The endless attack on Western societal norms continues - as I thought it would

[Steeltime]

About four years ago, I debated Trog, elftardPoloLiar and Tibs on this forum about gay marriage. I did not have any strong feeling about gay marriage, but pointed out that marriage was designed (1) mainly for the benefit of children, who cannot protect themselves and (2) that a general societal acceptance of gay marriage would lead to the "next" battle, in an endless series of battles by the left to dismember traditional Western civilization. Traditional Western civilization is founded on a belief in God, an enduring faith in two-parent families, reverence towards hard work and self-reliance, and a belief that government is a necessary evil.

Now, all such beliefs are under attack. Converse shows just how far our society has descended with their latest ad campaign, featuring an 11-year old transvestite (transsexual? hard to keep straight) boy, among others, in this ad:

https://twitter.com/Converse/status...es-lgbt-shoe-line-featuring-preteen-drag-kid/

Yes, that is a boy in the front, dressed in drag.

So during the debate four years or so ago, I asked, "Okay, gay marriage, great. But where does this end? Because it NEVER ENDS in the minds of those seeking to forever deconstruct Western civilization. What's next? Pedophilia?"

Trog and probably elftardPololiar mocked me. "Oh, please, nobody supports pedophilia. That is absurd."

Uhh, yes, they do, and no, my position was certainly not absurd. As soon as the "gay marriage" debate ended, the loony fringe moved on to transsexuals, and gender identity, and claiming that pre-pubescent kids should be allowed to dress up as the opposite sex. Told 'ya.

But dressing up 10 and 11 year old kids in opposite gender clothes is sick. Using those disturbed children in sexual displays to sell **** is worse than sick. The people responsible for the ad should be investigated for child abuse. Thankfully, the comments to the Convert to Another Shoe Company ad show that most of America remains sane.

Unlike the freaks who thought dressing up an 11-year old boy as a creepy girl was a good idea.

 

[Troglodyte]

Go research how young boys were dressed in the early 20th century and then explain your argument.

 

[SCSteeler4life]

Go research how young boys were dressed in the early 20th century and then explain your argument.

We’re not in the early 20th century. Dress your own boys like little girls if you want. But don’t tell me the **** is normal.

 

[Steeltime]

Go research how young boys were dressed in the early 20th century and then explain your argument.

1. Men used to wear wigs. Big powdered wigs. It was the norm.
2. Boys used to wear flowing robes. It was the norm.
3. Norms changed.
4. So 11-year old boys dressing up as girls, whatever the style-of-the-moment, has never been the norm.

If that is too difficult to understand, have a 3rd grader explain it to you.

 

[Troglodyte]

We’re not in the early 20th century. Dress your own boys like little girls if you want. But don’t tell me the **** is normal.

Tell it to your great-grandparents who caved to societal norms and dressed your grandfather like a little *****. Freaks!

 

[IndySteel]

Sounds like Flog's yoga pants are wedged up his *** pretty good.

 

[Steeltime]

We’re not in the early 20th century. Dress your own boys like little girls if you want. But don’t tell me the **** is normal.

That's exactly what he is telling you. Dressing an 11-year old boy as a 1970's ***** is just fine with him.

Oh, and my question as to what is next, pedophilia? Lookee here:

Government school officials in California think it is “really important” to teach children about pedophilia and pederasty in the classroom because it is a “sexual orientation.” That is according to a top official for California’s Brea Olinda School District, who admitted to parents that it was being done — and that it would continue, despite the outrage.

“This is done because we are talking about historical perspectives of how gender relations and different types of sexual orientations have existed in history,” said BOUSD Assistant Superintendent of Curricula Kerrie Torres in a matter-of-fact way, sounding almost oblivious to how the bombshell might sound to normal people.

https://redrightvideos.com/video-california-teaching-pedophilia-as-a-sexual-orientation/

Pfffft, what the hell was I thinking in asking where the hell this winds up?!?

 

[Troglodyte]

1. Men used to wear wigs. Big powdered wigs. It was the norm.
2. Boys used to wear flowing robes. It was the norm.
3. Norms changed.
4. So 11-year old boys dressing up as girls, whatever the style-of-the-moment, has never been the normal.

You seeing that picture as a “sexual display” isn’t normal. If you don’t understand that, have a psychiatrist explain it to you.

 

[deljzc]

The sad thing is Converse actually HURTS the LGBT community by promoting these types of crazy stereotypes of what it means to be "gay".

Being strange, dressing up like fools in rainbows, having piercings everywhere is not equivalent to being gay. Sure some are like that just like some straight people are like that too. But this continuation of the idea gay HAS to equal this type of flamboyant ****** stuff and gay pride parade garbage and bathhouse acceptance and boytoy promiscuity is part of the reason the LGBT community isn't already accepted.

There are parts of ALL cultures (white, black, hispanic, asian, LGBT) that I am never going to accept but that doesn't make me a bigot against them all. Nor does it mean I don't accept different cultures or lifestyles.

But damn if I'm going to budge when it comes to dressing appropriately for events, showing some restraint for your sexual proclivities in public, or expecting some dignity with how you treat your body and others. People need to realize that having an idea of what "decorum" means does not equate to disliking whole cultures or classes of people.

 

[Ironcitysteelers]

1. Men used to wear wigs. Big powdered wigs. It was the norm.
2. Boys used to wear flowing robes. It was the norm.
3. Norms changed.
4. So 11-year old boys dressing up as girls, whatever the style-of-the-moment, has never been the norm.

If that is too difficult to understand, have a 3rd grader explain it to you.

Also men played women in plays and other type of events as it was illegal for women too. Sooo trig is saying we go back to that too cause you know

 

[Superman]

Go research how young boys were dressed in the early 20th century and then explain your argument.

yeah, i see your point.

 

[Superman]

but wait ...

there's more

flog... never right. ever.

 

[Steeltime]

You seeing that picture as a “sexual display” isn’t normal. If you don’t understand that, have a psychiatrist explain it to you.

You are seriously ill if you don't find the image of an 11-year old boy dressed like a caricature of a 1970 hooker disturbing. He looks like the Jodie Foster character from Taxi Driver.

You think his attire is acceptable. No problem.

And you suggest that I need help? Jee-zus, use your Obamacare psychiatric insurance.

 

[stillerfaninfl]

Didn't know Converse still existed.

 

[IndySteel]

Darla say my dictate good.

 

[Steelr4evr]

This is not advancement of our culture or society. It's a degrading it. They should smack the **** out of that young boys parents. What the hell is wrong with his father. You sexualize your kid you vile dung heap.

 

[Lunar]

Is that the same boy that danced at a gay bar?

 

[Troglodyte]

You are seriously ill if you don't find the image of an 11-year old boy dressed like a caricature of a 1970 hooker disturbing.

I find every outfit in that picture atrocious, none of them sexual. That’s where your imagination went. You know who else finds converse sexy? Rex Ryan.

 

[SteelerInLebanon]

His father is probably his mother. Or something like that.

 

[xjx]

Is that Corey Booker?

 

[hamster]

There were people who dressed, and looked, like that as far back as I remember. You would find them working in the circus.