Voluntarist
Member

What Boycott? Target foot traffic is up days after LGBTQ collection blowback began.

Don't have a problem with it and never did. Government marriage is nothing more than a switch on about 1,400 federal laws (and who knows how many state and local laws) which treat a couple differently depending upon whether they're married or not married. == Edited to add (with tod evans in mind)== Those laws, particularly at the state level, don't always work in your favor. It's why I'm almost 70 with two children and never married. My pension, 401K, IRAs, savings and home are 100% mine. If I'd been married, I'd only have 50% of that. So if you're gay and want to get married, all I can say is, "Go for it, idiot!" == More editing == Come to think of it, I'd say the same thing to heterosexuals who want to get married.

What's the meaning of the "regardless" portion of the bolded clause? It sounds like a performance is prurient whether or not the performer intended it to be prurient. That's something that needs to be more specific. Is it enough for a single audience member (with a specific fetish) to have their prurient interests raised, or does some specific percentage of the audience have to be aroused? And isn't prurient interest in the eye of the beholder (have any of these performance acts been peter-metered to determined what an average person would deem prurient)? In the bolded clause, is "similar entertainer" vague enough to include waitresses at Hooters? Because I (and many others) have never been to the place for its less than scrumptious food, but rather for its bodacious waitresses in their tiny outfits (which I think qualifies as prurient interest, whether or not the waitress/performer intended to inspire such interest). When you state: Is it prurient because it is "marked by or arousing an immoderate or unwholesome interest or desire in sex" in the 4-year old child, or in someone else? I can't imagine a four year old child having prurient interest. Maybe it's that someone has determined that a four year old child "should" have prurient interests Besides all that, putting "prurient interest" and "Drag Queen" in the same sentence seems oxymoronic. For instance, I can't imagine anyone on this forum having immoderate or unwholesome sexual interests or desires from watching a Drag performance (well, there are some forum members I wouldn't put it past, but I doubt they'd admit to it). I think the advertised intention of the legislation was to keep children from being exposed to overt sexual acts. I don't think this legislation does that; it seems more directed at making drag performers reluctant to perform. While I'm not a fan of Drag (I think of it as belittling women just as much as black face belittles black people), I do think the first amendment permits it. If you want to protect children, I think you have to spell out the prohibited sexual acts/displays themselves, as specifically as possible. There have been a number of such acts described in this thread; and I would suspect that there are already laws on the books to criminalize, for instance, an adult from enticing a child to touch their crotch. The legislation needs to be specific enough that it's not up to the judge to decide whether a specific instance raises "prurient interest" or not (otherwise you'll end up with one judge ruling one way while another judge rules differently).

When they're digging' themselves into a hole, sometimes the best thing is just to give them a bigger shovel. Bud Light and the NGLCC Continue to Empower LGBTQ+ Owned Small Businesses Across America

For the old guys (going back over a half century):

I've looked but haven't found anything. And I'm not confining it to just vaccines - but other environmental factors as well. Like I mentioned in another thread: If it were environmental factors, I'd be most inclined to point to the hormones used in the dairy and meat-livestock industries. They started using Bovine Somatotropin in the dairy industry in 1994, but other hormones have been used since I was a kid. And they're used far less in the third world than in the West.

It must be like that word that has a couple of "G"s, an "N", an "I", an "E" and an "R" ... where you're only sanctioned to use it when you're one of the people who it's used against as an epithet. Only a Ginger can call a Ginger GINGER

Did you ever see the Satanist stuff in the store? According to National Review, the only items from the Abprallen product line were: ... granted, Abprallen does have other products which mention Satan, but none were on sale at Target. Note: I used Qu33r because our forum blocks the real word

Not unless they import water from the US to India (it's brewed in India). It does seem to be a staple of Indian restaurants in the US though (typically in a 22 oz bottle). Other popular Indian beer brands are Kingfisher, Haywards 5000, Maharaja, Hunter, Thunderbolt, Khajuraho, Golden Eagle, Royal Challenge, Godfather and Zingaro. I'm sure if they use Ganges water, it's from farther upstream (well, maybe not SURE sure). I have this scene in my head of an astonished Charlton Heston saying, "Indian beer is people!"

