WaPo

Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.
Post Reply
ScotL
Chatbot
Posts: 1459
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:43 am

WaPo

Post by ScotL »

Interesting article. Here’s one part:

“I think that people who say they have a problem with drag really only have a problem with drag when the message is that it’s okay to feel good about wearing a dress. When the message is that men can put on makeup and celebrate what it means to look or feel feminine, not just mock it. When the message is that doing so doesn’t make you some kind of degenerate.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl ... -clothing/
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: WaPo

Post by moonshadow »

The article and many of the comments point up to ordinary cheerleader outfits. Though technically the law doesn't target these people as they are not impersonating the opposite sex, it does raise an interesting question: Why is immodesty acceptable with cis-gender and gender-conforming people, but not the other way around?

It raises many interesting legal double standards:

Men in Tennessee can go around bare chested but not women.
Women in Tennessee do not have to suppress large breast (provided they are covered) but men having any kind of bulge between the legs is illegal.

Compared to the puritans of the 1600s (the pinnacle of modesty and conservative dress) virtually everyone today is VERY scantily clad.

What if, I wanted to hold a strict biblical viewpoint for my family and demand that if I'm out in public, myself or my children should not have to witness women in bikinis or men wearing shorts? The bible has CLEAR rules on modesty, and Tennessee after all is a de-facto Christian theocracy, so I wonder, what gives here? Why is what's good for the goose NOT good for the gander?

Now of course, I don't have any problem with what people wear or don't wear. People can run around naked for all I care, but it's the principle of these laws that bug me. And to me, it seems to have little to nothing to do with "protecting children" or even modesty for that matter as we subject children sexual material all of the time. You can't drive ten miles in West Virginia without seeing a "Southern Exposure" billboard on the side of the highway. Fun side note: Is the woman in the billboard in the link a cis-woman or a drag queen? Funny, since we can only see from the neck up, we may never know unless you actually visit the strip club.

No, the purpose of these laws have one purpose and one purpose only, do latch on to the neo-conservative vilification of anything remotely queer and to enforce "traditional values" where men and women alike stay in their assigned gender lane. It has nothing to do with protecting children from sexually immodest exposure, if it did then I can think of a lot more lower hanging fruit they could ban, yet the don't.
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: WaPo

Post by moonshadow »

I've actually thought about waging a satirical campaign against people (all people) that show skin and press politicians to pass laws making any kind of immodest clothing illegal. I'd like to see our society go back to the good old days of the puritan dress of the 1600s. Men and women alike.

It's time to ban that ankle!

Lest we ignore the 800 gorilla in the room....

GOVERNOR LEE BROKE DEUTERONOMY. FULL STOP.

Tennessee is a theocracy.

Governor Lee is a biblical abomination before the lord our God. God doesn't care about his "harmless teenage fun".

Be broke God's law, and he should be punished.
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
Coder
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2649
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:40 am
Location: Southeast Michigan

Re: WaPo

Post by Coder »

moonshadow wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 2:05 pm I've actually thought about waging a satirical campaign against people (all people) that show skin and press politicians to pass laws making any kind of immodest clothing illegal. I'd like to see our society go back to the good old days of the puritan dress of the 1600s. Men and women alike.

It's time to ban that ankle!
I'll build the website for you - the danger with this... people might take it seriously and actually enact these laws.
User avatar
Jim
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1551
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:39 am
Location: Northern Illinois, USA

Re: WaPo

Post by Jim »

moonshadow wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 1:59 pm The bible has CLEAR rules on modesty,
Yes, and they have nothing to do with how much of a person's body is covered.

The ONLY specific mention of modest in the conservatives' favorite King James Version Bible:
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
No fancy hair, jewelry, or expensive clothing. Dress in good works instead.
Coder
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 2649
Joined: Mon Dec 16, 2019 4:40 am
Location: Southeast Michigan

Re: WaPo

Post by Coder »

“I think that people who say they have a problem with drag really only have a problem with drag when the message is that it’s okay to feel good about wearing a dress. When the message is that men can put on makeup and celebrate what it means to look or feel feminine, not just mock it. When the message is that doing so doesn’t make you some kind of degenerate.”
I don't think anti-drag protestors are concerned with femininity or masculinity directly - that's too deep for what they are reacting to. They are afraid "you'll turn the kids gay" but aren't saying those words out loud. Plain and simple. Everything else is just finding ways to eliminate the events. Oh, they don't like it at a visceral level (men being feminine, if we want to classify what they are doing as feminine), but first and foremost I think it's about "turning the kids".

I think the article had a pretty reasonable suggestion - the protestors should attend these events and judge them on their merits. Heck I think they could even film them - and if something illicit/illegal occurs, they can bring that evidence to the DA or whoever and prosecute the performer.

