Pronoun/Gender Wars Continue Apace

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What "other reasons" do you have in mind?

Again, parental rights are important and broad, but they are not unlimited.  The rights and interests of the child, and of society, may also play a role in justifying state intervention.

I don't think "take over parental control" is accurate.  Parental rights exist, but they have always had some constraints.

I have previously provided extensive examples of sexually explicit behavior at drag shows, Pride parades, etc. which I find to be problematic, particularly in relation to children.

Florida and other states have long allowed non-sexual social nudity in designated private settings such as AANR-affiliated resorts and certain clothing-optional venues. Those places operate under an explicit legal exception for nudity “in any place provided or set apart for that purpose,” and AANR clubs emphasize a family-friendly, non-sexual code of conduct. Simple nudity in that context is not treated as indecent exposure.

The Florida statute at issue is narrower. It does not ban all nudity around minors, nor does it ban every Pride parade or every drag performance. It prohibits knowingly admitting a child to an “adult live performance” that depicts or simulates nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, specific sexual activities, lewd conduct, or lewd exposure of prosthetic/imitation genitals or breasts when the performance, taken as a whole:

1. Predominantly appeals to a prurient, shameful, or morbid interest;
2. Is patently offensive to prevailing adult community standards regarding what is suitable for the age of the child present; and
3. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for the age of the child present.

That is the longstanding “obscenity-as-to-minors” standard. It targets sexualized performances aimed at adult audiences, not ordinary social nudity or non-sexual public events.

A family nudist resort where people of all ages are, it is argued, simply unclothed in a non-sexual recreational setting is not the same thing as a commercial show that includes simulated sexual acts, exaggerated sexualized dancing, or other content designed to appeal to adult sexual interests. I have some personal reservations about these things, but we live in a pluralistic society.  In any event, the law already draws that kind of distinction in many areas (public indecency, age-restricted entertainment, material harmful to minors). Treating every instance of nudity as equivalent to every sexually explicit live performance collapses a distinction the law has maintained for a long time.  

I’m not “railing against” all LGBT events. The question is whether the state may set age limits on commercial live performances that meet the statutory criteria for being unsuitable for children. Florida’s statute attempts to do exactly that. Whether particular shows cross the line is a fact-specific question; the principle that some adult-oriented sexual performances can be restricted for minors is not novel.

You are pointing to a legitimate issue: a great deal of sexual content is available to minors through television, streaming, movies, and advertising, and parental oversight of that material is often inconsistent. That is a fair observation.  I'm less persuaded that it is a moral one.  That we have allowed children to be exposed to sexually explicit context is not, in my view, a justification to throw off any and all constraints intended to protect children.

It also does not answer the narrower question raised by the Florida statute. The law does not claim that live adult performances are the only source of sexualized material minors encounter, nor does it require that every other form of exposure be eliminated before any limit can be placed on commercial live shows. Most regulations work that way:

We restrict minors from buying alcohol even though they may see adults drinking on television.

We restrict minors from certain rated films in theaters even though similar content exists online.

We set age limits on casinos, tobacco, and adult businesses even though the underlying themes appear elsewhere in media.

And on and on.  The existence of other, sometimes more pervasive problems does not make a targeted restriction incoherent or hypocritical.

There are also differences in kind that matter. A live performance in front of an audience is an immediate, in-person experience, often commercial and specifically marketed. Streaming or cinematic content is mediated, usually subject to ratings systems, parental controls, and the practical reality that parents can (and frequently do) limit access in the home. Those distinctions are imperfect, but they are not imaginary. The statute targets knowingly admitting a child to a live show that meets the statutory criteria for being unsuitable for minors; it does not attempt to solve the entire landscape of media exposure.

If the broader concern is that sexual content reaches children too easily across many platforms, that is a legitimate subject for separate discussion about things like ratings enforcement, parental tools, platform responsibility, and so on. It does not follow, though, that therefore no age-based limits should exist on commercial live adult performances. Pointing to worse or more widespread examples elsewhere is a classic “not as bad as” move; it shifts the focus rather than addressing whether the specific restriction is justified on its own terms.

Again, parental authority over children is fundamental, but it has never been absolute. The state already draws lines around what adults may expose minors to commercially: material harmful to minors statutes, age-restricted theaters and clubs, restrictions on selling certain sexual content to children, and limits on public indecency. Those rules exist alongside parental rights; they do not wait for every other form of exposure (TV, streaming, billboards) to be eliminated first.

The Florida statute does not outlaw all sexual content or strip parents of guidance over their own living rooms. It restricts knowingly admitting a child to a commercial live performance that meets the statutory test for being unsuitable for minors—appealing to prurient interest, patently offensive for the child’s age, and lacking serious value for that age. That is a narrower rule than the “state controls every sex act a child might see” claim suggests.

Whether a particular depiction is pornographic does not depend on the medium alone. The law has long treated live, commercial, in-person performances differently from mediated content that parents can more readily control at home. Demanding that every other source of sexual imagery be banned before any limit can be placed on adult live shows is an all-or-nothing standard the law has never required.

The statute we’ve been discussing does not single out LGBT events. It restricts knowingly admitting a child to a commercial adult live performance that meets a specific three-part test: it predominantly appeals to a prurient interest, is patently offensive for the child’s age, and lacks serious value for that age. That standard applies regardless of the sexual orientation or identity of the performers. A heterosexual burlesque show meeting the same criteria would fall under it just as readily.

Do you agree or disagree with the foregoing paragraph?  If not, I would like to hear about your disagreement.

I’m not arguing that parents should have no role, or that every form of sexual content in media should be treated identically. I’m arguing that the state may set age limits on certain commercial live performances without first solving every other avenue through which sexual imagery reaches children. Pointing to television, streaming, or advertising does not make a targeted restriction on live adult shows incoherent.

