or even an adult’s genitals or breasts?'" "Fischel continues, asking if a child would feel violated after witnessing any of these things, or if they’d be 'as likely to respond with curiosity?'" "{Fischel states that 'children might like'} public indecency at Pride." "'Kids in general aren't at all fazed by seeing nudity.' ... 'It's such a fun and colorful day, it helps to let the little ones express themselves as well. Go with an open mind and be ready to have fun.'" "{T}wo men pantomiming perverse sexual practices, as their truck rolled slowly down the street before gazing hordes of adults and children." “{W}e’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.” “The ‘coming for your children’ chant has been used for years at Pride events." "{R}eporter Taylor Hansen interviewed multiple nude men on the street who attempted to justify their public nudity in front of children as natural and sometimes even good for them." "{N}aked adults in front of children at the parade, including one man who positioned himself at the front of the crowd as multiple school districts and the Boy Scouts of America marched by in the parade." "A 9-year-old girl Hansen spoke to recounted how she saw a man wearing a Darth Vader helmet and cape 'with nothing else,' which she said made her feel 'grossed out.' "Hansen also posted a thread on X detailing more footage he captured of naked adults in front of children at the parade, including one man who positioned himself at the front of the crowd as multiple school districts and the Boy Scouts of America marched by in the parade." Would you find these behaviors objectionable in that situation? I sure would. In fact, I would separate myself from any group or subgroup or ideology that not only tolerates, but celebrates these behaviors, platforms them, endorses them. You have nothing to say about the bulleted list of behaviors. Says the guy who is personalizing this thread. I asked you a number of questions, all of which you have ignored. Stay away from events which involve exposing children to heavily sexualized behavior, and don't ignore or condone or attempt to justify such behaviors. That is my point. Henry was right. So is Andrew Sullivan: "{A}n unspoken golden rule: Leave children out of it." Seems like we need to make it a spoken golden rule. Thanks, -Smac

