(06-05-2023 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Are you equally as fraidy cat about women wearing three piece suits around children?
Plaid shirts and jeans?

Who's afraid of anything?

To me the insistence of some kind of phobia is one of the truly dishonest parts of the whole trans argument.

(06-05-2023 08:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Are you equally as fraidy cat about women wearing three piece suits around children?
Plaid shirts and jeans?

Who's afraid of anything?

To me the insistence of some kind of phobia is one of the truly dishonest parts of the whole trans argument.

That's all they are is dishonest.

(06-05-2023 08:52 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Are you equally as fraidy cat about women wearing three piece suits around children?

Plaid shirts and jeans?

Lolz....

Have you ever seen a real drag show Mr Groomer?

I have.

It's not anything remotely similar to a woman in a three piece suit. There's nothing sexual about a woman in a suit. Everything about drag is sexual. Are you really serious?

But you just keep on showing your stupidity with your ignorant comparisons.

Just because drag turns you on doesn’t mean it is intentionally sexual.

(06-05-2023 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 07:59 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  A man in a dress, whether slinging dick or not, is fine if he's wearing his dress, and possibly slinging dick, in front of consenting adults.

Children are not consenting adults.

Are you equally as fraidy cat about women wearing three piece suits around children?

Plaid shirts and jeans?

Lolz....

The board “know-it-all” sure has a lot to say on this subject.
What a ridiculous post. Just nauseating.

(06-05-2023 09:05 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 08:52 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Are you equally as fraidy cat about women wearing three piece suits around children?

Plaid shirts and jeans?

Lolz....

Have you ever seen a real drag show Mr Groomer?

I have.

It's not anything remotely similar to a woman in a three piece suit. There's nothing sexual about a woman in a suit. Everything about drag is sexual. Are you really serious?

But you just keep on showing your stupidity with your ignorant comparisons.

Just because drag turns you on doesn’t mean it is intentionally sexual.

Wow, weak sauce. Can't expect much more than that from perverts though.

(06-05-2023 08:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 07:52 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  No guy in a dress would have read anything to my boys. If you think that's cool then I hope you have no offspring.

Bartlett, I have zero issue with you, or anyone, saying 'nope, cant read to my boys as a man in a dress.' Your right as a parent. You are totally within your rights to pee in your underoos at the potential of your children encountering a man in dress.

The problem is that you apparently try to impose that rather benign action with it being illegal in any and every instance.

And, honestly, you have zero right to do that. Even if you are a Mr Warrior Way. Kind of humorous that Mr Warrior Way apparently pees in his underoos when confronted with the issue of having a man in dress read to his children, you have to admit.

I'll admit it... NO DRAG &/OR TRANS WITH CHILDREN -- PERIOD.

And just to be clear, while it is the commonly held principle that consenting adults can do what they want, I personally disagree.

We often hear of someone being charged with murder because a group of people were doing drugs and someone died from an overdose. Obviously the adults were consenting.

A couple could be engaged in bondage/rough sex which leads to death.

Rough sex excuse in women's deaths is variation of 'crime of passion' – study

Videos have been posted of people "improperly riding" where they are sitting with their torso outside of a car. They obviously chose to do this, but when they fall out of the car and die, people have been charged with manslaughter.

A woman can't appear totally nude and men can't touch women in strip clubs in certain cities, even though both adults are there for that very reason.

Tenn. court upholds city’s licensing law on strip clubs

Quote:The City of Knoxville passed a licensing ordinance in May 2005 that prohibited total nudity and touching by patrons, prohibited alcohol on the premises, limited the businesses’ hours of operations, and required the businesses and their employees to obtain licenses.

These are just a few examples where society does draw a line of unacceptable behavior between two consenting adults.

Either the behavior is moral or it isn't.

Society tends to disallow immoral behavior -- period. Of course, this has been changing over generations, and we see the results of decay.


Again, our Founders understood religious morality is REQUIRED in order to maintain a free government. Religious morality doesn't have boundaries such as "behind closed doors".

There are those who don't like being restricted by religious morality, but accepting that attitude impacts all of society.

(06-05-2023 08:47 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 08:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 07:52 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  No guy in a dress would have read anything to my boys. If you think that's cool then I hope you have no offspring.

Bartlett, I have zero issue with you, or anyone, saying 'nope, cant read to my boys as a man in a dress.' Your right as a parent. You are totally within your rights to pee in your underoos at the potential of your children encountering a man in dress.

The problem is that you apparently try to impose that rather benign action with it being illegal in any and every instance.

And, honestly, you have zero right to do that. Even if you are a Mr Warrior Way. Kind of humorous that Mr Warrior Way apparently pees in his underoos when confronted with the issue of having a man in dress read to his children, you have to admit.

I never said ANYTHING about illegal. There's often a BIG difference between legal and right.

I don't care if it's legal or not. It won't happen in my world, legal or not, and if you let it happen in your world, legal or not, you're a sick pervert.

Kind of humorous that Mr Groomer apparently can't relate to that position.

I like the defensiveness you emanate. My view is that a dude dressing as a woman who reads to children isn’t worth a spit of effort to even gain notice. If you feel the absolute overriding urge to shield yours from that benign act is all on you.

