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?

I give up. Froth away.

You're being dramatic conflating this with abuse

No, I’m taking at face value to mean that when an adult makes jokes about encouraging children to open their legs, they mean exactly that.

Not twisting myself into apologetic knots to inform people that clearly children 16 plus were being referred to.

It’s a sick paedophilic statement yet you’re :

• telling posters to stop “frothing”


• telling posters that clearly the performer didn’t mean children, because subculture


• telling posters that even if they did mean children they clearly meant older children

We see you, and we’re disgusted by you

@alphapie well in England and Wales 16 and 17 yos will no longer be able to get married soon, so the government at least is starting to realise the dangers of treating children as adults too soon.

You have some very disturbing views. Are you male?

Context and intent will decide whether it's a pedophilic statement

The comment itself isn't.

Again, we are children until 18.

Many much younger than that are having sex, legally, even *shock with adults

Getting married has nothing to do with engaging in sexual intercourse.

Yes, of course, the age old, anyone who doesn't agree with the FWR feminists are male - yawn

@RufusthefIoraImissingreindeer which posters explaining context?

Unless you claim that 16 and 17 year olds don't attend school

They'll never stop, have reported this and asked for it to be moved to naughty corner

Many much younger than that are having sex, legally, even shock with adults*

Peter Tatchell - is that you?

Absolutely 100%

Ah, so the agenda comes out. You clearly know that subjects do with sex and gender get moved to that specific forum, you obviously see that as “the naughty corner” so you must be a regular who contributes to the cornering off of discussion on these topics by reporting.

What is it about concerns about child sex abuse trivialisation that means you want to hide those concerns away from greater exposure? Hopefully MNHQ will see your attempt for shat it is, given this has nothing to do with the sex and gender debate.

I agree they will never stop.
Mary Whitehouse would have been at home on this thread.
And if Jenny lives with Eric and Martin had just been published now. the same people on MN would have been frothing about that as well.

I suppose someone could contact the performer or the promoter and ask exactly what happened and if they regret saying it / it being said.

@NotBadConsidering this post should be moved, it's the same people frothing on here that froth on there

Many on MN hide that topic for good reason, this belongs there, not up on AIBU for those who hide that topic to have to see.

There was a reason that separate topic was created, a good one at that.

No idea who that is, but I'm just someone who understands the law of this country.

It's a shame so many on here do not.

I think that is ludicrously unfair. Posters on MN care deeply about children's safeguarding - please don't turn that into a joke.

My point holds

It doesn't matter what those two posters said ...you don't believe them...

No one is frothing

I haven't even commented on the joke 🙄

I was actually there ... It was in relation to children and not drag speak as the act on stage literally said 'we need to teach our children' and was talking about young people and school so there was no way it wasn't sexualising kids

Interesting - though hardly surprising - that none of the apologists have responded to this

It remains striking how angry men become when women say no.

No, but it’s interesting you’re focused on the sex and don’t realise that making marriage illegal for 16 and 17 yo shows that we’re moving away from treating children as adults.

And I notice that you don’t deny you’re male ALPHA.

Safeguarding is never a joke.
This thread has nothing to do with safeguarding.

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

Interesting when sunlight is being shone, activists report threads and try to move them to the feminism board. We see you, and we will do everything to protect our children.
I really hope mnhq leave this in Aibu so more people can see the tactics you use. Absolutely vile behaviour%

What is it about concerns about child sex abuse trivialisation that means you want to hide those concerns away from greater exposure? Hopefully MNHQ will see your attempt for shat it is, given this has nothing to do with the sex and gender debate

There’s a lot of defensiveness and evasion going on here, isn’t there?

Suddenly children doesn’t mean 0-18, it just means 16-18 and somehow that is exactly what the performers meant, even though they just said children.

And the alphaPIE poster knows magically that only these ages were being referred to and everyone is frothing and also adults have sex with children and the law of this country says it’s ok.

A joke about encouraging children to open their legs isn’t funny. Justifying it, and making up stuff about what the performers actually meant (16 plus) is being a paedophile apologist. Justifying it further by referencing adults having sex with children is revealing your agenda.

You think you are the self appointed MN Thread Police don't you @alphapie ?

Determined to move any thread to a different section to keep it out of sight purely because the majority of responses disagree with you, you can't convince those posting in disagreement to you to bow down to you and agree with you. Does being disagreed with hurt your feelings or tarnish your I'm always right persona? Are you afraid that others will see the opposing argument to yours and shock, horror, agree with it?

You believe in any and all jokes being told, very free speech of you, but you don't want others to discuss said jokes on the main board of a forum because they might disagree with you? Hypocrite.