I think it would be productive to tell me what you think of those examples, since those are the types of events which I have found problematic. I hope the event does not include sexualized behaviors. Alas... A guide to taking kids to San Francisco's Gay Pride Parade SF Cop Says Nudity Around Kids is OK at Pride Parade Sounds like the event you are describing is pretty much par for the course. Graphic “Pride” Parades Attacking the Innocence of Children I won't ask if you are in favor of this stuff. “{W}e’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.” “The ‘coming for your children’ chant has been used for years at Pride events." San Francisco Pride Parade features public nudity around kids, 'Fetish Zone' with urine "A 9-year-old girl Hansen spoke to recounted how she saw a man wearing a Darth Vader helmet and cape 'with nothing else,' which she said made her feel 'grossed out.' "Hansen also posted a thread on X detailing more footage he captured of naked adults in front of children at the parade, including one man who positioned himself at the front of the crowd as multiple school districts and the Boy Scouts of America marched by in the parade." Again: "This...er...performer? In spandex, standing next to men in thongs, shouting 'We have bandanas and lube!' from a float parading in front of young kids." "Christina Aguilera sporting a green strap-on penis at a concert advertised as an 'all-ages' pride event in Los Angeles." "This man in drag exposing his pantyhose-clad crotch at a 'kid-friendly' brunch." "A toddler watches as men in thongs and bondage gear whip one another at a pride parade." "A group of half-naked people - including men and women - gyrate on stage and simulate sex acts at a 'family-friendly' drag and pride event in Austin, Texas." "This drag queen wearing pop-up prosthetic genitalia that actually sprayed liquid on to a crowd that included kids." "Drag queens and men in women's lingerie danced provocatively in front of a crowd that included one very confused little girl." "This bare-breasted person twerking and gyrating near a cop, only feet from children marching in the same parade in Washington, D.C. " Children watching a public event involving "a bunch of men that are butt naked and they’re riding around on bicycles ... exposing their genitalia to children who came to attend the event, which was advertised as a family friendly event." "{S}ome of these cyclists were covered in body paint while the majority were fully exposed, leaving nothing unseen to the eye." "{D}ozens of fully naked men and women playing in the fountain with children." "'{A} man with breasts' marching ahead of young children wearing little more than a bikini bottom walking straight up to a police officer, bending over, and shaking his rear at the cop." "{O}ther men walked by {children}, clad in rainbow-colored speedos with tight bulges on display." "{A} drag queen standing on an eggplant emoji float, proclaiming — with young children present — 'We have genitals and lube.'" "{C}hildren were present at a drag show featuring several men disrobing and suggestively dancing on stage." "Christina Aguilera was seen wearing a green, bejeweled phallus, with which she repeatedly stroked during her performance at the all-ages event on Saturday night." "{A}n adult forcing her reluctant child to watch the Pride parade." "Young children can be seen handing money to twerking drag queens. A bright pink neon sign saying 'It’s Not Going to Lick Itself!' added an extra layer of creepiness." "{Yale University associate professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Joseph J. Fischel} attempts to justify his argument that children should be exposed to public displays of kink and gay sexuality by taking the laughable position that such exposure will help combat 'racism and homophobia.'" "{Fischel inquires} 'What is the presumptive harm if a child …. sees an adult’s butt cheeks, or even an adult’s genitals or breasts?'" "Fischel continues, asking if a child would feel violated after witnessing any of these things, or if they’d be 'as likely to respond with curiosity?'" "{Fischel states that 'children might like'} public indecency at Pride." "{Fischel states that} we ought to celebrate kink, butts, and boobs… especially for {children}." I have asked whether you agree or disagree with this stuff. And you have not answered, and instead referenced the San Francisco, which is elsewhere described in similar ways as the above: "'Kids in general aren't at all fazed by seeing nudity.' ... 'It's such a fun and colorful day, it helps to let the little ones express themselves as well. Go with an open mind and be ready to have fun.'" "{T}wo men pantomiming perverse sexual practices, as their truck rolled slowly down the street before gazing hordes of adults and children." “{W}e’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.” “The ‘coming for your children’ chant has been used for years at Pride events." "{R}eporter Taylor Hansen interviewed multiple nude men on the street who attempted to justify their public nudity in front of children as natural and sometimes even good for them." "{N}aked adults in front of children at the parade, including one man who positioned himself at the front of the crowd as multiple school districts and the Boy Scouts of America marched by in the parade." "A 9-year-old girl Hansen spoke to recounted how she saw a man wearing a Darth Vader helmet and cape 'with nothing else,' which she said made her feel 'grossed out.' "Hansen also posted a thread on X detailing more footage he captured of naked adults in front of children at the parade, including one man who positioned himself at the front of the crowd as multiple school districts and the Boy Scouts of America marched by in the parade." The San Francisco Pride, which apparently involves all sorts of sexual depravities exhibited in front of children, is pretty much in line with quite a few events where children are exposed to highly sexualized adult behaviors. When it comes to Latter-day Saints going to church services: "It is definitely not the environment I want to live or the environment I wanted to raise my children." We live in a pluralistic society. Okay. Not sure what you are saying here. I don't think parents should be taking their children to watch highly sexualized public behaviors. Did I really need to say that? To be clear: The "high horse morality judgment" which you are condemning is my disagreement with children being exposed to the following behaviors: "This...er...performer? In spandex, standing next to men in thongs, shouting 'We have bandanas and lube!' from a float parading in front of young kids." "Christina Aguilera sporting a green strap-on penis at a concert advertised as an 'all-ages' pride event in Los Angeles." "This man in drag exposing his pantyhose-clad crotch at a 'kid-friendly' brunch." "A toddler watches as men in thongs and bondage gear whip one another at a pride parade." "A group of half-naked people - including men and women - gyrate on stage and simulate sex acts at a 'family-friendly' drag and pride event in Austin, Texas." "This drag queen wearing pop-up prosthetic genitalia that actually sprayed liquid on to a crowd that included kids." "Drag queens and men in women's lingerie danced provocatively in front of a crowd that included one very confused little girl." "This bare-breasted person twerking and gyrating near a cop, only feet from children marching in the same parade in Washington, D.C. " Children watching a public event involving "a bunch of men that are butt naked and they’re riding around on bicycles ... exposing their genitalia to children who came to attend the event, which was advertised as a family friendly event." "{S}ome of these cyclists were covered in body paint while the majority were fully exposed, leaving nothing unseen to the eye." "{D}ozens of fully naked men and women playing in the fountain with children." "'{A} man with breasts' marching ahead of young children wearing little more than a bikini bottom walking straight up to a police officer, bending over, and shaking his rear at the cop." "{O}ther men walked by {children}, clad in rainbow-colored speedos with tight bulges on display." "{A} drag queen standing on an eggplant emoji float, proclaiming — with young children present — 'We have genitals and lube.'" "{C}hildren were present at a drag show featuring several men disrobing and suggestively dancing on stage." "Christina Aguilera was seen wearing a green, bejeweled phallus, with which she repeatedly stroked during her performance at the all-ages event on Saturday night." "{A}n adult forcing her reluctant child to watch the Pride parade." "Young children can be seen handing money to twerking drag queens. A bright pink neon sign saying 'It’s Not Going to Lick Itself!' added an extra layer of creepiness." "{Yale University associate professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Joseph J. Fischel} attempts to justify his argument that children should be exposed to public displays of kink and gay sexuality by taking the laughable position that such exposure will help combat 'racism and homophobia.'" "{Fischel inquires} 'What is the presumptive harm if a child …. sees an adult’s butt cheeks, or even an adult’s genitals or breasts?'" "Fischel continues, asking if a child would feel violated after witnessing any of these things, or if they’d be 'as likely to respond with curiosity?'" "{Fischel states that 'children might like'} public indecency at Pride." "'Kids in general aren't at all fazed by seeing nudity.' ... 'It's such a fun and colorful day, it helps to let the little ones express themselves as well. Go with an open mind and be ready to have fun.'" "{T}wo men pantomiming perverse sexual practices, as their truck rolled slowly down the street before gazing hordes of adults and children." “{W}e’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.” “The ‘coming for your children’ chant has been used for years at Pride events." "{R}eporter Taylor Hansen interviewed multiple nude men on the street who attempted to justify their public nudity in front of children as natural and sometimes even good for them." "{N}aked adults in front of children at the parade, including one man who positioned himself at the front of the crowd as multiple school districts and the Boy Scouts of America marched by in the parade." "A 9-year-old girl Hansen spoke to recounted how she saw a man wearing a Darth Vader helmet and cape 'with nothing else,' which she said made her feel 'grossed out.' "Hansen also posted a thread on X detailing more footage he captured of naked adults in front of children at the parade, including one man who positioned himself at the front of the crowd as multiple school districts and the Boy Scouts of America marched by in the parade." You think it is wrong to object to or be concerned about the foregoing behaviors in front of children? You are simply incorrect here. I have elsewhere condemned pornography and other sexualized materials and events. See, e.g., here (re-posted in this thread for the second time, as you apparently missed the first) : Yes, I am repulsed at that. Same goes with Mardi Gras and other public displays of sexual licentiousness and depravity. And those are the events I find problematic. I think plenty of people are repulsed at any sort of efforts to sexualize/groom children. Consider these: Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. Don't Look Away: These Are the 'Family-Friendly' Pride Events the Left Is Pushing On Kids Prepping Kids for a Pride Parade ‘GROOMING FESTIVAL’: Journalist Witnesses Naked Men Playing with Kids at Pride Children as Sex Objects: Why NYC Gay Pride Parade Is Being Called a 'Celebration of Pedophilia' DC Pride parade marked by depravity, grooming of children despite ‘family friendly’ billing Pride Parade Clips Show Shocking and Bizarre Moments — with Children in Attendance Pride Month Jumps the Shark Yale Professor Wants Your Kids To See Sex At Pride Parades So They’re Not ‘Homophobes’ And on and on and on. If and when you find articles endorsing the sexualization of children in a "heterosexual" context, feel free to post them and I will join you in condemning them. Again: "I have never previously excused or rationalized exposing children to other-than-drag-queen sexualized behaviors." Again: You have essentially nothing to say about the behaviors in the bulleted list above. You instead critique me for not sufficiently objecting to the sexualization of children in other contexts (while ignoring several instances in this thread where I have done precisely that). And then you accuse me of sitting on a "moral judgment high horse" for objecting to the sexualization of children. Henry was right. Thanks, -Smac

