I don't think the issue is the books. But a guy in a gimp suit reading three little piggies to kids wouldn't be ok, this is no different.
Are you saying that a man dressed as a woman is identical to a man dressed in a gimp suit: a suit intended for titillation?
Is the image of a woman automatically titillating? Do you think a biological man with gender dysphoria dressing as a woman is done with the express intent of titillation?
kckk said:
That was conveniently edited a few months back. Drag stuff has always been hyper sexual, it's straight up gaslightling that this isn't the case.
Citation needed lmfao.
Don't get me wrong: drag can certainly be sexual. But you won't find any sources that say drag in essence is inherently sexual, or even that it started that way. Even if you wanted to try to claim that the majority of it's sexual, you'd be wrong there too.
I'm pretty sure I know what's happening here. The same thing happens almost everywhere: until recently we've only been seeing certain instances of drag in the public eye.
1: Republicans pointing out the actual bad instances of children being at sexually suggestive drag shows
2: Drag shown in it's most famous showings in older movies and tv shows via an unfavorable light, most often as some sort of perverse kink if not a legitimate sign of mental illness or dangerous behavior (Ya'll remember Silence of the Lambs right? What about Psycho?)
...and that's enough for people to write off drag/cross-dressing altogether as inherently sexual... when that's not even 1 percent of drag culture.
