SCOTUS Decision: Ban on "Talk" Conversion Therapy is Unconstitutional

[california boy]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

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) :

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

wow you completely missed the whole point of my post.  Not surprising when you have a one minded agenda 

 

I find your high horse morality judgement to be so totally lacking because you ignore completely other sexually charged events, celebrities, beaches, etc as somehow ok. And as a word of warning just incase you are completely ignorant of such things, but after spending 14 summers sailing in Europe, there are plenty of thongs, topless women, speedos, and naked people on the beaches there. I spent several of those years in Barcelona.  In particular, there is a promenade that follows the beach the entire length of the city.  Some of those beaches have 4 head shower where you can rinse off the sand.  People strip totally naked and wouldn't even think of keeping their sandy bathing suits on.  These showers are about 10' from the promenade with a constant stream of people and nothing blocking their view.  Those poor european children must be scarred for life.  I mean the beaches make any gay pride event definitely look way more G rated.  Again, this just points out the diversity of how parents choose to raise their children.  So yeah, my life experiences seems much different than yours.  Maybe other parents have had a different life experience than you as well.  

And

Do you think you know other people's children better than they do and should be able to dictate what they are allowed or not allowed to bring their children to?  

And

In the video that you posted, there were also a lot of parents present at the drag show event.  The fact that these events continue to be popular tells me that these parents choose to bring their children to these events more than once.  Which means they are perfectly clear what their children are going to see.  I have talked to some of these parents as well.  They tell me about how much they enjoyed the event and how they were happy their children saw the parade.  Why would they say that?  Most respond that in their opinion, more than anything, gay pride events celebrate diversity.  They celebrate that you can be different than that one single monolithic standard that you might have.  People can have different ideas on how they choose to live their lives.  Their children can made different decisions than the ones they have made.  Frankly it is one of the biggest reasons why I love living in San Francisco.  This is not a city that the population conforms to a very narrow dictation of how you are suppose to live your life.

And just about everything else I posted.  You are so worried that you wouldn't get your diatribe out which was really the only thing you wanted to do isn't it.  Cut and pasted from anonymous posters on your narrow search for anything you think might stick.  Totally ignoring the fact that almost a million people feel differently than your world view in just the San Francisco pride parade alone.  

Obviously you don't want a discussion, you want a chance to do your tired normal often repeated diatribe.  Stay away from gay pride events.  Don't go near them.  Don't go to the Mediterranean.  Don't go to Asia where their views on sexuality is very different than yours. Stay in your little Utah bubble.  If no one came to these events, then you might have a point.  And if you think what goes on is so horrible, shouldn't your anger be directed to the actual people who bring their children to the event?  They must find something different going on that is more important than you do.  

I also might add that the San Francisco gay pride parade is televised locally.  Do you think it might be possible that your far right web sites might be trying to stir up as much prejudice as possible by bias reporting of the events?

Edited April 7 by california boy

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

wow you completely missed the whole point of my post.  

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.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Not surprising when you have a one minded agenda 

I am expressing concern about the sexualization of children.

You are finding fault with that.  I find that weird.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I find your high horse morality judgement to be so totally lacking because you ignore completely other sexually charged events, celebrities, beaches, etc as somehow ok.

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. 

1 hour ago, california boy said:

And just about everything else I posted.  

You have nothing to say about the bulleted list of behaviors.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Obviously you don't want a discussion,

Says the guy who is personalizing this thread.

I asked you a number of questions, all of which you have ignored.

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Stay away from gay pride events.  Don't go near them.  

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:

Quote

The other major problem with this new version of the gay rights movement, he said, was the preoccupation with children’s sexual orientations.

Sullivan continued, "But this illiberalism made a fateful, strategic mistake. In the gay rights movement, there had always been an unspoken golden rule: Leave children out of it. We knew very well that any overreach there could provoke the most ancient blood libel against us: that we groom and abuse kids… So what did the gender revolutionaries go and do? They focused almost entirely on children and minors."

"{A}n unspoken golden rule: Leave children out of it."

Seems like we need to make it a spoken golden rule.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 7 by smac97

[webbles]

30 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I had either watched or listened to an interview several years ago where a participant at byu described his experiences and specifically stated gay porn  pics were used. I don’t  recall his name, but this discussion led me to search specifically for evidence of that. The McBride paper is the first one I have ever read and frankly I’m shocked temple recommend holders couldn’t find any better topic of research to do and went to this level. They should be embarrassed. 