I don't quite understand this. You admit that drag shows are not inherently "sexual" "Drag shows are not inherently 'sexual' in the strict sense that every single one must involve explicit sex acts or pornography-level content." Yes. "However, the honest answer is, I think, more nuanced: Drag shows are very frequently and deliberately sexualized, and the art form itself is built on gender parody, exaggeration, and adult-oriented performance traditions that often incorporate sexual humor, innuendo, and provocative elements." What is it about this do you not understand? I don't think I said that. No. Again: "{Other than drag queens who are engaging in highly sexualized behavior in the presence of children,} I don't give much thought to drag queens. While I think they would be better off abandoning such behaviors, they are adults and can do as they please, within the confines of the law." Are all drag queens gay? If they are doing so while engaging in highly sexualized behavior in the presence of children, yes. Otherwise, I don't give much thought to women dressing up as men. Adults can do as they please, within the confines of the law. Back in 2022 you and I were in a thread that discussed instances of events which, in my view, sexualize children: That one was about a Pride parade. What is your perspective? Do you support an public event where children watch "a bare-chested man in dark sunglasses whose black suspenders clipped into a leather thong ... {being} spanked playfully by a partner with a flog"? Don't Look Away: These Are the 'Family-Friendly' Pride Events the Left Is Pushing On Kids I disapprove and am opposed to events such as those described above. What is your perspective? Do you support children attending events exhibiting the above behaviors? Prepping Kids for a Pride Parade What is your perspective? Do you support children attending events in which they will see nude adults engaging in sexualized behavior, including behaviors like "Beanie Babies with giant penises on them"? Do you think children should "laugh and enjoy" these things? Journalist Witnesses Naked Men Playing with Kids at Pride Children watching a public event involving "a bunch of men that are butt naked and they’re riding around on bicycles ... exposing their genitalia to children who came to attend the event, which was advertised as a family friendly event." "{S}ome of these cyclists were covered in body paint while the majority were fully exposed, leaving nothing unseen to the eye." "{D}ozens of fully naked men and women playing in the fountain with children." I am opposed to events such as those described above being characterized as "family friendly" and having children as attendees (and, to an extent, participants ("fully naked men and women playing in the fountain with children")). Are you? DC Pride parade marked by depravity, grooming of children despite ‘family friendly’ billing "'{A} man with breasts' marching ahead of young children wearing little more than a bikini bottom walking straight up to a police officer, bending over, and shaking his rear at the cop." I am opposed to events including stuff like this. Are you? Pride Parade Clips Show Shocking and Bizarre Moments — with Children in Attendance "{O}ther men walked by {children}, clad in rainbow-colored speedos with tight bulges on display." "{A} drag queen standing on an eggplant emoji float, proclaiming — with young children present — 'We have genitals and lube.'" "{C}hildren were present at a drag show featuring several men disrobing and suggestively dancing on stage." "Christina Aguilera was seen wearing a green, bejeweled phallus, with which she repeatedly stroked during her performance at the all-ages event on Saturday night." "{A}n adult forcing her reluctant child to watch the Pride parade." What are your thoughts about children being exposed to these behaviors? Pride Month Jumps the Shark "Young children can be seen handing money to twerking drag queens. A bright pink neon sign saying 'It’s Not Going to Lick Itself!' added an extra layer of creepiness." Do you approve or disapprove of events such as the one described above? Yale Professor Wants Your Kids To See Sex At Pride Parades So They’re Not ‘Homophobes’ "{Yale University associate professor of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Joseph J. Fischel} attempts to justify his argument that children should be exposed to public displays of kink and gay sexuality by taking the laughable position that such exposure will help combat 'racism and homophobia.'" "{Fischel inquires} 'What is the presumptive harm if a child …. sees an adult’s butt cheeks, or even an adult’s genitals or breasts?'" "Fischel continues, asking if a child would feel violated after witnessing any of these things, or if they’d be 'as likely to respond with curiosity?'" "{Fischel states that 'children might like'} public indecency at Pride." "{Fischel states that} we ought to celebrate kink, butts, and boobs… especially for {children}." I disagree with Prof. Fischel. Do you agree or disagree with Prof. Fischel? How do you account for the events described above? I have never attended a drag show. I recall this story about a drag show in a bar in which children were invited, and which venue included a big neon sign declaring "It's not gonna lick itself!" Dallas protesters show up to 'Drag the kids to pride' family-friendly drag show "Drag the Kids to Pride." "It's not gonna lick itself!" I have never attended a drag show. Some parents apparently were in attendance at the Dallas event noted above. I have never attended a Drag Queen Story Hour. Yeah me too. I am glad we agree on that. I wonder if we agree on the parameters of what constitutes sexualization of children." Again: "Drag shows are very frequently and deliberately sexualized, and the art form itself is built on gender parody, exaggeration, and adult-oriented performance traditions that often incorporate sexual humor, innuendo, and provocative elements." I reject the characterization of "attacking." I also reject the reference to "them." I have not been speaking of all drag queens, but rather the subset that are engaging in highly sexualized behavior in the presence of children. Other than this subset, I don't give much thought to drag queens. While I think they would be better off abandoning such behaviors, they are adults and can do as they please, within the confines of the law. Again: I am likewise critical of exposing children to sexualized behaviors in other venues that do not necessarily involve drag queens or "Pride" stuff. As a Latter-day Saint, I believe sex is a beautiful and sacred gift from Heavenly Father, reserved for marriage between a man and a woman and intended to create eternal families (see ‘The Family: A Proclamation to the World’). Because it is sacred, it deserves decorum and reverence — not casual public spectacle. Exposing children to any adult sexualized context — whether Drag Queen Story Hour, burlesque shows, child beauty pageants, suggestive dance routines, or events like Mardi Gras and Hooters-style venues — confuses their developing understanding of gender, modesty, and healthy boundaries. Even if a specific performance isn’t overtly explicit, the context (exaggerated sexual stereotypes, provocative costumes/moves, or adult entertainment norms) sexualizes childhood and erodes innocence. I apply this standard equally across the board because the Lord’s counsel on chastity and modesty protects all of His children, not just one group. In my view, we should let kids be kids, and reserve adult expressions for adult spaces. People on this board do not seem to spend much time trying to defend / rationalize / justify exposing children to sexualized behaviors, with the troublingly notable exception of sexualized behaviors as Pride parades, Drag Shows, etc. Thanks, -Smac

