Child exploitation should not be controversial, yet to the modern LGBT left it seems to be a subjective matter depending on what political or social narrative they want to pursue. Child drag queens appear to be a growing trend after the success of Desmond Napoles, who has been in the public eye since he was nine years old.

While many oppose the idea of minors performing drag at all, it shouldn’t be considered a “conservative” position to oppose them performing drag in adult bars. Drag is inherently sexual in nature. The origin and purpose of drag is to indulge adult humor through exaggerated female impersonation. . . . But we should all agree it just isn’t for kids.

View Comments (2)

It’s Not Just Dress-Up, It’s Also Sexual Dancing

LGBT advocates of child drag performers insist it’s just children playing dress-up, as the mother of a nine-year-old performer stated recently: “Jacob is just a guy who likes to dress up and dance and feel pretty… it’s kind of like Halloween every time he has the opportunity to do it.”

It can certainly be argued there is a fine line between a boy dressing-up to “feel pretty” and that same boy dressing in a way that mimics a highly sexualized adult entertainment style. Pretending that there is no distinction is simply avoiding the truth of what is actually being done, even if everyone involved has innocent intentions. . . .But the sexualized nature cannot be ignored.

Recently, the LGBT site Pink News published a fairly startling headline: “Republican lawmakers want to make child drag shows illegal.” Strangely, this is portrayed as an act of anti-LGBT puritanism by ignorant and malicious Republicans. The article states, “Republican lawmakers in Ohio have filed a bill that would clamp down on drag performances by minors as ‘child exploitation.’”

The writer validates his suspicions by noting House Bill 180, “Prohibit performance in which child simulates sexual activity,” is co-sponsored by other Republicans with a history of anti-LGBT positions. The specific bill language the writer and LGBT advocates oppose states an illegal performance would include one “that suggests a minor is participating or engaging in sexual activity… and that, taken as a whole by the average person applying contemporary community standards, appeals to prurient interest.”

Jacob’s mother insists she does not allow her son to dance to songs with sexual lyrics and that she attends and monitors his performances. But the photo included in the article portrays the boy dressed in clearly provocative clothing and dancing in a way that should raise an eyebrow for any reasonable person. . . . There is no justifiable reason for a nine-year-old to dance on stage in front of drunk adults, accepting money, and being encouraged to mimic adult entertainers.

LGBT Contingent Appears to See No Problem

City police found no violations of state law or city ordinances, and the mayor stated, “The owners and managers of JD Hendersons [the bar in question] did not approve of or condone this activity. Upon learning of this performance, the owners quickly condemned the show and banned this troupe of performers from returning to the establishment. . . .”

The core of the issue is that anyone who views this from the outside clearly sees the problem. We do not see innocent dress-up dance parties, as portrayed by LGBT media. We see dark rooms, a stage surrounded by adult men, and a young boy dressed as a miniature adult woman parading around as the men toss money on stage. The only way LGBT activists can respond is to dismiss the concerns altogether or misrepresent what we can clearly see happening.

The exploitation of the child is in the environment and the portrayal. Adults who do prey on children have easy access to these venues, and normalizing this behavior allows young boys with less protective parents to be highly vulnerable. The very nature of the LGBT argument is to suggest the child should be able to freely indulge his or her gender expression and sexuality regardless of what other adults think is best for their safety.

The sponsors of this bill recognize as state Rep. Tim Schaffer (R-Lancaster) stated perfectly, “Given our heightened focus on human trafficking and the role money plays in trafficking children, I knew I had to take action to make sure this activity does not occur again. We can do better to protect innocent children and we must do better.”

I agree with him and it’s not the sole view of bigots or religious extremists. The average person would easily be able to distinguish why this is such an important and distressing concern. Unfortunately, LGBT activism, as it stands right now, refuses to do so.