(06-08-2023 10:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (06-08-2023 10:27 PM)maximus Wrote: (06-08-2023 10:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (06-08-2023 10:17 PM)WalkThePlank Wrote: (06-08-2023 10:04 PM)tennis2k4 Wrote: Drag performer not stripper.
95% naked in front of kids. That makes it appropriate. Creep
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How do you exist at a country club pool? Or a public beach? Just about everyone at those places is "95% naked in front of kids" as you complain about above.
Do you meltdown at those places and post incessant tweets of the public beaches?
Waaaaaiiiiiit a fuckin second
For this entire thread its been painfully obvious how ****** you are in the head but what you just posted proves it to the entire board.
Get lost dope.
Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk
The comment is that the problem is the performer is '95% naked in front of kids', is it not?
If that isnt the real issue, then it shouldnt be posted in that manner, should it?
Well, I sort of walked in to the middle of this...
but if you read the above, that might appear to be the case....
However, if you read it in the original thread... say beginning with post 872
WTP was pretty clear that his issue was....
Quote:Kids handing cash to a stripper with adults looking on? Do you not find this reprehensible? This is child abuse.
So I agree that if that wasn't the real issue... it shouldn't be presented that way.... but that's not how it was presented. SOMEBODY presented it that way, but it wasn't WTP.
Summary...
WTP said they were handing money to a stripper.
Tennis said 'drag performer, not stripper'
WTP said IN RESPONSE TO THAT that they were 95% naked... he is pretty clearly arguing the 'stripper/drag performer' distinction.
By removing the initial comments, the meaning has been changed.... the 'problem' has been moved. I don't think it was intentional, but it happened.
I'd also respond to your
you wouldn't be upset at a beach or pool comment... I think if the kids were handing dollars to adults 'performing' for them on the beach in a lewd way, I think we'd ALL be upset, wouldn't we?? We're not talking Shakespeare here, right?? I didn't go back to look at it... but it doesn't sound like it. I would have no problem with a Shakespeare performance... on the beach... with people wearing swimsuits... portraying the opposite gender at times... and getting paid at the end. A woman with breasts without a top though isn't portraying a man just because she doesn't wear a top and puts on a beard. I don't think this is at all what we're discussing.
I don't know about you, but I've never seen a 'drag show' where people were 95% naked. I've seen women wearing what are essentially men's bottoms and no top and that is illegal most places in the US... I've seen men wearing 'tops' or 'one piece' suits and that is okay, mostly because they are covering more, not less... and mens breasts aren't considered 'sexual' like women's are. We can debate that, but that is obviously still the national consensus. 95% doesn't leave much to the imagination, but I think that's a metaphor, not an actual estimate.
so IMO its probably not a drag show if you're mostly naked... in my mind its not stripping if they're not taking clothes off... you know, stripping... but still, why are (especially) liberals encouraging such a symbol of toxic masculinity as paying 'women' (whether biological, pretend or not) to 'perform' for their pleasure?
It might happen as a joke gone bad, but I'd expect most people to have an issue with that... maybe not a big one... but certainly not something I'd want to see on anyone's resume.