To be LIVID at the National Theatre?

[helpmeunderstand04]

I was at the National Theatre festival this Saturday which was advertised as outdoor live music, dance, performance, workshops and family fun. I thought great, perfect way to spend a Saturday.

We were there from 6:30 and the drag act on stage was promoting inclusivity and had, what started as a great message. They said...

'We need to teach our children to open their hearts, teach our children to open their minds and to teach our children to open their legs'. The last line was said with the same tone as if it was a risque joke.

Both me and DP are just disgusted by what we saw. We couldn't believe it. This act had a short dress on and their bulge was showing through out. It was just plain weird. Fine in a club, not at a festival literally targeted as being good for families.

From then the evening just got weirder. There was a drag queen and a drag king contest. Great! I literally had never seen drag king acts and was really excited and thought it was great representation and diversity.

However, with every single drag king act they took their clothes off. No drag queens take their clothes off, but the drag kings did and were showing their scars from their mastectomy/gender affirming surgery. I do get the message that they are proud and don't need to hide and really I do agree with that. But it just felt weird that women who now identify as men are still having to take their clothes off, where as the drag queens didn't remove one item of clothing.

AIBU in feeling angry at the marketing team at the national theatre?

A few of us have already explained drag queen subculture and that the same word can mean different things

Yes, and someone who was there has now explained that in the context they were used, the words were referring to children

But no comment about that of course ...

I disagree with you very strongly there.

If the drag was referring to the adult audience, then surely the drag queen would have said ‘you, children, need to open your legs’, not that ‘we need to teach our children to open their legs’?

Don’t defend the indefensible, it makes you complicit in normalising child sex abuse.

No, it shouldn't be moved. The OP chose this Board for the thread it is not up to you to decide where threads should be, who the hell do you think you are?

If you don't like this thread then remove yourself from it and hide it.

“Frothing”. There’s that word again. Objection to jokes about child sex abuse is “frothing”. Discussion around Sex and Gender debate belong in the Sex and Gender forum.

Discussion around the normalisation and trivialisation of child sex abuse belongs everywhere. Only apologists for CSA would object to it being discussed more widely.

If you don’t think it IS normalisation and trivialisation of CSA, then why do you think it needs to be moved? If you think it’s just a debate about what words mean then why does that need to be in a specific forum? Unless you don’t like the opinions of people who object?

She can’t have really been there because she’s a frothing, right-wing apologist who was too busy reading the Daily Mail and if she was there, even though she heard the performer talking about children and schools she missed the context which wasn’t about children at all and if it was about children they didn’t actually mean all children, just the older ones. And the older ones are all at it with adults and that’s all legal and great fun.

And the person who saw the performance has no sense of humour, and jokes about children being encouraged to open their legs have nothing to do with safe guarding cos just joking.

is that right?

“Frothing”. There’s that word again. Objection to jokes about child sex abuse is “frothing”. Discussion around Sex and Gender debate belong in the Sex and Gender forum. Discussion around the normalisation and trivialisation of child sex abuse belongs everywhere. Only apologists for CSA would object to it being discussed more widely

This. CSA apologists and any attempts at insidiously normalising any aspect of CSA needs unwavering bright lights shining right on them, their comments and their intentions. No one is going to tucking this away out of sight.

We see you.

I think you've nailed it @nolongersurprised .

It is not referring to children as already explained.

Odd how posters who object and are stating their objections are apparently frothing but the ones who do not object are not frothing.

Hmm, those objecting have stated their objections clearly and calmly and it would appear that merely doing that ignites an outraged response in those who don't object. The ones who don't object are the ones who are frothing, resorting to snide digs, labelling those who disagree with them with all manner of idiotic labels, pushing for the thread to be moved, having their posts deleted.

The fact that your defence is to say "Children can legally have sex with adults" tells me everything I need to know about you.

This. Joking about child sexual abuse is never funny, in any context.

You just do not understand the terminology used. You drop in on a culture you do not understand and then use one line for faux horror

But surely a free event on an open stage invites people to ‘drop in’ and get a taster of the culture? And it isn’t an audience’s fault if they are not experts in the insider language the performers choose to use?

Plus I see that NotaTori’s account of the same show goes into far greater detail about the context and clarifies that it was about actual children and schools.

Of course, the ‘children’ to be encouraged to open their legs could still be deliberately ambiguous wrt the usual adult drag audience, but given the extended detailed context, and given the niche use of sub-cultural language, how is the general South Bank weekend audience supposed to know?

Late night at Duckie is one thing. You can’t blame audiences and onlookers invited to watch this stuff in a mixed free outdoor setting.

Don't worry, equating gay people with child abusers is a conversation that's been going on openly for decades (if not longer).

You are not in any position to prove that claim are you?
Unless you were the original speaker on stage
or can produce a verified transcript,
you can only clutch at pearls and hope the best option is true.

It is not referring to children as already explained.

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that @antelopevalley.

Don't worry, equating gay people with child abusers is a conversation that's been going on openly for decades (if not longer)

Except that's not what I said. Do not associate such atrocious views with my comment.

No one - gay or not - wants child abusers to hide under the banner of LGBTQ+, which is what some are apparently trying to do.

That is not 'equating gay people with child abusers.' It is a completely different subject.

It's also not a subject to get reductive about or make it about something else entirely, while the individuals who ARE attempting to normalise CSA gain a little more ground.

I don't think the legal definition of children is necessarily all that relevant to everyday speech.

But even if we are referring to all kids in school, even older ones, the idea that teaching them to "open their legs" is a great idea is rather off-putting.

But it is very much in line with the whole sex positivity thing that seems very popular in the "queer" community that says it's really important that kids be exposed to sexualizing material in school. It's part of the same school of thought that came up with that sex show that involved kids making play-doh genitals.

It's not surprising that you'd find that attitude at an event of that kind when it comes down to it.

There needs to be a lot more clarity in schools and institutions like the National Theater around what is for adults and what isn't. The fact that the lines have been so blurred means it's often not obvious.

Nails, heads and all that nolongersurprised

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect is that they keep repeating the very things which have been discredited, presumably in the hope that this will lend credibility - either that or attempting to shut down or move the discussion

Not for nothing is it said that abuse thrives on secrecy ...

But even if we are referring to all kids in school, even older ones, the idea that teaching them to "open their legs" is a great idea is rather off-putting.

Sounds a bit rapey to me. Which sex is the one expected to open their legs? Ah, yes, that's right women and girls, the female sex, the one that is just there for men to use and abuse as they desire - lie back and think of England whilst I do what I want/get what I want after all women and girls bodies are just there for the pleasure of men and to be discarded once that pleasure has been achieved. Pure unadulterated misogyny but no surprises there, Drag is steeped in misogyny.

They dont.

They are under the same umbrella.

Lesbians aren't trans, either, but its all under the same.

A man wearing a drag outfit is not bloody trans. and the vast majority of MN rail against stonewall don't accept pronouns or the fact that you can change gender or the fact trans as a concept isn't an ideology, so you can't then claim drag queens are trans based on the words from an organisation they don't accept.

Bollocks.

Men can open their legs too, you know.

You've sprained a muscle with that leap.

Disgusting comment, as are the ones which make similar ideas.

OP has done exactly what she set out to do with her faux naivety.