As for you speculating about motives: I have no animus toward LGBT people. Disagreement about where to draw age and content lines for minors applies to both the "gay" and "straight" segments of society (to the extent we want to divvy ourselves up that way), and is not the same as hostility toward a community.

It seems an ongoing challenge for some folks to cope with disagreement about their worldview.  I think some Latter-day Saints construe any and all critiques of their faith as "attacks," as "anti-Mormonism" (candidly, I have done this in some instances).  Similarly, some in the LGBT community seem to construe too many things to be hatred or "hostility" (your word) rather than what they really are: instances of disagreement in a pluralistic society.

Reasoned and principled and civilly-expressed disagreement is not hate or hostility.  It's just disagreement.  So when, as here, the response shifts from the content of the rule to speculation about my personal reasons for discussing it, the underlying policy question tends to get lost. I’m willing to keep discussing the merits of the restriction itself—what the statute actually covers, whether the line is drawn in the right place, and how it compares to other age-based limits we already accept.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and perspective.  We seldom agree, but sometimes we do.  And in any event, I find value in listing to perspectives which vary from my own.

Thanks,

-Smac

What is it specifically that you have seen happen at a drag show or a pride parade that makes you feel like the government should regulate it any more than it regulates explicit sexual acts, nudity and much more blatant immoral beavior in movies and on TV that is broadcast into homes of minors and are difficult for parents to control.  After all, parents can choose to attend a drag show or pride parade with their children, but have a much more difficult time controlling what their children see in movies and on TV.  

Is the only difference is that drag shows and pride parades parents can make the choice and easily control what their children view as opposed to the graphic sex scenes and full frontal nudity that regularly occur in the movies and TV is that one is live and one is filmed????  Would you be ok with drag shows and pride parades being broadcast?  Do you think that drag shows and pride parades are more explicit than nudity and sex shown on TV and movies?  Could a drag show simulate sex acts as long as it was broadcasted?

[smac97]

57 minutes ago, california boy said:

What is it specifically that you have seen happen at a drag show or a pride parade that makes you feel like the government should regulate it any more than it regulates explicit sexual acts, nudity and much more blatant immoral beavior in movies and on TV that is broadcast into homes of minors and are difficult for parents to control.  After all, parents can choose to attend a drag show or pride parade with their children, but have a much more difficult time controlling what their children see in movies and on TV.  

The presence of sexual content on television, streaming, and in movies is a real issue, and parental control over it is often imperfect. That does not resolve the narrower question raised by the Florida statute.

The law does not attempt to regulate every form of sexual imagery minors might encounter. It restricts knowingly admitting a child to a commercial live performance that meets a specific three-part test: it predominantly appeals to a prurient interest, is patently offensive to prevailing standards regarding what is suitable for the child’s age, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for that age. That is the longstanding obscenity-as-to-minors standard.

I keep saying this because it seems to not be getting much attention: Live, in-person commercial performances differ from mediated content in important ways. Parents can more readily limit or supervise what comes into the home through ratings, parental controls, and device settings. A commercial venue that knowingly admits children to a qualifying adult live performance is a different setting—one the law has long treated as subject to age-based restrictions.

It may be that, historically, existing rules were largely effective at keeping children out of traditional adult venues such as strip clubs. In recent years, however, some venues have sought to present sexually explicit live performances in settings that are specifically intended to include children. The newer statute responds to that development by applying a clear, neutral standard to all qualifying adult live performances, regardless of the identity or orientation of the performers. It is not limited to any one type of event.

Pointing to the broader problem of media exposure does not make a targeted limit on certain live performances incoherent. We already accept many age-based rules without first requiring that every other avenue of similar content be eliminated. The question is whether this particular restriction is justified on its own terms.

57 minutes ago, california boy said:

Is the only difference is that drag shows and pride parades parents can make the choice and easily control what their children view as opposed to the graphic sex scenes and full frontal nudity that regularly occur in the movies and TV is that one is live and one is filmed????  Would you be ok with drag shows and pride parades being broadcast?  Do you think that drag shows and pride parades are more explicit than nudity and sex shown on TV and movies?  Could a drag show simulate sex acts as long as it was broadcasted?

The distinction is not simply “live versus filmed.” The statute targets a specific conduct: knowingly admitting a child to a commercial live performance that meets the obscenity-as-to-minors test. That is different from the separate (and imperfect) systems that already exist for broadcast, streaming, and theatrical films—ratings, parental controls, time-slot restrictions, and the practical ability of parents to limit what enters the home.

Whether a particular drag show or Pride-related performance is more or less explicit than a given movie or television scene is a factual question that varies case by case, and in the end is immaterial. The statute does not depend on a blanket ranking of entire categories. It asks whether the specific live performance, taken as a whole, meets the three-part standard for material that is unsuitable for the child’s age. Some will; many will not.

Broadcasting raises different issues under different legal frameworks. The statute at issue does not regulate broadcasting, and hypothetical questions about what would be permitted if the same content were only televised do not determine whether a state may set age limits on admitting children to qualifying live commercial performances. Those are separate regulatory domains, just as age limits on entering an adult club are separate from rules governing what may air on television.

In short, the law draws a line around a particular commercial setting and a particular act (knowingly admitting a child). It does not require proving that every other form of sexual content is more restrained, nor does it turn on whether the same material would be treated identically if it appeared only on a screen.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

There are also hundreds of naked bike rides that occur around the country

Ouch!?!

[smac97]

Just now, Calm said:

Quote

There are also hundreds of naked bike rides that occur around the country

Ouch!?!

Eww!?! 

 

-Smac

[california boy]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

The presence of sexual content on television, streaming, and in movies is a real issue, and parental control over it is often imperfect. That does not resolve the narrower question raised by the Florida statute.

The law does not attempt to regulate every form of sexual imagery minors might encounter. It restricts knowingly admitting a child to a commercial live performance that meets a specific three-part test: it predominantly appeals to a prurient interest, is patently offensive to prevailing standards regarding what is suitable for the child’s age, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for that age. That is the longstanding obscenity-as-to-minors standard.