Why are you shocked?  It was an active topic of research at the time and McBride was specifically trying to figure out how to make the aversion therapy fit with BYU and similar cultures better.  If aversion therapy actually worked (at that time, it was believed to work based off of multiple research going back decades), why wouldn't a "temple recommend holder" want to research whether clothed pictures was just as good as nude pictures.  For psychologists of the day who did practice aversion therapy and for participants who seeked out aversion therapy (whether coerced, forced, or of their own free will), they would be using nude photographs.  Some probably disliked needing to use nude photographs so if the study had come out in the positive direction, it would have made things better for those.

34 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

i have read a couple fair articles about it and they were fairly detailed I guess. This link I am posting below specifically described porn was used by McBride, but somehow whatever team collaborated on the article all missed the fact nude images of adolescents were used. I’m thinking they are smarter than that and it is no accident that info was omitted. 

I'm not sure there were nude images of adolescents.  The quote is "composed of nude, semi -nude and clothed adolescent and adult males in various poses".  That doesn't mean that the adolescents were nude.  It means that there were pictures of adolescents, but they could have been clothed or semi-nude.  It could mean they were nude, but I would find that unlikely.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

I had either watched or listened to an interview several years ago where a participant at byu described his experiences and specifically stated gay porn  pics were used. I don’t  recall his name, but this discussion led me to search specifically for evidence of that. The McBride paper is the first one I have ever read and frankly I’m shocked temple recommend holders couldn’t find any better topic of research to do and went to this level. They should be embarrassed. 

i have read a couple fair articles about it and they were fairly detailed I guess. This link I am posting below specifically described porn was used by McBride, but somehow whatever team collaborated on the article all missed the fact nude images of adolescents were used. I’m thinking they are smarter than that and it is no accident that info was omitted. 
 

as you are connected in some way to fair maybe you could reach out to them and let them know they either purposely or accidentally left out the use of nude adolescent images? Perhaps they can publish a correction. ?? 
 

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/home-page/current-events/aversion-therapy-for-homosexuality-in-scientific-historical-context

It described teen pics only so in fairness they could have meant teenagers who are legal, meaning 18 and 19 year olds.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am expressing concern about the sexualization of children.

You are finding fault with that.  I find that weird.

And you still won’t define what you mean by that. In common use “sexualizing children” is a phrase used where you make children into a kind of sex object in some way. Some forms of child beauty pageants, having them dress or act provocatively, etc.

This isn’t happening. A child being exposed to something sexy is not “sexualizing children”. It would be children viewing something sexually explicit or being exposed to something. I am not even conceding that that is what is happening. I think this is mostly a lot of pearl clutching. There are real sexual crimes against children. Fixating on queer people being a particularly dangerous threat is ridiculous if this actually involves worry about the safety of children.

Considering the people in hysterics about this typically show indifference to school shooting, refuse to adequately fund CPS agencies, and the like I don’t believe this concern for “the children” is sincere. And of course there is the gutting of USAID which is killing over a thousand children a day and has killed hundreds of thousands of children.

 

I don’t think this is about children. I think this is about adults being uncomfortable and not being willing to come to grips with that. And just plain old bigotry since “protect the children” has always been a cover story for bigotry. See blood libel, the Satanic panic, and the gays grooming the kids. But this time with transgender people it suddenly is actually about children in danger? Nope. People who genuinely care about children get involved in fixing the problems that are causing huge amounts of suffering for children. I don’t believe in this rhetorical smokescreen.

In time it will be seen as just another foolish moral panic that people will shake their heads over and wonder how those idiots in the past could have possibly believed this tripe. Hopefully not while simultaneously talking about how the aliens on Beta Centauri are secretly eating babies and thus we should make sure that children never learn about those deviants existing. Oh, and we should fund a Death Star JUST IN CASE they get uppity.

[Notatbm]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It described teen pics only so in fairness they could have meant teenagers who are legal, meaning 18 and 19 year olds.

The terminology used was adolescents and adults. Why not just say “adults” if only adult pics were used? Are these people that stupid and did no one who approved this research not question the use of pics of adolescents? 