I think it is moronic, but hey, free country and all that jazz.

I do like how you get triggered by someone viewing the subject of the most benign aspects of a cross dresser as somewhat nonchalant…. To the point of screaming ‘groomer’ to being nonchalant about simply a guy in dress reading to kids.

Kind of Karen-style. That’s an interesting combination—- a Karen Mr Warrior. Lolz.

(06-05-2023 08:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Are you equally as fraidy cat about women wearing three piece suits around children?
Plaid shirts and jeans?

Who's afraid of anything?

To me the insistence of some kind of phobia is one of the truly dishonest parts of the whole trans argument.

I dont see any other rational explanation to the hostility towards just the mere fact of cross-dressing.

Barteet absolutely is scared to death of trans behavior -- to the point of saying he will club the **** out of anyone that does it around his boys. In any form.

How is that not a phobia?

Hes acting worse than a cat around water, and by your measure the cat isnt phobic of water. Lolz.

Criminy, he cant even talk about it a neutral manner. So yeah, he has a phobia of it. Absolutely.

Someone that doesnt have a phobia about it can say 'well, thats not my cup of tea, but whatever.' That is most assuredly *not* the response from Barteet, or some others.

(06-05-2023 08:55 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 08:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Are you equally as fraidy cat about women wearing three piece suits around children?
Plaid shirts and jeans?

Who's afraid of anything?

To me the insistence of some kind of phobia is one of the truly dishonest parts of the whole trans argument.

That's all they are is dishonest.

The only thing is that some can be nonchalant about the mere fact of cross-dressing, while others show a massive phobia about it.

Watching you respond to even mere crossdressing is like watching dogs freak out during 4th of July, or watching a cat around a bathtub of water.

(06-05-2023 09:10 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 08:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 07:52 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  No guy in a dress would have read anything to my boys. If you think that's cool then I hope you have no offspring.

Bartlett, I have zero issue with you, or anyone, saying 'nope, cant read to my boys as a man in a dress.' Your right as a parent. You are totally within your rights to pee in your underoos at the potential of your children encountering a man in dress.

The problem is that you apparently try to impose that rather benign action with it being illegal in any and every instance.

And, honestly, you have zero right to do that. Even if you are a Mr Warrior Way. Kind of humorous that Mr Warrior Way apparently pees in his underoos when confronted with the issue of having a man in dress read to his children, you have to admit.

I'll admit it... NO DRAG &/OR TRANS WITH CHILDREN -- PERIOD.

And just to be clear, while it is the commonly held principle that consenting adults can do what they want, I personally disagree.

We often hear of someone being charged with murder because a group of people were doing drugs and someone died from an overdose. Obviously the adults were consenting.

A couple could be engaged in bondage/rough sex which leads to death.

Rough sex excuse in women's deaths is variation of 'crime of passion' – study

Videos have been posted of people "improperly riding" where they are sitting with their torso outside of a car. They obviously chose to do this, but when they fall out of the car and die, people have been charged with manslaughter.

A woman can't appear totally nude and men can't touch women in strip clubs in certain cities, even though both adults are there for that very reason.

Tenn. court upholds city’s licensing law on strip clubs

Quote:The City of Knoxville passed a licensing ordinance in May 2005 that prohibited total nudity and touching by patrons, prohibited alcohol on the premises, limited the businesses’ hours of operations, and required the businesses and their employees to obtain licenses.

These are just a few examples where society does draw a line of unacceptable behavior between two consenting adults.

Either the behavior is moral or it isn't.

Society tends to disallow immoral behavior -- period. Of course, this has been changing over generations, and we see the results of decay.


Again, our Founders understood religious morality is REQUIRED in order to maintain a free government. Religious morality doesn't have boundaries such as "behind closed doors".

There are those who don't like being restricted by religious morality, but accepting that attitude impacts all of society.

And quite funny when stacked against the loads of people that cheer on MMA fighting, boxing, and football.

Same dangers. Same issue of consent. Are you all on board with your 'consenting adults' stance with that in mind?

(06-05-2023 10:27 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 09:10 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 08:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 07:52 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  No guy in a dress would have read anything to my boys. If you think that's cool then I hope you have no offspring.

Bartlett, I have zero issue with you, or anyone, saying 'nope, cant read to my boys as a man in a dress.' Your right as a parent. You are totally within your rights to pee in your underoos at the potential of your children encountering a man in dress.

The problem is that you apparently try to impose that rather benign action with it being illegal in any and every instance.

And, honestly, you have zero right to do that. Even if you are a Mr Warrior Way. Kind of humorous that Mr Warrior Way apparently pees in his underoos when confronted with the issue of having a man in dress read to his children, you have to admit.

I'll admit it... NO DRAG &/OR TRANS WITH CHILDREN -- PERIOD.

And just to be clear, while it is the commonly held principle that consenting adults can do what they want, I personally disagree.

We often hear of someone being charged with murder because a group of people were doing drugs and someone died from an overdose. Obviously the adults were consenting.

A couple could be engaged in bondage/rough sex which leads to death.