I keep saying this because it seems to not be getting much attention: Live, in-person commercial performances differ from mediated content in important ways. Parents can more readily limit or supervise what comes into the home through ratings, parental controls, and device settings. A commercial venue that knowingly admits children to a qualifying adult live performance is a different setting—one the law has long treated as subject to age-based restrictions.

It may be that, historically, existing rules were largely effective at keeping children out of traditional adult venues such as strip clubs. In recent years, however, some venues have sought to present sexually explicit live performances in settings that are specifically intended to include children. The newer statute responds to that development by applying a clear, neutral standard to all qualifying adult live performances, regardless of the identity or orientation of the performers. It is not limited to any one type of event.

Pointing to the broader problem of media exposure does not make a targeted limit on certain live performances incoherent. We already accept many age-based rules without first requiring that every other avenue of similar content be eliminated. The question is whether this particular restriction is justified on its own terms.

The distinction is not simply “live versus filmed.” The statute targets a specific conduct: knowingly admitting a child to a commercial live performance that meets the obscenity-as-to-minors test. That is different from the separate (and imperfect) systems that already exist for broadcast, streaming, and theatrical films—ratings, parental controls, time-slot restrictions, and the practical ability of parents to limit what enters the home.

Whether a particular drag show or Pride-related performance is more or less explicit than a given movie or television scene is a factual question that varies case by case, and in the end is immaterial. The statute does not depend on a blanket ranking of entire categories. It asks whether the specific live performance, taken as a whole, meets the three-part standard for material that is unsuitable for the child’s age. Some will; many will not.

Broadcasting raises different issues under different legal frameworks. The statute at issue does not regulate broadcasting, and hypothetical questions about what would be permitted if the same content were only televised do not determine whether a state may set age limits on admitting children to qualifying live commercial performances. Those are separate regulatory domains, just as age limits on entering an adult club are separate from rules governing what may air on television.

In short, the law draws a line around a particular commercial setting and a particular act (knowingly admitting a child). It does not require proving that every other form of sexual content is more restrained, nor does it turn on whether the same material would be treated identically if it appeared only on a screen.

Thanks,

-Smac

Would you be ok with live performances requiring parents to be present if a minor is viewing the performance?  Or do you think the state is in a better position to know and understand the children of their own parents.

 

[smac97]

On 8/9/2026 at 10:31 AM, california boy said:

Would you be ok with live performances requiring parents to be present if a minor is viewing the performance?  

Personally, no. I view the deliberate exposure of children to highly sexualized live adult performances as a form of sexualizing and grooming minors. I regard that as wrong. This assessment does not depend on the sexual orientation or identity of the performers.

On 8/9/2026 at 10:31 AM, california boy said:

Or do you think the state is in a better position to know and understand the children of their own parents.

Parental approval does not change the above judgment. There are circumstances in which society is justified in using the law to protect children, even when their own parents consent to the exposure. Age-based restrictions on commercial adult live performances fall into that category.

I am not aware of any significant contemporary movement openly advocating that children be admitted to traditional heterosexual adult venues such as strip clubs (I am open to correction on this point). Existing norms and laws have largely kept that from becoming a live controversy. What has generated recent dispute is resistance, in some quarters, to efforts to keep children out of highly sexualized live performances of particularized type (i.e. drag shows that meet the statutory criteria). In a pluralistic society people will disagree about many cultural questions. On this particular point, however, the sexualization of children should remain a bright line.  Advocating for it, or even treating it as controversial or negotiable is, I think, a rapid way for the LGBT community to forfeit broader public support. Many people across communities, including many within the LGBT community, share a straightforward revulsion at the idea of sexualizing children.  Those voices are worth hearing more clearly.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Edited Monday at 10:31 PM by smac97

[california boy]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Personally, no. I view the deliberate exposure of children to highly sexualized live adult performances as a form of sexualizing and grooming minors. I regard that as wrong. This assessment does not depend on the sexual orientation or identity of the performers.

Parental approval does not change the above judgment. There are circumstances in which society is justified in using the law to protect children, even when their own parents consent to the exposure. Age-based restrictions on commercial adult live performances fall into that category.

I am not aware of any significant contemporary movement openly advocating that children be admitted to traditional heterosexual adult venues such as strip clubs (I am open to correction on this point). Existing norms and laws have largely kept that from becoming a live controversy. What has generated recent dispute is resistance, in some quarters, to efforts to keep children out of highly sexualized live performances of particularized type (i.e. drag shows that meet the statutory criteria). In a pluralistic society people will disagree about many cultural questions. On this particular point, however, the sexualization of children should remain a bright line.  Advocating for it, or even treating it as controversial or negotiable is, I think, a rapid way for the LGBT community to forfeit broader public support. Many people across communities, including many within the LGBT community, share a straightforward revulsion at the idea of sexualizing children.  Those voices are worth hearing more clearly.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

So you see an equal comparison between a strip show where alcohol is served and patrons pay for lap dances in a bar setting the same as a drag queen reading children stories in a library or other family friendly evens or a pride parade?  

I do understand your point of view.  The church is one that tries to define your life for you and sets out guidelines of how they believe your life should be lived down to what movies you should watch and how you should dress, what you should drink and eat and how you should spend your Sundays in a very controlled correlated script.

Can you understand how other parents might not want that narrow of upbringing and encourage their children to find their own lives and find their own path back to God.  The fact that you want authority over those choices dictating how they should raise their children to conform to your own personal point of view can be problematic 

Edited Tuesday at 03:03 PM by california boy

[SeekingUnderstanding]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

Personally, no. I view the deliberate exposure of children to highly sexualized live adult performances as a form of sexualizing and grooming minors. I regard that as wrong. This assessment does not depend on the sexual orientation or identity of the performers.

