#metoo

[Willie Oleson]

or is it the gaudy variety most people are familiar with?

They're reading books, so unless it's a very provocative and raunchy book I assume it's all kids-friendly.

Mother Goose sounds far less controversial than, say, a random drag performer dressed like a contestant on Ru Paul's Drag Race

Why not an extravagant, glittery fairy godmother?

What's next? DYNASTY will damage children?

 

[Frank Underwood]

They're reading books, so unless it's a very provocative and raunchy book I assume it's all kids-friendly.

Why not an extravagant, glittery fairy godmother?

As I added to my post, I think any child-centered character is okay. I ultimately believe it's the context and the motivation behind it that matters.

Some people like being taboo and courting controversy for the fun of it. As long as it's actually about the children and not the performer's own narcissism, I think it's fine.

What's next? DYNASTY will damage children?

Why not? It's damaged plenty of adults.

 

[Willie Oleson]

I ultimately believe it's the context and the motivation behind it that matters.

It was established with a certain goal therefore I don't understand why there should be confusion about context and motivation.

I like to think they can explore these themes in addition to the more traditional stuff that is basically everywhere.
Now, if the kids would all run away screaming in fright and disgust then obviously it wouldn't work.

 

[Frank Underwood]

It was established with a certain goal therefore I don't understand why there should be confusion about context and motivation.

Making the world a "brighter place" and spreading awareness of our differences was one drag performer's perspective.

I don't necessarily think you need drag queens for that, but whatever. It's ultimately how it's presented that I think is most important.

I like to think they can explore these themes in addition to the more traditional stuff that is basically everywhere.
Now, if the kids would all run away screaming in fright and disgust then obviously it wouldn't work.

What themes need to be explored when reading to children? Is it unreasonable to expect it to have something to do with their interests and, well, reading?

What I'm trying to say is that involving children with the unconventional isn't the issue, but I find it more valid when it's actually geared towards them or their reading material.

 

[Seaviewer]

I've always believed that if I invite a woman out on a first date then I would pay unless she insists on paying her share. If a woman invites me out on a date (yeah, wishful thinking!) then the expectation would be that she would pay, although I would offer to pay my share of the bill.

If you invite someone out somewhere (be it male or female), it's reasonable to expect that person to pay unless otherwise discussed. If a person asks another person if they'd be willing to split the check before the invitation is accepted, I think that's reasonable too. It's then up to the other person whether or not they're fine with that. My issue is with the idea that it's "expected" for men to always provide for women. To me, that's the misandrist version of saying women should always put out after a date. Women rightly don't want to be a sex object, and men shouldn't have to be a personal ATM. I see it as a form of mutual respect, but certain misandrist ideas are still deeply entrenched.

Not often that you two agree - and I agree, too!
It's not that hard; whoever makes the invitation should expect to pay.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Not often that you two agree - and I agree, too!
It's not that hard; whoever makes the invitation should expect to pay.

Yes, it's nice when that happens. I certainly prefer to find common ground with people whenever possible.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

We are aaaaall women.
The guy-women are just prettier.

You're so intelligent that I never know what you're talking about.

As I added to my post, I think any child-centered character is okay. I ultimately believe it's the context and the motivation behind it that matters.

Some people like being taboo and courting controversy for the fun of it. As long as it's actually about the children and not the performer's own narcissism, I think it's fine.

I'm not sure if this applies, but director John Waters once said that he enjoyed saying sexually inappropriate things to children... And I would never let him near my kids.

 

[Angela Channing]

Not often that you two agree - and I agree, too!
It's not that hard; whoever makes the invitation should expect to pay.

What do you mean? I always agree with Frank when he accepts I've been correct all along.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

What do you mean? I always agree with Frank when he accepts I've been correct all along.

But did that happen?

 

[Angela Channing]

But did that happen?

No, that's not how humour works.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

No, that's not how humour works.

Now I understand!

 

[Frank Underwood]

What do you mean? I always agree with Frank when he accepts I've been correct all along.

Spoken in true Angela Channing fashion.

Is it more fun being adversaries? Perhaps I should change my screen name to Melissa Agretti.