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

The terminology used was adolescents and adults. Why not just say “adults” if only adult pics were used? Are these people that stupid and did no one who approved this research not question the use of pics of adolescents? 

I have no difficulty believing that the people involved in this project were that stupid. I also suspect that they were stupid enough to use child porn. Both of these seem like plausible scenarios.

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

Why are you shocked?  

I suppose I shouldn’t be. After all masturbation was the talk of the town back then and kimball running around telling people it makes you gay. 
 

the church has (s)  tons of elders and high priests who have sex with young boys so I guess it all checks out. Showing pictures of nude men , women and adolescents to college boys and measuring their penises should seem ok.

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And you still won’t define what you mean by that.

I think I did define things fairly well here:

Quote

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.

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.

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In common use “sexualizing children” is a phrase used where you make children into a kind of sex object in some way. Some forms of child beauty pageants, having them dress or act provocatively, etc.

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?

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This isn’t happening. A child being exposed to something sexy is not “sexualizing children”. It would be children viewing something sexually explicit or being exposed to something. I am not even conceding that that is what is happening. I think this is mostly a lot of pearl clutching. There are real sexual crimes against children. Fixating on queer people being a particularly dangerous threat is ridiculous if this actually involves worry about the safety of children.

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?

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t think this is about children. I think this is about adults being uncomfortable and not being willing to come to grips with that. And just plain old bigotry since “protect the children” has always been a cover story for bigotry. See blood libel, the Satanic panic, and the gays grooming the kids. But this time with transgender people it suddenly is actually about children in danger? Nope. People who genuinely care about children get involved in fixing the problems that are causing huge amounts of suffering for children. I don’t believe in this rhetorical smokescreen.

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

Edited April 7 by smac97

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I suppose I shouldn’t be. After all masturbation was the talk of the town back then and kimball running around telling people it makes you gay. 
 

the church has (s)  tons of elders and high priests who have sex with young boys so I guess it all checks out. Showing pictures of nude men , women and adolescents to college boys and measuring their penises should seem ok.

Yeah, I should probably have a threesome tonight or an orgy or something as a wholesome palette cleanser after reading about all this Church-sponsored deviancy and after reading smac’s imagined lurid deviancies he and his propagandist friends cook up that he is shamelessly sharing and projecting onto other groups. Bunch of deviant weirdos.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

There is a double standard. All those things you listed above that are heterosexual events that children often attend or participate in ARE NOT being persecuted like queer people and transgender people and crossdressers are. You act like pride parades get a pass when there is a huge media machine dedicated to not giving them a pass. To the point that transgender people are being singled out and vilified and are scared to exist in public.

The double standard is the exact opposite of what you say it is and I think on some level you know this which is why you dance around and use doublespeak and obfuscation. Stop it.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Well this conversation is going no where.  

I do not believe in sexualizing children.  I also do not think all your examples are sexualizing children.  I also believe parents themselves are the first arbitrators of what is or is not appropriate for their children.

done.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well this conversation is going no where.  

I do not believe in sexualizing children.  I also do not think all your examples are sexualizing children.  I also believe parents themselves are the first arbitrators of what is or is not appropriate for their children.

done.

So if I am following correctly…..

Smac strongly believes in a parent’s rights to decide what events their children will attend.

Smac believes he should get a blanket veto for events in general about what events other parents will take their kids to attend because events that he will never attend might still exist and thus live rent-free in his head forever.

Smac believes the rights of other parents are supreme except when Smac’s own morality determine that some events shouldn’t exist at all for the safety of the children.

[Notatbm]

35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, I should probably have a threesome tonight or an orgy or something as a wholesome palette cleanser after reading about all this Church-sponsored deviancy and after reading smac’s imagined lurid deviancies he and his propagandist friends cook up that he is shamelessly sharing and projecting onto other groups. Bunch of deviant weirdos.

If only we still had the polygamy thing going. I could just tell a couple of my wives were gonna all party together.. the lord commanded it. Or better get a couple of the most recent high school grads and marry em real quick for a good time.  Fifty plus me surely deserves an adolescent (18-19 yo) wife or two lol. Totally normal. 

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well this conversation is going no where.  

Okay.

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

I do not believe in sexualizing children.  

Okay.  I think many of the events I have described, and provided extensive citations and quotes about, are sexualizing children.

