Comment on From Snoop Dogg to Lap Dogg

• wampus@lemmy.ca ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Me personally? I wouldn’t care either way. I’ve seen a woman on the street fingering the ass of a muslim dude before, and just sorta walked by. But I don’t have kids. I imagine if I had kids, I’d be opposed to public ass-blasting.

  A parent that I work with has had awkward conversations with his kids, after they came to Canada and saw guys kissing / making out in public. I can appreciate that such PDAs can prompt similar ‘awkward’ conversations, but also that they’re much less ‘common’ than encountering them as part of a big budget movie – and encountering them in public is often an easier way for parents to broach the subject. Kids noticing that stuff is unavoidable as they mature, but having it forced to the front by media / schools is questionable, and I can appreciate the parents’ concerns on that front.

  source

  • Cataphract@lemmy.ml ⁨7⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I don’t think replying to you is helpful but I stuck my foot in this so I might as well try.

    If you were actually being fair and equal to everyone then your stance would be, “NO child should be exposed to ANY type of relationship dynamic”. Or only those that you feel are “positive” examples (highlighting your stance that any lgbtq+ partnership is inherently negative and damaging to a child’s development).

    I think the problem of how you perceive people responding to you is the misclassification or simple lack of knowledge in history of what you call “non-standard partners”. Nature is not familiar with “standard partners”, Sappho is an interesting read from 600 BC (and a great meme community), Ancient Greece felt differently than you do today about “traditional relationships”,

    Ancient Greece excerpt

    > In the cultures of the ancient world, there was no need for designations such as LGBTQ+ because there was no difference noted between what is now defined as “homosexual” and “heterosexual” relationships. There was no “us” and “them” dichotomy to encourage such labels; there was only “us” and whoever one chose to love was one’s own business. (link)

    For a more modern take, Karl Heinrich Ulrichs from 1860’s which they consider the first modern gay right’s movement advocate. Astonishingly about the same time the US abolished slavery.

    Currently the population consists of about 23% of newer generations proudly stating they are lgbtq+, I suspect largely in part because of the de-stigmatizing of such relationships that religious fervor and right-wing ideology demonized because of the “traditional values” (which is horse shit because traditional is subjective).

    tl;dr: Kids are curious and actually have feelings they are developing, some of which is attraction to a class-mate in elementary school (wtf is valentines day then?). If they don’t see any representation and people respond like you do to “non-standard” relationships, they develop the same core concepts as you’ve come to embolden making them feel ashamed and causing more confusion then just a simple conversation they should have with an adult.

    The fact that they can be exposed in public but should not be in media is just a weird stance to take (especially when parents can dictate what a child consumes or at least should be proactive in that space). We’re also completely negating the fact that less people are exposed to the overall public and moreso only interact in small circles online especially with adolescents.

    source

    • wampus@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago

      I know about ancient greece, and as I’ve said I don’t care personally what people do / who they love. Don’t assume just because I consider homosexual behaviour to be abnormal, that I’m somehow opposed to it / think it inherently “wrong” or anything. I also don’t have a personal issue with it in movies, particularly more adult themed movies – though I do think it’s massively over-represented at this point, as almost every movie/show I see has heavy lgbtq+ themes wedged in haphazardly, often to the detriment of the plot.

      Younger generations claiming to be lgbtq+, or being on the gender spectrum, doesn’t really impact my view, I admit. First, it’s still a minority, which makes it abnormal. Grouping all abnormal types together also inflates the perspective of how common it is for any one subset. Young people are also more inclined to be affected by perceptions of benefits / “going along with what’s approved in media”. Even the stats on that site generally support this, noting that the breakdown between men/women is hugely lopsided amongst Gen Z, and with the bulk of the change seemingly being women identifying as bisexual. That fits quite a bit with how its presented in media – so I’d still question whether it’s kids being ‘genuine’ in their experiences/feelings, or if it’s media pushing certain messages and kids reacting to those messages. Media can clearly influence peoples world views / perspectives, at times in ways that aren’t authentic – we’re all keen to recognise as such when we talk about the negative impact of fox news – so it’d seem strange to pretend like it can’t have a similar reality-distorting effect in this area, given the level of over-representation of lgbtq+ themes. Particularly bi-sexual women, as media likes to treat women as sex objects desired by “everyone”, and wedge in some lesbian sex scenes to boot. Almost every series/movie has lgbtq+ stuff in it these days, which is one reason Snoop is uncomfortable taking kids to movies – it’s gotten pretty rare to see a same-race healthy relationship straight couple in media.

      To approach it from a slightly different angle: it’s like trying to find non-emo edgelord male characters in anime (which, in its space, feeds the indoctrination of alpha male sorts) – or the negative male stereo-types pushed by people like Tate. If we accept/recognise that certain media representations can “make” young people more extreme in that sort of space, then I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to say that media can “make” young people more gender fluid on the flip side. Part of being young, is lacking critical objectivity.

      Also, in terms of the polling and benefits, hell, I personally identify as “other” on all government polls, because “other” gets preferential treatment/hiring options, while “male” gets rejection letters. That isn’t an authentic response, but it’s a necessary response to get past certain hiring criteria – I’ve literally had rejection letters stating “you’re not part of an equity group” in the past, when I answered male (in Canada, literally the reason the federal government rejected my application). Workplaces have no business blocking people from employment due to their preference, even when it comes to us CIS folks.

      As for seeing things in public – a kid could see a horrific car accident by chance, corpses everywhere. That doesn’t mean it’s appropriate to show a 6 year old graphic death scenes. Or to use a less extreme example, and a fairly common one, they could walk in on their parents fucking – it still wouldn’t be appropriate for a movie for kids to have a bunch of sex scenes. Content involving adult stuff should have an adult rating, even if “some” kids may encounter those things earlier in life by happenstance.

      source