It "seems" to you that "the whole world wants," in 2026, "to shame you"? Really? My sense is that support of gay people has never been higher in the history of the world. Considering where it started, that doesn’t have to be that high. And yet it is "that high." Support for same-sex marriage has more than doubled in my adult lifetime. See, e.g., here: This is an remarkable level of support, even in a pluralistic society such as ours. Human Rights Campaign in 2023: ICYMI: New Data Shows Support for LGBTQ+ Rights Reaches Highest Rates Ever Recorded And yet CB, in 2026, is stating: "Healing from that trauma are the first steps in realizing that it is ok to be gay, even if it seems the whole world wants to shame you out of it." I'm not sure what you are saying here. To what do you attribute this "big difference"? Are people just lying? Mouthing what they think they need to say ("public appearance of support") even though it may not actually reflect what they genuinely thing ("private respect and acceptance")? I found this article interesting: Have Young Americans Turned Against Gay Rights? An excerpt: And this (from The Advocate in March 2026) : Fewer young Americans support LGBTQ+ protections, survey finds "Just." The article goes on to speculate as to the decrease: Radical trans ideology seems to be dragging down the "LGBT Community." And here (November 2025) : Support for Same-Sex Marriage Has Dropped, Amid Conservative Attacks I wonder if the explanation pertains to what could be called "Activism Fatigue." I have previously commented on "March of Dimes Syndrome" here: Apology for the Priesthood Ban / "March of Dimes Syndrome" / "Mission Creep" / "Spencer's Law" The article itself is here: The March of Dimes Syndrome A Grok summary of the article: As regarding LGBT groups (from the article) : Mr. Tierney is, I think, not alone in perceiving a substantial drift away from what the Gay Rights Movement originally was intended to achieve. See here (June 2025) : Gay journalist says LGBTQ movement has gone from civil rights success to 'madness' "{R}ewrite rules of biology" = Trans ideologies positing positing that a man can become a woman by "identifying" as one, "trans women are women," biological men in women's sports, bathrooms, prisons, re-defining "woman," etc. "{A}dvocating for child transgender treatment" is self-explanatory. I think he has a point. This stuff has been a bridge too far. I think that regular folks, regardless of where they originally stood and now stand on the core topics in "gay and lesbian rights" (particularly same-sex marriage), are getting wary of, and/or tired of, the endless emphasis and discussion and activism associated with this "seemingly infinite number of new niche identities." Fair questions, these. Hoo, boy. Is he spot-on with this observation. The other "bridge too far." I think he has a solid point here, as does Tierney above. The "they," is the "gender revolutionaries," not all gay/lesbian folks. I've previously stated in this thread: "Self-appointed State actors and strangers assigning to themselves the right to decide what "abuse" means, and to scare children, and to secretively alienate children from their parents, and to seek to actively subvert parental rights, are engaging in wrongful and deeply creepy behavior." I agree with Mr. Sullivan on this point. "{T}he most radical of all." I suspect that he is correct about the adverse effects of this "radicalism," but I would like to see more discussion/data about it. This is where Tierney's article comes back into focus. I don't think activists are willing to close up shop, so they continue to push and push and push, even to the point of doubling and tripling down on what Sullivan aptly calls the "madness" associated with "abolishing the sex binary for the entire society" and "preoccupation with children’s sexual orientations." Thanks, -Smac