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

I also do not think all your examples are sexualizing children.  

Okay.

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

I also believe parents themselves are the first arbitrators of what is or is not appropriate for their children.

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

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So if I am following correctly…..

I doubt it.

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Smac strongly believes in a parent’s rights to decide what events their children will attend.

Broadly, yes.  But not in an unlimited way.  Parents are constrained by the laws of the land.

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Smac believes he should get a blanket veto for events in general about what events other parents will take their kids to attend because events that he will never attend might still exist and thus live rent-free in his head forever.

None of this is accurate.

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Smac believes the rights of other parents are supreme

No.  Parental rights are, and should be, broad and strong, but they are not unlimited.

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

except when Smac’s own morality determine that some events shouldn’t exist at all for the safety of the children.

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

Edited April 7 by smac97

[Analytics]

Prompt: 

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Children’s innocence and healthy development should be protected consistently, regardless of the identity or politics of the adults involved.

Prompt: In general, what is more dangerous for the healthy development of children? Attending a gay pride parade, or attending the Mormon Church where they learn about sexual sin, worthiness interviews, and priesthood confession?

Claude Opus 4.6: 
This is a question where reasonable people disagree, and the answer depends a lot on specifics — what particular parade or church environment, the child's age, and what "dangerous" means to you. But I can share some of what child development research and expert commentary suggest about the concerns raised in each case.

Regarding pride parades: The main concern people raise is exposure to sexually suggestive content (revealing clothing, suggestive dancing, etc.). Most pride events are largely family-friendly, though some do include adult-oriented elements. Brief exposure to things a child doesn't fully understand is generally considered low-risk by developmental psychologists — children tend to simply not register what they lack context for. That said, some pride events are more adult-oriented than others, and parents can choose accordingly.

Regarding the specific LDS practices you mention: There's a more substantive body of concern from mental health professionals here, particularly around "worthiness interviews" — one-on-one meetings between children/teens and adult male leaders that historically included questions about sexual behavior. Research on shame-based sexual messaging in childhood suggests it can contribute to anxiety, depression, sexual dysfunction, and distorted self-worth. Former members and therapists have documented patterns of harm from teaching children that normal developmental experiences (like sexual curiosity) make them "unworthy." The power dynamic of a child confessing to an authority figure about intimate topics has also raised safeguarding concerns — the LDS church itself has made some policy changes in response to criticism on this front.

The broader picture: Child development experts generally agree that sustained, repeated messaging that ties a child's worth to sexual purity or obedience to authority carries more documented risk than incidental exposure to unfamiliar adult content. Shame internalized over years tends to be more impactful than a single confusing visual experience.

That said, many people raised in the LDS church report positive experiences, and many families navigate pride events thoughtfully. Context, frequency, and the child's individual temperament all matter enormously. Neither experience is monolithic, and framing it as a binary comparison can oversimplify both.

Analytics
For my part, I grew up in an environment where the more repulsed you were about sexual thoughts, feelings, and actions, the better. The goal was to demonstrate your moral purity by being as repulsed as Spencer W. Kimball was in The Miracle of Forgiveness. I presume the Church isn't as bad now as it was in the 1980's, but everyone's experience is unique. A couple of months ago, my adult daughter showed me a TikTok video of a recent ExMormon deconstructing her childhood, and asked me about it. I told her that 27 years earlier, I had an epiphany that for whatever possible good being raised in the Church could do her, it wasn't worth the risk of the harm it might cause. In a moment of sustained moral clarity, I made a clean break to protect her. 

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Notatbm said:

The McBride paper is the first one I have ever read and frankly I’m shocked temple recommend holders couldn’t find any better topic of research to do and went to this level. They should be embarrassed.

How old are you?  Just curious as the culture during the time period towards gays and the queer culture outside of the Church and unfortunately inside was pretty aggressive. Got worse with AIDS and the misinformation and myths and propaganda that came out of that fear. Have you listened or read the Thorne interview?  Even if he is intentionally downplaying the porn aspect and not just misremembering, I believe his sincerity in wanting to help the men who came to him looking for help. 