Parental approval does not change the above judgment. There are circumstances in which society is justified in using the law to protect children, even when their own parents consent to the exposure. Age-based restrictions on commercial adult live performances fall into that category

So to sum up, the following at a live show is "sexualizing and grooming minors" and is worthy of further laws and criminal penalites:

Quote

But while the agents took photos of three minors at the Orlando drag show — who appeared to be accompanied by adults — they acknowledged that nothing indecent had happened on stage, according to an incident report obtained exclusively by the Miami Herald.

"Besides some of the outfits being provocative (bikinis and short shorts), agents did not witness any lewd acts such as exposure of genital organs," the brief report stated. "The performers did not have any physical contact while performing to the rhythm of the music with any patrons."

Still, the state's Department of Business and Professional Regulation proceeded to file a complaint against the nonprofit that runs Plaza Live, claiming the venue had illegally exposed children to sexual content. The complaint, issued Feb. 3, seeks to strip the small, nonprofit theater of its liquor license — a serious blow that would likely put it out of business.

It's all part of Gov. Ron DeSantis' statewide crackdown on drag shows, which could escalate further as legislators draft new laws to tighten restrictions on venues that allow minors into those performances. DeSantis has said he believes "sexualized" drag shows are dangerous for kids.

But the same in a PG-13 or R rated movie at a theater is hunky dory. Make it make sense outside of a religious hatred of LGBTQ people?

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So to sum up, the following at a live show is "sexualizing and grooming minors" and is worthy of further laws and criminal penalites:

But the same in a PG-13 or R rated movie at a theater is hunky dory.

From a previous post:

Quote

I understand the skepticism about legislative motives. Politicians of every stripe mix principle, politics, and constituency pressure, and it is fair to question whether a particular bill is primarily about child protection or about "signaling."

That said, the comparison to R-rated movies watched with parents does not seem to work.  An R-rated film is a recorded work that parents can preview, control, and contextualize in private. A live performance in a commercial or public venue is different in setting, immediacy, and the degree of parental control once the child is present. Existing law already treats live adult entertainment, obscenity, and age-restricted venues differently from private viewing of movies for related reasons.

A person can criticize the Florida statute as poorly drafted, politically timed, or broader than necessary, but I think he could do that without treating every age-based limit on sexualized live performances as illegitimate religious lawfare.  However, the reverse is also true: existing gaps or inconsistencies in how other forms of content are regulated do not automatically prove that any restriction in this area is pretextual.

I would be interested in your responses to the questions I posed above:

• Do you believe there should be any age-based legal limits on the sexual content of live performances that minors can attend, or is your position that parental consent should be the sole and final authority in every case?
• If Florida’s prior obscenity and harmful-to-minors statutes already fully solved the problem, why do similar age restrictions exist in many other states and localities for adult entertainment venues, strip clubs, and certain performances? Are those also unnecessary?
• CB compared this law to forcing children to read the Bible. What is the closest real-world parallel you see: is restricting minors from a sexualized stage performance more like compelled religious exercise, or more like existing limits on minors’ access to pornography, alcohol, or adult businesses?

I don't think you responded to the above.

I think the better comparison would be to live adult performances such as strip clubs.

I am willing to examine whether this particular statute is vague, overbroad, or redundant with prior law. I am less persuaded by the claim that any effort to set age-based limits on sexualized live performances must be dismissed as pure identity politics. 

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Make it make sense outside of a religious hatred of LGBTQ people?

I admit I struggle with the notion that supporting laws which prohibit exposing children to highly sexualized adult performances - regardless of the sexual orientation/identity of the performers - is an example of "religious hatred of LGBTQ people."

My understanding is that there are good numbers of "LGBTQ people" who support laws protecting children along these lines.  Do you agree or disagree with that assessment?

In any event, in response to your comment: The distinction is not that the same content is fine in a theater and criminal in a live venue. It is that the law already treats commercial live adult performances differently from filmed entertainment, and has done so for a long time.

Movie theaters operate under a ratings system, age restrictions for certain ratings, and parental controls that parents can exercise before the child ever enters the building. The content is fixed, pre-screened, and mediated.

In contrast, live commercial performances that meet the obscenity-as-to-minors standard present a different setting: the child is physically present in a space where the adult material is being performed in real time, and the venue is knowingly admitting the child.

Florida’s statute does not ban every sexualized image or performance. It targets the act of knowingly admitting a minor to a commercial live performance that predominantly appeals to a prurient interest, is patently offensive as to what is suitable for the child’s age, and lacks serious value for that age.

This is the same constitutional standard long applied to material harmful to minors in other contexts.  Do you agree or disagree with that?  If so, is it your position that "LGBTQ people" are, or ought to be, exempted from such laws?

The rule is content-based in the sense that it turns on the nature of the performance, not the identity or orientation of the performers. Traditional adult venues such as strip clubs have long been subject to age restrictions; the statute applies the same principle across the board. Disagreement with that line does not require attributing religious hatred or anti-LGBTQ motive. The question remains whether the state may set age limits on admitting children to qualifying live commercial adult performances. On that narrower question, the answer - for me (and I think most people) - is yes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I would be interested in your responses to the questions I posed above:

• Do you believe there should be any age-based legal limits on the sexual content of live performances that minors can attend, or is your position that parental consent should be the sole and final authority in every case?
• If Florida’s prior obscenity and harmful-to-minors statutes already fully solved the problem, why do similar age restrictions exist in many other states and localities for adult entertainment venues, strip clubs, and certain performances? Are those also unnecessary?
• CB compared this law to forcing children to read the Bible. What is the closest real-world parallel you see: is restricting minors from a sexualized stage performance more like compelled religious exercise, or more like existing limits on minors’ access to pornography, alcohol, or adult businesses?