I would prefer you read my post first, as otherwise you seem to end up imputing things onto me that are incorrect, as you did here. But do as you please. This is just a message board. Not a biggie. Just a preference. Sounds good. Thanks, -Smac

Yes. Nehor started that. Well, not quite. From "queer" we went to gender dysphoria: Nehor responded: I responded: Nehor responded: And here: An unsubstantiated charge that is assumed to be true because all non cishet people are assumed to be child predators. This despite the evidence that in our society on a per capita basis pedophile predators are most likely to be cishet white men. And the people in power are the ones sexualizing children and who is in power? Stop blaming marginalized communities with limited power for pervasive social problems. This is just blood libel style anti-semitism with a new coat of paint. I responded: And here: An apparent and clearly accurate charge. Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. Nope. Just the ones that are exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on. Note that this is not just about sexualizing children at "drag queen" events, but also "at Pride parades" and "in literature, and so on." Nehor responded: A guy crossdressing is highly sexualized behavior? Ummmmm……you’re weird. Is everything about sex with you? I mean, I’m a pervert but you are in a league of your own if seeing a guy in a dress is making you think sexy thoughts. And you imagine that seeing that makes prepubescent kids think about sex? That is REALLY WEIRD. It was Nehor, not me, that narrowed the discussion to "drag queens." Indeed, he started to ask prurient questions: Do you get turned on by Drag Queen Story Hour where a crossdresser reads a cute children’s story? What do you think is going on in the heads of children in that setting that would warp them? How does this sexualize the children? You are just throwing around the word because you happen to think crossdressing is deeply deviant. Children really don’t. I responded: No. Just the ones exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, or endorsing such things. This, in my view, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. There are plenty of "straight" people that are likewise engaging this in wholly improper and creepy and perverted behavior. The difference, I guess, is that the sexualization in the LGBT community seems to be much more "mainstream," as evidenced by the public events (Pride parades, drag shows, etc.) at which children are being sexualized. Again, please note that I acknowledged and addressed the sexualization of children by people in Pride events (typically involving gay people engaging in sexualized behavior), drag shows (trans people engaging in sexualized behavior), Mardi Gras ("straight" people engaging in sexualized behavior), and so on. My condemnation of the sexualization of children has been plenary. It was Nehor that focused on "trans" in this context ("Do you get turned on by Drag Queen Story Hour..."). I think you are mischaracterizing what I have said. Substantially. Thanks, -Smac