I didn’t know Thorne, but all the other clinical psych and behaviour psych professors I did know as their student as did my husband, some of them quite well. Unless they managed to hide an abusive side of them, these were good hearted, kind men who were concerned about those who came to them.  They did volunteer work at the prisons, took in foster kids from the delinquent center, adopted, saw students for personal counseling after hours.  And they taught practices according to the guidelines then in force through the various professional organizations.  I think I would have noticed if they had gone rogue in their teaching because I did notice it with a couple of other professors (not in psych).

The sad thing is everything that was done in McBride’s experiment was relatively mainstream, being done at other universities. Using porn for sexual therapy was standard practice from the research I was reading. They (mainstream psych) were advising individuals and couples to use porn to help with sexual dysfunction.  Unfortunately there was not the caution with adolescents back then.  I remember Brooke Shields and her “nothing comes between me and my Calvin’s” commercials were all over TV screens all day long.  There was protest, but little protection that I was aware of.  The controversy with Shields only seemed to drive her popularity.  Movies were tons worse.  I am not saying this is okay or makes what happened at BYU not wrong. I am saying it’s not unexpected given what was being used elsewhere. 

The main difference with BYU at the time was McBride was trying to find a way to avoid using porn or even nudes, but to tell the difference in effectiveness he had to have something to compare it to.  Controls in comparison studies are required to make them meaningful. 

I am saddened that he allowed adolescent pictures and Thorne either allowed it or trusted him to do right.  (I don’t believe the other professors would have seen the pictures used until after the research was done, if then; they might have only read the description).

It sickens me such permissiveness for sexualizing teens was part of the culture at that time.  And still is. I do think McBride should have been concerned and removed the adolescent pictures no matter what even if he was using them as ‘control’ in order to ultimately (hopefully) create another option for use in research.  The porn…I am undecided. My BS was in clinical psych, so I know there was discussion about individuals who would only be aroused by porn at that time.  I can see perhaps some of the subjects saying ‘these (the porn) work best for me and it’s the behaviour I want to stop’.  Clinically speaking it makes sense to directly target the behaviour and not adjacent behaviour.  Even though the purpose of the research was not therapy focused but on the tools used for therapy, the possibility that the aversion therapy might decrease attraction to the porn was still there (it was thought to work at that time in much of the mainstream from what I studied, though there were some who didn’t think much of it) and I can see McBride possibly thinking why not help the subjects while they were helping him.

Didn’t make it right, but it makes it understandable imo.

Edited April 8 by Calm

[Notatbm]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

How old are you?  Just curious as the culture during the time period towards gays and the queer culture outside of the Church and unfortunately inside was pretty aggressive. Got worse with AIDS and the misinformation and myths and propaganda that came out of that fear. Have you listened or read the Thorne interview?  Even if he is intentionally downplaying the porn aspect and not just misremembering, I believe his sincerity in wanting to help the men who came to him looking for help. 
 

I’m north of 55 y/o. I vividly recall my stake pres saying all gays should be hanged… that’s my dad. My bishop essentially taught me and others in my ward how to masturbate: 

Bishop: hi nearly 12y/o Notatbm… do you masturbate?

notatbm: A dunno what’s that?

Bishop: describes how male masturbation is done and why people do it then asked do you do that 

Notatbm: no way and then goes home and tries it. 
 

same thing happened with all my friends at the time. 
 

church is crazy

 

 

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

I didn’t know Thorne, but all the other clinical psych and behaviour psych professors I did know as their student as did my husband, some of them quite well. Unless they managed to hide an abusive side of them, these were good hearted, kind men who were concerned about those who came to them.  They did volunteer work at the prisons, took in foster kids from the delinquent center, adopted, saw students for personal counseling after hours.  And they taught practices according to the guidelines then in force through the various professional organizations.  I would have noticed if they had gone rogue in their teaching because I did notice it with a couple of other professors (not in psych).

The sad thing is everything that was done in McBride’s experiment was relatively mainstream, being done at other universities. Using porn for sexual therapy was standard practice from the research I was reading. They (mainstream psych) were advising individuals and couples to use porn to help with sexual dysfunction.  Unfortunately there was not the caution with adolescents back then.  I remember Brooke Shields and her “nothing becomes between me and my Calvin’s”commercials were all over TV screens all day long.  There was protest but little protection that I was aware of.  The controversy with Shields only seemed to drive her popularity.  Movies were tons worse.  I am not saying this is okay or makes what happened at BYU not wrong. I am saying it’s not unexpected given what was being used elsewhere. 
 