I object to this, because the motivation for the legislature was clear. This is lawfare intended to chill a particular kind of speech practiced by a particular group of people using vague language. It doesn't matter if a particular live drag show isn't lewd. This law gives the capricious religiously motivated government all the tools to shutdown speech they religiously disagree with, because risking criminal penalties in a lengthy court fight is just not something most venues want to do. 

The fact of the matter is that you seem fine with the government's action on a live show that had too many hip thrusts. You seem to think making that a criminal offense is fine. You seem hunkie dory characterizing such things as "sexualizing and grooming children" But you don't seem to think hip thrusts in a movie is the same thing. Instead you want to compare "hip thrusts" to strip shows. Correct me if I'm wrong but it sure does seem like your bigotry is showing.

[smac97]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

So you see an equal comparison between a strip show where alcohol is served and patrons pay for lap dances in a bar setting the same as a drag queen reading children stories in a library or other family friendly evens or a pride parade?

I am seeing both as "adult live performances."  They may exist at somewhat different spaces along the same continuum, but neither is an appropriate thing for children.

The statute does not ban drag, Pride events, or story hours. It restricts knowingly admitting a child to a commercial live performance that meets a specific three-part standard: it predominantly appeals to a prurient interest, is patently offensive to prevailing standards of what is suitable for the child’s age, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for that age. Many drag events and virtually all ordinary story hours and parades do not meet that test. Those that do—highly sexualized adult performances—are the ones the law reaches. 

The law also reaches "heterosexual" adult live performances.  That is the same kind of line the law has long drawn around traditional adult live entertainment. The comparison is not “strip club = every drag event.” The comparison is “adult live performance that meets the harmful-to-minors standard should be age-restricted, regardless of the performers’ identity.”

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I do understand your point of view.  

I'm not sure that you do.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

The church is one that tries to define your life for you and sets out guidelines of how they believe your life should be lived down to what movies you should watch and how you should dress, what you should drink and eat and how you should spend your Sundays in a very controlled correlated script.

I find the Church's "guidelines" to be overwhelmingly reasonable and valid and effective.  Moreover, the "should" is about as far as the Church can or does go.  It has no real enforcement mechanism, as the only thing the Church can do is add or remove constraints to my membership and activity in the Church.

As it is, I am far along enough in life to see the value in constraining influences such as the Law of Chastity (including attendant counsel on topics such as modesty), the Word of Wisdom, fidelity within marriage, the Golden Rule, and so on.  All of these are about what what I "should" do.  I'm okay with that. 

At the other end of the spectrum we have, essentially, hedonism.  No constraints.  "If it feels good, do it."  I have never met you, but you do not strike me as a hedonist.  You have adopted for yourself certain constraints on your behavior, and good on ya for that.  We differ, then, not in the presence or absence of constraints, but rather in the degree and source of those constraints.  I think substantial constraints/parameters on behavior, such as those listed above, are good and healthy.  I believe this not because of some reflexive kowtow to the Church's say-so and orthodoxy, but because of a lifetime of seeing the observance and non-observance of those parameters play out in my life and in the lives of others.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Can you understand how other parents might not want that narrow of upbringing and encourage their children to find their own lives and find their own path back to God.  

The Florida statute is not about imposing a religious upbringing or telling other parents how to raise their children in general. It is about a narrow category of commercial live adult performances. Society already limits parental authority in other areas that involve serious risk or exploitation of children (age-of-consent laws, child labor, certain medical procedures, access to alcohol and tobacco, etc.). Age limits on admitting children to qualifying adult live performances fit within that existing framework. Disagreement with the line does not require attributing religious control or a desire to dictate every aspect of someone else’s parenting.

7 hours ago, california boy said:

The fact that you want authority over those choices dictating how they should raise their children to conform to your own personal point of view can be problematic 

I think the State has authority, not me.  I've never lived in Florida.  I had nothing to do with the law's enactment or enforcement.

Also, could you elaborate on what parameters you believe exist, or should exist, about the State "dictating how {parents} should raise their children"?  From a prior post:

Quote

We as a society already accept a number of limits that apply even when parents might consent:

1. Minimum age for alcohol
2. Restrictions on tattoos and certain body modifications
3. Child labor laws
4. Prohibitions on exposing minors to obscenity or pornography

Do you agree or disagree with these other instances of the state "tak{ing} over and decid{ing} what is appropriate or not appropriate" for children "rather than let the parents ... decide"?  I would assume you agree with them, but I am open to correction.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Tuesday at 10:20 PM by smac97

[smac97]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

I would be interested in your responses to the questions I posed above:

• Do you believe there should be any age-based legal limits on the sexual content of live performances that minors can attend, or is your position that parental consent should be the sole and final authority in every case?
• If Florida’s prior obscenity and harmful-to-minors statutes already fully solved the problem, why do similar age restrictions exist in many other states and localities for adult entertainment venues, strip clubs, and certain performances? Are those also unnecessary?
• CB compared this law to forcing children to read the Bible. What is the closest real-world parallel you see: is restricting minors from a sexualized stage performance more like compelled religious exercise, or more like existing limits on minors’ access to pornography, alcohol, or adult businesses?

I object to this, because the motivation for the legislature was clear. This is lawfare intended to chill a particular kind of speech practiced by a particular group of people using vague language.

The law applies to any adult live performance that meets that statutory criteria.  The State has long maintained laws that prohibit admitting children to sexually explicit adult live performances.  It seems like most strip clubs understand this, and there has not been any effort to justify exposing children to the events in those venues.  In contrast, in recent years we have seen many news items in which children have been particularly and specifically targeted for exposure to sexually explicit live adult performances by some folks in the LGBTQ community.  If the statute was responsive to those events, I do not think that amounts to prejudice or ill motive. 

Frankly, I have a hard time with the notion in some quarters that protecting children from sexually explicit live adult performances is a bad or controversial thing.  I think that there are many LGBTQ folks who strongly support the State's efforts to protect children from exposure to such things.  Do you agree or disagree with that?