My problem with drag is pretty simple - I think it makes a mockery of women - by men (erm, misogyny anyone???) - and just reinforces stereotypes of "how women should behave". I don't see it as uplifting or empowering. I worry about there being bleed-through of adult-themes in venues like book readings - but again - if it is an actual issue, protestors should gather evidence and use fact-based approaches rather than silly protests which don't really accomplish anything.
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: WaPo

Post by moonshadow »

Jim wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 2:48 pm No fancy hair, jewelry, or expensive clothing. Dress in good works instead.
So, in other words... not like this...
mtg.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: WaPo

Post by moonshadow »

Coder wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 3:19 pm They are afraid "you'll turn the kids gay" but aren't saying those words out loud. Plain and simple. Everything else is just finding ways to eliminate the events. Oh, they don't like it at a visceral level (men being feminine, if we want to classify what they are doing as feminine), but first and foremost I think it's about "turning the kids".
I can see that, but I suspect quite a bit of it just comes down to good old fashioned prejudice. "Children" have long been used to enact restrictive laws and customs since the beginning of civilization. To some extent, I can agree. Children should not be exposed to everything an adult may be exposed to. Flat out acts of sex should not be witnessed by very young children. I think most would agree what a six year old laying in his/her own bed in the same room as his/her parents having wild passionate sex would be very inappropriate. If the "spirit" of the law is just to restrict obscene performances from children, then I can understand it... to an extent. However, on the other hand, we do seem to abide A LOT of obscene performances in our pop culture and most folks turn a blind eye.

Despite my not having any issue with public nudity, I also understand the taboo many have against it. Maybe someday it won't matter and people can just be themselves... as God intended.

I personally don't find drag queens sexually attractive, and the art they perform is something that while I do support, doesn't really excite me either. In other words, I don't know what the major lure is of the practice, but then I also believe "to each their own". I also don't sag my pants or pierce my ears but that doesn't mean I think the practice should be banned. So this is the root of my overall support of drag queens. Once you strip all the paint off this issue, at the core, drag is mostly harmless. In fact, even sexually explicit drag is technically physically harmless towards everybody, children and adults alike, but I can see the need to draw a line somewhere.

The question is, where does this line get drawn? And my position is, if this line is being drawn truly for reasons of modesty around children, then I'd ask why these same policies don't apply to women who wear g-strings at public beaches, men who walk around without shirts on, and.... of course, stripper billboards?

Otherwise, we have a law that specifically targets a taboo subculture for the sole crime of just being "different" than the "norm". That is where we run afoul of free speech and freedom of expression. That I can not support.

I can't help my thoughts on this... after all, I was raised on good old fashioned Tennessee Country Music. :lol:
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
User avatar
Jim
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1551
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:39 am
Location: Northern Illinois, USA

Re: WaPo

Post by Jim »

moonshadow wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 4:38 pm
Jim wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 2:48 pm No fancy hair, jewelry, or expensive clothing. Dress in good works instead.
So, in other words... not like this...
Exactly!
User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 6994
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Warm Beach, Washington
Contact:

Re: WaPo

Post by moonshadow »

Jim wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 5:10 pm
moonshadow wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 4:38 pm
Jim wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 2:48 pm No fancy hair, jewelry, or expensive clothing. Dress in good works instead.
So, in other words... not like this...
Exactly!
*fist bumps Jim* 8)
-Andrea
The old hillbilly from the coal fields of the Appalachian mountains currently living like there's no tomorrow on the west coast.
rode_kater
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 836
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:46 pm

Re: WaPo

Post by rode_kater »

moonshadow wrote: Sat Mar 18, 2023 5:01 pm I can see that, but I suspect quite a bit of it just comes down to good old fashioned prejudice. "Children" have long been used to enact restrictive laws and customs since the beginning of civilization. To some extent, I can agree. Children should not be exposed to everything an adult may be exposed to. Flat out acts of sex should not be witnessed by very young children. I think most would agree what a six year old laying in his/her own bed in the same room as his/her parents having wild passionate sex would be very inappropriate. If the "spirit" of the law is just to restrict obscene performances from children, then I can understand it... to an extent. However, on the other hand, we do seem to abide A LOT of obscene performances in our pop culture and most folks turn a blind eye.
You say that, but having children in the room while having sex was normal only centuries ago. If your dwelling has a single room, there's not much choice. And all the animals were there too. It's only around the 1500-1600 (in Europe) that dwellings improved to the point that children had separate rooms and the animals had a separate place. This the invention of privacy. (Source).

We have an open-air museum here with dwellings from that period and the whole family slept in a single box, head-to-foot.

Any child growing up on a farm is going to have a very good idea how the process works. Animals have no sense of shame and don't bother with privacy.

Not that I'm suggesting we go free for all. But I reject the idea that children are fragile things that would be traumatised by sex. The whole point of all these rules is to instil in children a sense of shame, to teach them the difference between public and private. But this is a choice we make as a society, not a natural law.
ScotL
Chatbot
Posts: 1459
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:43 am

Re: WaPo

Post by ScotL »

Personally, I think the parents who are too concerned that a school will teach their children about sex are the last people I want teaching any child about sex. My suspicion is they don’t teach their kids anything about sex and therefore their children learn from porn or their fellow children.
Post Reply