The main difference with BYU at the time was McBride was trying to find a way to avoid using porn or even nudes, but to tell the difference in effectiveness he had to have something to compare it to.  Controls in comparison studies are required to make them meaningful. 

I am saddened that he allowed adolescent pictures and Thorne either allowed it or trusted him to do right.  (I don’t believe the other professors would have seen the pictures used until after the research was done, if then; they might have only read the description.

It sickens me such permissiveness for sexualizing teens was part of the culture at that time.  And still is. I do think McBride should have been concerned and removed the adolescent picturess no matter what even if he was trying to create another option for use in research.  The porn…I am undecided. My BS was in clinical psych, so I know there was discussion about individuals who would only be aroused by porn at that time.  I can see perhaps some of the subjects saying these (the porn) work best for me and it’s the behaviour I want to stop. Clinically speaking it makes sense to directly target the behaviour and not adjacent behaviour.  Even though the purpose of the research was not therapy focused, the possibility that the aversion therapy might decrease attraction to the porn was still there (it was thought to work at that time in much of the mainstream from what I studied, though there were some who didn’t think much of it) and I can see McBride possibly thinking why not help the subjects while they were helping him.

Didn’t make it right, but it makes it understandable imo.

Yea I remember the brook shields thing. Also blue lagoon

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

I don’t believe you.

Henry was never right.

Edit: Also, who is Henry?

Edited April 7 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

28 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I’m north of 55 y/o. I vividly recall my stake pres saying all gays should be hanged… that’s my dad. My bishop essentially taught me and others in my ward how to masturbate: 

Bishop: hi nearly 12y/o Notatbm… do you masturbate?

notatbm: A dunno what’s that?

Bishop: describes how male masturbation is done and why people do it then asked do you do that 

Notatbm: no way and then goes home and tries it. 
 

same thing happened with all my friends at the time. 
 

church is crazy

I think you’ll find that the Church and its members have always treated gay and other queer people with nothing but love and concern for their wellbeing. Also respect. Lots of respect. Oodles of respect. And that AIDS was deserved for their sinful lifestyle and that they chose to be perverts of their own accord. And respect. Did I mention respect?

[Duncan]

28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t believe you.

Henry was never right.

Edit: Also, who is Henry?

keep in mind too that conservative nutjob Andrew Sullivan has AIDS

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Duncan said:

keep in mind too that conservative nutjob Andrew Sullivan has AIDS

Only because those evil bisexuals transmitted it to the poor unsuspecting and godly straight people having their divine affairs and holy one night stands.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Society meaning you, since almost 1 million people attend gay pride parade in San Francisco and find no problem with the event.  And that doesn't even include the television audience.  Perhaps you have an Utah bubble mentality on what you think is inappropriate and society should be outraged to meet your point of view. But that point of view is not necessarily universally agreed upon throughout the world or even this country.  Maybe you are relying a bit too much on your echo chamber web sites you cruise if you think everything you mentioned is considered sexualizing children by the rest of society

What is ironic is while that Utah outlook seems perfectly fine with polygamy, I don't think the majority of the world shares that same point of view.  So maybe you can understand that you really can't assume "society" has a right and a duty to conform to your beliefs.

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

Society meaning you,

No.  Society meaning society.

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

since almost 1 million people attend gay pride parade in San Francisco and find no problem with the event.  

Again: "No.  Parental rights are, and should be, broad and strong, but they are not unlimited."

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

And that doesn't even include the television audience.  Perhaps you have an Utah bubble mentality on what you think is inappropriate and society should be outraged to meet your point of view.

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.

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

But that point of view is not necessarily universally agreed upon throughout the world or even this country.  

Virtually no point of view is "universally agreed upon."  I have never suggested otherwise.

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

Maybe you are relying a bit too much on your echo chamber web sites you cruise if you think everything you mentioned is considered sexualizing children by the rest of society

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.

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

What is ironic is while that Utah outlook seems perfectly fine with polygamy,

Quite an irrelevant aside.

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't think the majority of the world shares that same point of view.  

And yet I would not oppose other people from expressing their disagreement about that or any other topic.

Would you?

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

So maybe you can understand that you really can't assume "society" has a right and a duty to conform to your beliefs.

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

Edited April 7 by smac97