Rough sex excuse in women's deaths is variation of 'crime of passion' – study

Videos have been posted of people "improperly riding" where they are sitting with their torso outside of a car. They obviously chose to do this, but when they fall out of the car and die, people have been charged with manslaughter.

A woman can't appear totally nude and men can't touch women in strip clubs in certain cities, even though both adults are there for that very reason.

Tenn. court upholds city’s licensing law on strip clubs

Quote:The City of Knoxville passed a licensing ordinance in May 2005 that prohibited total nudity and touching by patrons, prohibited alcohol on the premises, limited the businesses’ hours of operations, and required the businesses and their employees to obtain licenses.

These are just a few examples where society does draw a line of unacceptable behavior between two consenting adults.

Either the behavior is moral or it isn't.

Society tends to disallow immoral behavior -- period. Of course, this has been changing over generations, and we see the results of decay.


Again, our Founders understood religious morality is REQUIRED in order to maintain a free government. Religious morality doesn't have boundaries such as "behind closed doors".

There are those who don't like being restricted by religious morality, but accepting that attitude impacts all of society.

And quite funny when stacked against the loads of people that cheer on MMA fighting, boxing, and football.

Same dangers. Same issue of consent. Are you all on board with your 'consenting adults' stance with that in mind?

Ahh... an argument with a subtext against traditional male roles.

Why am I not surprised.

The legislation being addressed in Tennessee and in Florida is not aimed at men wearing dresses. It is aimed at men wearing dresses and singing dick in front of minors. And men wearing dresses and slinging dick in front of minors is not different from men not wearing dresses and slinging dick in front of minors.

Men wearing dresses and behaving themselves in an adult setting should not be a problem, and does not appear to be addressed by the laws being debated.

(06-05-2023 09:08 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 07:59 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  A man in a dress, whether slinging dick or not, is fine if he's wearing his dress, and possibly slinging dick, in front of consenting adults.

Children are not consenting adults.

Are you equally as fraidy cat about women wearing three piece suits around children?

Plaid shirts and jeans?

Lolz....

The board “know-it-all” sure has a lot to say on this subject.
What a ridiculous post. Just nauseating.

Edited to change: Maybe just try a substantive post instead of a sniveling dollop of ad hom emptiness.

tanq finally admits he's a pervert.

(06-05-2023 10:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 09:08 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 07:59 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  A man in a dress, whether slinging dick or not, is fine if he's wearing his dress, and possibly slinging dick, in front of consenting adults.

Children are not consenting adults.

Are you equally as fraidy cat about women wearing three piece suits around children?

Plaid shirts and jeans?

Lolz....

The board “know-it-all” sure has a lot to say on this subject.
What a ridiculous post. Just nauseating.

Awww -- 450 is maddy poo. Poow widdwe boy......

Lolz....

Your need to attract attention to yourself is eyebrow raising.

(06-05-2023 10:42 AM)450bench Wrote:  Your need to attract attention to yourself is eyebrow raising.

CLASSIC narcissist.

(06-05-2023 10:42 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 10:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 09:08 AM)450bench Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 08:48 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-05-2023 07:59 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  A man in a dress, whether slinging dick or not, is fine if he's wearing his dress, and possibly slinging dick, in front of consenting adults.

Children are not consenting adults.

Are you equally as fraidy cat about women wearing three piece suits around children?

Plaid shirts and jeans?

Lolz....

The board “know-it-all” sure has a lot to say on this subject.
What a ridiculous post. Just nauseating.

Awww -- 450 is maddy poo. Poow widdwe boy......

Lolz....

Your need to attract attention to yourself is eyebrow raising.

Im not the one slumming completely in empty ad hom crap, 450. Funny that.

Maybe try a substantive reply for once. Or just keep with the above. Lolz.

(06-05-2023 10:35 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  tanq finally admits he's a pervert.

You mean 'admit he really doesnt care if a guy dresses up as a woman'. But true to form, you have to be dishonest about it. Kind of part and parcel of your makeup I have come to find.... Lolz.

If you had bothered to read previously, 'its not my cup of tea', but I dont get worked up about to the level you do..... Double Lolz.

I love your response pattern, Barteet. When you cannot respond substantively, just call whomever you are disagreeing with a 'groomer', a 'pervert', or one of your other tried and true kneejerk pencil neck peckerhead level comments. Im sure doing that gives you a good 'charge'... Triple lolz.

Ok Groomer

(06-05-2023 10:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The legislation being addressed in Tennessee and in Florida is not aimed at men wearing dresses. It is aimed at men wearing dresses and singing dick in front of minors. And men wearing dresses and slinging dick in front of minors is not different from men not wearing dresses and slinging dick in front of minors.

Men wearing dresses and behaving themselves in an adult setting should not be a problem, and does not appear to be addressed by the laws being debated.

Exactly

I'm not going to get into another circular argument with him on this.

It's just a waste of time.

What I will do is post some more examples of depravity that should be absolutely outlawed for any child to be a participant.

Family friendly pride...but oh muh gerddddd, what about the man who dresses like Laura Ingalls and wants to read Mary Had a Little Dick to kids!!!!!!

Sent from my SM-F721U using Tapatalk