We all should follow the chastity rule whether we are gay or straight or otherwise. Zero sex outside of marriage. I don’t think anyone needs to debate this on an LDS forum. And yet, here we are. The law of Chastity prohibits same-sex behavior. Some participants here find that problematic. While I reject the premise (of "sexual identity"), I understand, but still reject, your overall point. The Law of Chastity is the same rule for all of us, but it has a disparate impact on each of us based on our choices and circumstances. I am married, and one of my best friends is divorced. I can engage in behavior he cannot. That doesn't mean there is some separate Law of Chastity for him, just that there is a disparate impact of that law. I don't know what you are referencing here. I have not presented by "life experience ... as an example of righteousness against" anyone. Thanks, -Smac

That answer still doesn’t address your hyperfocus on drag queens of the sexualized versions**** when the reality is kids are much more likely to be exposed on a daily basis to sexualized portrayals of women and men for that matter. I reject the "hyperfocus" premise. The discussion did not previously involve discussion of sexualization of children via "sexualized portrayals of women and men." Now that this has been introduced into the discussion, I have said: "I think any sexualization of children is wrong." I have elsewhere condemned pornography and other sexualized materials and events. See, e.g., here: Yes, I am repulsed at that. Same goes with Mardi Gras and other public displays of sexual licentiousness and depravity. And those are the events I find problematic. I think plenty of people are repulsed at any sort of efforts to sexualize/groom children. Consider these: Yes, kink belongs at Pride. And I want my kids to see it. Don't Look Away: These Are the 'Family-Friendly' Pride Events the Left Is Pushing On Kids Prepping Kids for a Pride Parade ‘GROOMING FESTIVAL’: Journalist Witnesses Naked Men Playing with Kids at Pride Children as Sex Objects: Why NYC Gay Pride Parade Is Being Called a 'Celebration of Pedophilia' DC Pride parade marked by depravity, grooming of children despite ‘family friendly’ billing Pride Parade Clips Show Shocking and Bizarre Moments — with Children in Attendance Pride Month Jumps the Shark Yale Professor Wants Your Kids To See Sex At Pride Parades So They’re Not ‘Homophobes’ And on and on and on. If and when you find articles endorsing the sexualization of children in a "heterosexual" context, feel free to post them and I will join you in condemning them. I have never previously excused or rationalized exposing children to other-than-drag-queen sexualized behaviors. Yet your implication here seems to be that I have. How many posts can you find where I have endorsed or excused such music videos? How many posts can you find where I have endorsed or excused any of these things? Fallacy of Relative Privation. I reject the premise. Thanks, -Smac

But isn’t it about self perception? Yes. That is how I can reject the premise. I acknowledge that. Also, the separation may be controversial, as I think there are people who conflate the two concepts and find the differentiation of them as offensive and wrong. Reasonable minds can disagree about such things. For my part, I do claim an "identity" of "husband and father," among others. "Sexual identity" is not one of them. As you like. Some people, though having American citizenship, are ashamed of it or indifferent to it, or else otherwise do not think of it as an "identity." I served in the U.S. Army National Guard, and my parents raised me to love America, so I do value my citizenship, and so consider that an "identity." Thanks, -Smac

Again: Again: Yes, giving the boy up for adoption could be very difficult for them. Hence the "best interests of the child" comment above. This is a message board. I'm often writing quickly and off-the-cuff. I do anticipate that you would read and grasp what I write before responding to it, but no biggie if you don't. Why? That's the way the law operates. I should have said "by the mother and the father," since the father is known and in the picture, and both have parental rights. I am not speaking of "belief." Parental rights are a matter of law, and they are presumptive, not "earned." Broadly, a parent has parental rights until and unless the State takes action to limit or terminate those rights. I should have said the mother and the father. Does that clarify? Thanks, -Smac

Again: Drag shows are not inherently “sexual” in the strict sense that every single one must involve explicit sex acts or pornography-level content. However, the honest answer is, I think, more nuanced: Drag shows are very frequently and deliberately sexualized, and the art form itself is built on gender parody, exaggeration, and adult-oriented performance traditions that often incorporate sexual humor, innuendo, and provocative elements. I reject the premise. My comments have been measured and reasonable, not a "rant." I think any sexualization of children is wrong. I think you meant "hypocritical." I reject the accusation. Again: “Family-friendly” or “kid-friendly” drag story hours are the ones that spark controversy. Performers usually tone down the raunch, but they still feature exaggerated sexualized costumes (breast pads, hip pads, heavy makeup, high heels, etc.) and read books that introduce gender/sexuality concepts to children. In my view, this is still sexualizing because it exposes kids to adult gender performance and ideological messaging about sex and identity. Thanks, -Smac