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It doesn't matter if a particular live drag show isn't lewd.

Actually, it matters a lot.  Children are not categorically prohibited from all drag shows, just those those that meet the statutory criteria.

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This law gives the capricious religiously motivated government all the tools to shutdown speech they religiously disagree with, because risking criminal penalties in a lengthy court fight is just not something most venues want to do.

I think your assessment does not work in a legal context.  The 8th Circuit did not find any issue along those lines.

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The fact of the matter is that you seem fine with the government's action on a live show that had too many hip thrusts. You seem to think making that a criminal offense is fine. You seem hunkie dory characterizing such things as "sexualizing and grooming children" But you don't seem to think hip thrusts in a movie is the same thing. Instead you want to compare "hip thrusts" to strip shows. Correct me if I'm wrong but it sure does seem like your bigotry is showing.

The statute does not criminalize “hip thrusts” or drag in general. It uses the long-standing three-part obscenity-as-to-minors standard: the performance, taken as a whole, must predominantly appeal to a prurient interest, be patently offensive to prevailing standards regarding what is suitable for the child’s age, and lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for that age. That is the same constitutional test courts have applied for decades to material harmful to minors. It is not a newly invented vague standard aimed at one group.

Many live drag performances will not meet that test. Those that do—highly sexualized adult performances—are treated the same way the law has long treated other commercial adult live entertainment. The rule turns on the nature of the performance, not the identity or orientation of the performers.

The distinction with movies remains the same one previously stated: commercial live performances that knowingly admit children are a different setting from pre-screened, rated, mediated content in a theater. Existing age restrictions on adult venues already reflect that difference. Applying a parallel limit here is not “lawfare” against a particular group; it is an age-based restriction on a specific category of live adult entertainment.

Disagreement with the policy does not require attributing religious bigotry or a desire to chill protected speech. The narrower question is whether the state may set age limits on admitting children to commercial live performances that meet the established harmful-to-minors standard. On that question, the answer - for me - remains yes.

You feel differently, and I respect that.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Tuesday at 10:15 PM by smac97

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am seeing both as "adult live performances."  They may exist at somewhat different spaces along the same continuum, but neither is an appropriate thing for children.

The statute does not ban drag, Pride events, or story hours. It restricts knowingly admitting a child to a commercial live performance that meets a specific three-part standard: it predominantly appeals to a prurient interest, is patently offensive to prevailing standards of what is suitable for the child’s age, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for that age. Many drag events and virtually all ordinary story hours and parades do not meet that test. Those that do—highly sexualized adult performances—are the ones the law reaches. 

The law also reaches "heterosexual" adult live performances.  That is the same kind of line the law has long drawn around traditional adult live entertainment. The comparison is not “strip club = every drag event.” The comparison is “adult live performance that meets the harmful-to-minors standard should be age-restricted, regardless of the performers’ identity.”

I'm not sure that you do.

I find the Church's "guidelines" to be overwhelmingly reasonable and valid and effective.  Moreover, the "should" is about as far as the Church can or does go.  It has no real enforcement mechanism, as the only thing the Church can do is add or remove constraints to my membership and activity in the Church.

As it is, I am far along enough in life to see the value in constraining influences such as the Law of Chastity (including attendant counsel on topics such as modesty), the Word of Wisdom, fidelity within marriage, the Golden Rule, and so on.  All of these are about what what I "should" do.  I'm okay with that. 

At the other end of the spectrum we have, essentially, hedonism.  No constraints.  "If it feels good, do it."  I have never met you, but you do not strike me as a hedonist.  You have adopted for yourself certain constraints on your behavior, and good on ya for that.  We differ, then, not in the presence or absence of constraints, but rather in the degree and source of those constraints.  I think substantial constraints/parameters on behavior, such as those listed above, are good and healthy.  I believe this not because of some reflexive kowtow to the Church's say-so and orthodoxy, but because of a lifetime of seeing the observance and non-observance of those parameters play out in my life and in the lives of others that I see.

The Florida statute is not about imposing a religious upbringing or telling other parents how to raise their children in general. It is about a narrow category of commercial live adult performances. Society already limits parental authority in other areas that involve serious risk or exploitation of children (age-of-consent laws, child labor, certain medical procedures, access to alcohol and tobacco, etc.). Age limits on admitting children to qualifying adult live performances fit within that existing framework. Disagreement with the line does not require attributing religious control or a desire to dictate every aspect of someone else’s parenting.

I think the State has authority, not me.  I've never lived in Florida.  I had nothing to do with the law's enactment or enforcement.

So I guess from your answer, you find it difficult to understand how other parents might not want that narrow of upbringing and encourage their children to find their own lives and find their own path back to God.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Also, could you elaborate on what parameters you believe exist, or should exist, about the State "dictating how {parents} should raise their children"?  From a prior post:

Thanks,

-Smac

I already addressed your list in a previous post.  Evidently you just ignored my answer.

Edited Tuesday at 05:36 PM by california boy

[BlipBlap]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The law applies to any adult live performance that meets that statutory criteria.  The State has long maintained laws that prohibit admitting children to sexually explicit adult live performances.  It seems like most strip clubs understand this, and there has not been any effort to justify exposing children to the events in those venues.  In contrast, in recent years we have seen many news items in which children have been particularly and specifically targeted for exposure to sexually explicit live adult performances by some folks in the LGBTQ community.  If the statute was responsive to those events, I do not think that amounts to prejudice or ill motive.  Frankly, I have a hard time with the notion that protecting children from sexually explicit live adult performances is a bad thing.  I think that there are many LGBTQ folks who strongly support the State's efforts to protect children from exposure to such things.  Do you agree or disagree with that?

Actually, it matters a lot.  Children are not categorically prohibited from all drag shows, just those those that meet the statutory criteria.