Possibly because you have never had to wonder about what people expect of you in this area. Or possibly because your question/comment was kind of unclear. Or, put another way, "It means you don’t need to fear disappointing or angering someone because of your sexual behavior." As long as I obey the Law of Chastity, I don't need to fear. Otherwise, I do. The same goes for all of us. Thanks, -Smac

I don't claim to know "what it is like grow{ing} up hating that you are gay and why can't I just be normal like everyone else." This also is a bit out of left field, as we have not been discussing "what it is like." Also, I respectfully reject the premise, as I think sexual attraction is something a person experiences, not something a person is. Or they could view same-sex attraction as something they may always experience (or not, as "sexual fluidity" sure seems to be a thing), and then figure out how to address that without violating their covenants with God. It "seems" to you that "the whole world wants," in 2026, "to shame you"? Really? My sense is that support of gay people has never been higher in the history of the world. Thanks, -Smac

We have seen you taking shots at drag queens numerous times. At those who are engaging in highly sexualized behavior in the presence of children, yes. Otherwise, I don't give much thought to drag queens. While I think they would be better off abandoning such behaviors, they are adults and can do as they please, within the confines of the law. I reject the accusation. I think there are large segments of the LGBT community are likewise disgusted by exposing children to highly sexualized behaviors. I have previously provided extensive quotes from such community members. I can track them down and re-post them if you like. Drag queens who are exposing children to sexualized behavior and Mormon bishops convicted of child abuse have both done very morally wrong and reprehensible things. Maybe you should reconsider your hobby of torturing puppies for fun and profit. I reject the premise. But I will reconsider my position on whether children should be exposed to highly sexualized behavior. <Pause> Yep. I stand by my position. Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. Thanks, -Smac

This is exactly why the vast majority of queer people leave the church. I reject the premise (the notion of "sexual identity"), but I understand and acknowledge your point. If a person wants to include in his life behavior that is incompatible with the Law of Chastity and other important commandments, then they will have difficulty remaining in the Church. If prioritize those incompatible behaviors over their membership in the Church and its associated covenants, I can understand why they "leave the Church." Actually, I think that is when things can become emotional. Moral clarity can become more acute. Again, I reject the notion that sexual attraction is a state of being. It is something a child experiences, and is not what the child is. I have an acquaintance, a young man (the son of a friend), who got a girl pregnant. Both are quite young. The young man has little work experience and income, and the young woman has substantial mental health and addiction issues. Fortunately, she did not abort the child. She gave birth and is keeping the baby, a little boy. While I think the little boy would probably be better off being adopted, I am glad she did not kill him, as he will have an opportunity to grow up. We have yet to see how this all plays out in the long term. The parents are unmarried and have no intention of getting married. The mother in unemployed and is anxious to get past nursing so that she can return to her use of drugs and alcohol. The young man also has some issues in his life (including, I think, some drug/alcohol use). Is this "murky"? Emotionally and logistically, yes. Morally? No. The decisions being made are mostly morally clear. The substantive moral ambiguity, I think, is the "best interests of the child" (give him up for adoption or have him stay with his mentally ill and destitute and unemployed (by choice) mother with substantial substance abuse issues). And even then, the ambiguity is something to be resolved, in the end, by the mother, perhaps with guidance from trusted sources. Please don't introduce unserious questions into what should be a serious discussion. I think this becomes an issue for the parents based on the circumstances. If a teenage girl is dating, say, a 23 year old man, I could see the parents as reasonably imposing constraints on that, within the confines of the law. The girl can do as she please once she's an adult, but while a minor her parents still have some authority over her. For myself, I would have difficulty "forbidding" a teen child (say, 16 or older) from having a same-sex relationship (except that I would have reservations if there were a sexual component, as I would with a heterosexual relationship). For myself, I would operate with the confines of the law. I would offer advice if asked. And that advice would be to encourage them to discern what the Lord wants them to do, and then encourage them to do that. I would also tell them that I would respect their decisions, regardless of whether I actually agree with them. I would support them as best I could, in ways that I feel appropriate. Thanks, -Smac

My concern is primarily about sexualized behavior. I think parents generally have autonomy to expose their children to behaviors such as "men wearing women's clothing." I think that could be confusing to children, but the absence of sexualized behavior matters. A non-sexualized drag show? I suppose not "inherently." Drag shows are not inherently “sexual” in the strict sense that every single one must involve explicit sex acts or pornography-level content. However, the honest answer is, I think, more nuanced: Drag shows are very frequently and deliberately sexualized, and the art form itself is built on gender parody, exaggeration, and adult-oriented performance traditions that often incorporate sexual humor, innuendo, and provocative elements. Some examples: For myself, no. “Family-friendly” or “kid-friendly” drag story hours are the ones that spark controversy. Performers usually tone down the raunch, but they still feature exaggerated sexualized costumes (breast pads, hip pads, heavy makeup, high heels, etc.) and read books that introduce gender/sexuality concepts to children. In my view, this is still sexualizing because it exposes kids to adult gender performance and ideological messaging about sex and identity. A while back there were social media videos of a "Cast Member" at Disneyland who was very clearly a man and dressed up as a princess. The performer is shown interacting directly with young girls — hugging them, posing for photos, dancing with them, and engaging in playful physical contact in the park’s public areas. Some videos show the performer being very affectionate or “motherly” toward the little girls while in full drag/princess attire. Disney has defended these appearances as part of its commitment to “inclusion” and “diversity.” The company has increasingly allowed or hired gender-nonconforming and drag performers for certain events, parades, and character interactions, especially during Pride Month or special ticketed nights. However, many parents and observers (across political lines) have called these specific interactions inappropriate for young children because: A grown man in heavy makeup and a sexualized/feminine costume is engaging in close physical contact with little girls. The performance style often includes exaggerated feminine mannerisms, hip swaying, and flirtatious or theatrical elements that many adults consider adult-oriented or sexualized, even if no explicit sex acts are occurring. It blurs the line between family-friendly character entertainment and adult drag performance. Disney’s character guidelines are supposed to keep all interactions wholesome and age-appropriate, but some argue (legitimately, I think) that allowing biological males in feminine drag costumes around young girls violates that standard in practice. Not every interaction is overtly sexual, but the context is highly sexualized for many viewers: adult male in drag makeup and gown performing femininity in front of and with prepubescent girls. My understanding is that developmental psychology and child-protection experts generally conclude that exposing young children to adult cross-dressing or drag performance in an intimate setting can be confusing, boundary-blurring, or emotionally disruptive, even if the performer is not behaving maliciously. The videos struck a nerve, I think, with parents who expect Disneyland to remain a traditionally safe, non-sexualized space for young children. While Disney and others frame this as “inclusion,” I suspect a large number of parents view it as introducing adult sexualized gender performance into a space meant for children. The concern is not that every drag performer is a predator, but that the performance itself is inherently adult-oriented and crosses normal boundaries when directed at or involving very young girls. Thanks, -Smac

You never flirted with anyone else when you were single? I did. But not with married women. Or with men. Both behaviors are, by inference and extrapolation and common sense, prohibited by the Law of Chastity. Thanks, -Smac

I suppose. I don't know what this means. I don't know what this means, either. Who has to "defend" their sexual behavior? To whom? About what? As a Latter-day Saint, I am - by choice - constrained in my sexual behavior by the Law of Chastity. Those constraints include "heterosexual" ones. No adultery. No fornication. Thanks, -Smac

I think most observant Latter-day Saint parents encourage their children to obey the Law of Chastity. I think many/most observant Latter-day Saint parents differentiate between divinely-authorized-and-mandated sexual relations (between husband and wife, for the purposes of procreation and strengthening the relationship between them) and other forms of sexual behavior (fornication, adultery, same-sex behavior, etc.). So to clarify, you just answered cb with an extended “No, they don’t tell their kids they don’t care about about the biological sex of their child’s romantic partners as long as no extramarital sex”….which seems to mean they do care if their child ends up in a same sex marriage. Candidly, I don't really know how "most" parents approach this topic. I think most parents, not just those who are Latter-day Saints, anticipate - and perhaps hope - that their children will grow up, get married, and have children. I sense that "heteronormativity" is supposed to have some sort of pejorative connotation, but heterosexual behavior is the only way to procreation. Our bodies are designed for it. Same-sex behavior is biologically incoherent. As humans, then, we can add a moral/religious layer to these matters. I think observant Latter-day Saint parents hope their children will keep the Law of Chastity. I don't think these parents frame this in relation to same-sex behavior in some sort of default sense. This may be changing, though, as some flavor same-sex status is growing at a very advanced rate. But to directly answer your question, I think most observant Latter-day Saints would prefer their children to keep the commandments, which would preclude a same-sex marriage. I'm not sure what you are saying here. I don't know how Latter-day Saint parents are approaching this, if at all. “If at all” meaning what? They don’t talk about future relationships with their kids or about what the future holds for those with homosexual attractions? Or something else? I don't know how often Latter-day Saint parents presuppose that their child is gay, or how often they approach that notion. By "if at all" I meant to suggest that some parents don't address this point at all. When I think about what I have "hoped" for my children, it has involved them living out the Plan of Salvation. Same-sex marriage is not a part of that Plan, nor is same-sex behavior. Same-sex attraction might be, depending on the individual. Thanks, -Smac