I think your assessment does not work in a legal context.  The 8th Circuit did not find any issue along those lines.

The statute does not criminalize “hip thrusts” or drag in general. It uses the long-standing three-part obscenity-as-to-minors standard: the performance, taken as a whole, must predominantly appeal to a prurient interest, be patently offensive to prevailing standards regarding what is suitable for the child’s age, and lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for that age. That is the same constitutional test courts have applied for decades to material harmful to minors. It is not a newly invented vague standard aimed at one group.

Many live drag performances will not meet that test. Those that do—highly sexualized adult performances—are treated the same way the law has long treated other commercial adult live entertainment. The rule turns on the nature of the performance, not the identity or orientation of the performers.

The distinction with movies remains the same one previously stated: commercial live performances that knowingly admit children are a different setting from pre-screened, rated, mediated content in a theater. Existing age restrictions on adult venues already reflect that difference. Applying a parallel limit here is not “lawfare” against a particular group; it is an age-based restriction on a specific category of live adult entertainment.

Disagreement with the policy does not require attributing religious bigotry or a desire to chill protected speech. The narrower question is whether the state may set age limits on admitting children to commercial live performances that meet the established harmful-to-minors standard. On that question, the answer - for me - remains yes.

You feel differently, and I respect that.  

Thanks,

-Smac

To go further, all this law does is hold drag shows equally accountable.  Protests against it is just another example of a fringe group claiming to want some type of equality, but what they really want is to be treated as above the rest of society.

[BlipBlap]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

So I guess from your answer, you find it difficult to understand how other parents might not want that narrow of upbringing and encourage their children to find their own lives and find their own path back to God.  

You're conflating lack of understanding with disagreement.  Parents are free to tell their kids whatever they want and the kid can then do as they please when they become adults.  However, the reality of the situation is more that these parents are essentially grooming their kids as socio-political proxies through abuse conditioning.  It is no different than taking your minors to more "traditional" strip clubs and the law is treating them both as equal.  What's even more telling is how none of the advocates for drag shows protest restrictions on minors entering the aforementioned establishments.

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

So I guess from your answer, you find it difficult to understand how other parents might not want that narrow of upbringing and encourage their children to find their own lives and find their own path back to God.  

The Florida statute is not about that.

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

I already addressed your list in a previous post.  Evidently you just ignored my answer.

My apologies.  I must have missed it.

Thank you,

-Smac

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, BlipBlap said:

To go further, all this law does is hold drag shows equally accountable.  Protests against it is just another example of a fringe group claiming to want some type of equality, but what they really want is to be treated as above the rest of society.

I think this is a noteworthy point.  If no other venues are allowed to expose children to highly sexualized live adult performances, it seems like venues hosting sexually explicit drag shows, etc. should be held to the same standard.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, BlipBlap said:

Quote

So I guess from your answer, you find it difficult to understand how other parents might not want that narrow of upbringing and encourage their children to find their own lives and find their own path back to God.  

You're conflating lack of understanding with disagreement. 

Thank you for your comment here.  Another common response I see is the conflation of disagreement with bigotry.  Both conflations are unfortunate and impede meaningful discussion.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

highly sexualized live adult performances

I think an issue could be that for some people these days, any drag performance is sexualized (not claiming it is for you)….otherwise why isn’t just the accusation of lewdness enough to control sexualized performances?  Are there ways to avoid mild drag shows not to be targeted without their having to spend money to defend themselves (either the performer or the venue)?

Edited yesterday at 02:19 AM by Calm

[longview]

25 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think an issue could be that for some people these days, any drag performance is sexualized (not claiming it is for you)….otherwise why isn’t just the accusation of lewdness enough to control sexualized performances?  Are there ways to avoid mild drag shows not to be targeted without their having to spend money to defend themselves (either the performer or the venue)?

Sounds like you trying to find the right temperature to start boiling the frog in the pot?

[Calm]

7 hours ago, longview said:

Sounds like you trying to find the right temperature to start boiling the frog in the pot?

I am guilty of killing frogs by slowly raising water temp before, it is true.  Don’t have to experiment any more to figure it out how to best do it.  Found a real easy solution, plus it’s also the only way that actually works.  At water temps above 90°F, put a lid on that pot.  Otherwise when it hits 85°F, fast or slow, they will be out of there, if not before.  Btw, once they die at 90°F due to extended high temp exposure, it will just be gross and idiotic if you wait till the water boils to test for death.  Unless what you are really aiming for is a plate of frog legs (bad choice though apparently as boiling frog legs turn them rubbery, pan frying is better).

Our aquarium thermostat broke in the night apparently and I came down to 6 frogs floating on their backs having croaked.   Tongues were even hanging out.

Otoh, the fish were in ecstasy moving faster than I have ever seen before or since.

I learned that day frogs won’t wait passively in the water until it is boiling no matter how slowly the temp rises.  They will be long dead before the water starts to bubble.

Alas, even without the cover where they would have likely jumped out no matter how slowly the temp rose, their fate still would be death. Had one jump out before we got the cover.  Was not a happy camper.  

Frog in boiling water story is so wrong on so many levels…..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog.  Above 100°F means instant thermal shock and death (water boils at 212° F).

Actual biology gets in the way of some good stories, doesn’t it?  Need to come up,with a better analogy.

———

Back to what you actually mean even if using a faulty metaphor to accuse me….

Gave up trying to persuade people and change their minds long, long ago.  Never saw it happen, so why put energy into it?  I do invest in sharing accurate information for the fun of it, but people choose for themselves how they want to use it.

Trying to understand others’ thoughts, reasonings, motivations, and intentions is all I try to accomplish these days.

 

Edited 19 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

7 hours ago, longview said:

Sounds like you trying to find the right temperature to start boiling the frog in the pot?

I am trying to understand why you went here in response to my question of why lewdness in general wouldn’t be sufficient given Smac’s concerns about sexualized live adult shows (a concern I share with him, though I think recorded ones should be ideally treated the same where possible as while live might be more shocking I assume, recorded can be made more appealing since it’s easier to fake stuff, harder to see the reality).  The analogy implies I am trying to get people to accept something they normally wouldn’t and shouldn’t accept.

But I am at a loss on what you think I was trying to do.  The analogy is slow exposure to something lethal means easier to accept it, which can be true for humans I believe even if not with frogs and hot water.  It’s part of the reason why I find the one f-word allowed as long as it’s an expletive in a pg 13 movie ridiculous.  If the claim is one time use is going to be less likely to be repeated…the time I heard the most repetitions of an expletive from a movie was when Data used profanity just that once in Generations (think that’s the one).  The restriction was laughable in its result, has the opposite effect as intended.  The expletive gets placed as a punchline typically and therefore quoted. If you can only use it once, make it count.  I am quite concerned with a lot of modeling using minors in provocative dress and poses.  Though my guess it’s more the adults surrounding the kids that get sexualized so to speak than the kids, while the kids seeing the ads might choose the clothes, it’s the adults seeing that choice as provocative, the kids as sexual (what is sexual in clothing depends on cultural standards and if one hasn’t learned those standards yet, why would you respond to it as sexual? Anyone here find rolling eyes or tiny, bound female feet as a signal of sexuality?)

The only thing that occurs to me for why you posted this is when I asked if there was ways to avoid having nonsexualized drag shows targeted perhaps you inferred I meant something…but I only asked that question  because Smac said this:

Quote

The statute does not ban drag, Pride events, or story hours. It restricts knowingly admitting a child to a commercial live performance that meets a specific three-part standard: it predominantly appeals to a prurient interest, is patently offensive to prevailing standards of what is suitable for the child’s age, and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for that age. Many drag events and virtually all ordinary story hours and parades do not meet that test. 

To me this means that Smac does not see all drag as inherently lewd and therefore, it’s not “is it drag?” that is the standard that needs to be measured, but “is it lewd?”.

So I am not understanding why one needs to specify drag at all if the issue is lewdness.  If something is lewd in drag, surely it’s lewd in straight attire as well?  I am asking for clarification on why drag needs to be included in a lewdness law from Smac and anyone else legally inclined.  

I certainly, most definitely agree that there should be rules about lewdness and I wish our culture had stricter social standards for adults.  Even if I don’t believe somethings are inherently lewd, if something has been defined as lewd by a culture I don’t think people should be able to accidentally run across it when they don’t choose to do so and that includes children.  I also believe our culture is really messed up by making somethings that should be just a common every day activity lewd…like breastfeeding.

Edited 19 hours ago by Calm

[california boy]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Florida statute is not about that

Thank you,

-Smac

It absolutely is about that.  The Florida law takes the right of parents to decide what is appropriate for their children to see and puts that decision. under state control by criminalizing the decision a parent may make.  

I ask the question to see how you really feel about parents deciding what is best for the children.   Do you find it difficult to understand how other parents might not want that narrow of upbringing and encourage their children to find their own lives and find their own path back to God.  

Edited 13 hours ago by california boy

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

Quote

So I guess from your answer, you find it difficult to understand how other parents might not want that narrow of upbringing and encourage their children to find their own lives and find their own path back to God.  

The Florida statute is not about that.

It absolutely is about that.  

I appreciate that you have strong feelings about this, but the statute has no religious component.  It's not in the language of the statute.  The folks who filed a lawsuit challenging it appeared to not even attempt to make such an argument about the statute.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

The Florida law takes the right of parents to decide what is appropriate for their children to see and puts that decision. under state control by criminalizing the decision a parent may make.

I think we have addressed this a few times now.  We have both laid out what we think of the Florida statute.

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

I ask the question to see how you really feel about parents deciding what is best for the children.   Do you find it difficult to understand how other parents might not want that narrow of upbringing and encourage their children to find their own lives and find their own path back to God.  

The statute is about protecting children from exposure to sexually explicit live adult performances.  I don't see that this has much to do with abstractions about parents' efforts to have their children "find their own path back to God." 

I generally do not find it difficult to understand that parents hold different views about how to raise their children, including matters of belief, culture, and exposure to the wider world. Reasonable people disagree about those questions, and a pluralistic society has to make room for that disagreement.

The Florida statute, however, is not an attempt to impose a single religious or cultural upbringing. It does not dictate what books parents may read to their children, what movies they may watch at home, what conversations they may have, or what path a child may ultimately take in matters of faith or identity. It addresses a narrower issue: whether commercial venues may admit minors to live performances that meet a specific legal definition of sexual conduct.

Parental rights are important, but they have never been treated as absolute in every context. Long-standing limits already exist on what parents may authorize for minors: entry into adult entertainment venues, provision of alcohol, certain medical procedures, and so on. The statute operates in that same tradition in that it draws a boundary around a particular category of commercial activity rather than placing broad parental judgment under state control.

One can debate whether the line is drawn in the right place. That is a fair policy discussion. That said, I think framing the law as an effort to force a “narrow upbringing” or to prevent children from finding their own path mischaracterizes what the statute actually does.

I appreciate your input and observations.

Thanks,

-Smac

[BlipBlap]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

It absolutely is about that.  The Florida law takes the right of parents to decide what is appropriate for their children to see and puts that decision. under state control by criminalizing the decision a parent may make.  

I ask the question to see how you really feel about parents deciding what is best for the children.   Do you find it difficult to understand how other parents might not want that narrow of upbringing and encourage their children to find their own lives and find their own path back to God.  

Again, conflation of a lack of understanding with a rejection of the premise.

I want to feed my kids crack because I believe that current law and "societal norms" are too narrow.  Agree with me or you do not understand.

There's nothing preventing the kids from exploring whatever they want when they become adults, so ultimately this argument is a red herring.