Maybe Bud Light isn't looking so bad anymore

There's a lot of performance art to him. Did he, like Kinison, ever put any time in as a Pentecostal preacher?

I used to fly hang gliders; but I'm shaking my head at that Coyote turbine from ACME

Since sexual differentiation at 7 years old consists of boys saying, "Girls have cooties", and girls saying, "Boys have cooties", being non-binary is a way to say, "I don't have cooties". How much you wanna bet the mother is a single mom? I've seen many such women bragging that they were single moms, and being lauded for it as "strong, brave women" (note to self: start referring to single moms as "strong, brave birthing persons"). It provides them with an elevated station in life. But I guess that's not sufficient anymore - they need to be praised as "strong, brave birthing persons facing the challenge of raising a non-binary child". Suely that would elevate them to the Brahmin caste. There are genuinely valid biological reasons for an individual to feel like their gender identity doesn't match the sex of the body they have. But it occurs only rarely. It's not 10% of the population, or even 1%. They don't comprise a marketing niche that's large enough to profitably warrant a special section at a mass market department store like Target or Walmart. Those greater numbers are something that's occurred within my lifetime (from the early 1950's forward). And while I can't completely dismiss environmental factors (like microplastics, hormones to dairy and meat sources, pesticides, fertilizers, soy, food preservatives, artificial sweeteners, or dozens of childhood immunizations) messing with human endocrine systems during in-utero fetal development or post-birth childhood development, I'm more inclined to point to psychological, sociological or (as AF would point out) political factors.

So, going to a House of Representatives of 573 members (like in the video), we're talking about California getting an extra 17 Congresscritters, while states like Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, Montana, Maine, and New Hampshire don't get any extra. And it's also designed to give populous blue states more votes in the Electoral College than those rural red states.

... and they got 18 of that request Oath Keepers Chief Gets 18 Years for Jan. 6 Plot to Attack US Capitol

Anthropology is the study of human beings and the manner in which their societies and cultures develop and evolve. There are those of you who think of sex and gender as being synonyms for the same thing - anthropologists don't, they make a distinction. This thread illustrates one example. The ability to urinate standing up is a sexual trait (yes females can do it, but they really don't have the equipment required to do so without making a real mess ... and ladies, on the humor front, I'm well aware that your opinion is that males aren't terribly specific in their aiming either). Whereas, whether an individual chooses to stand or squat while urinating is a gender trait. Furthermore, whether the male sits or squats is very much influenced by culture - as this thread shows (German culture is more accepting of males squatting while they urinate than is Mexican culture). Where this fits into the modern trans movement, I have no idea. People in the political trans movement seem to be using the terms "sex" and "gender" interchangeably. A half century ago, trans-gender meant someone displaying/expressing gender traits inconsistent with those their culture had assigned to their sex, whereas a trans-sexual was someone who had undergone surgical procedures and hormone treatments to approximate a change in sex. Nowadays, they're all trans-genders, no distinction made.

Bri Teresi channeling Kid Rock. But she's taken it a bit far. I can understand the Bud Light - but lingerie? 1650933546041614358

Yeah, that's why I called it "The 'Other' New York" in my OP. That big red Adirondack district (northeast corner of the state) is where I grew up. D'ya like the way they carved Saratoga, Schenectady, and Albany counties out to make a blue district. You can probably say the same things about Rochester and Buffalo out in the western part of the state. And now I live in the "other" Illinois (where you wouldn't have a blue district 13 or 17 without democratic gerrymandering:

Turns out the story is a really sleazy hoax A viral story about homeless vets getting kicked out of a New York hotel to make room for migrants was a hoax

Does it come down to how well the trans person can pull off "the look"? I've seen some questionable-gender looking people on the "People of Walmart" who weren't even trying to be Trans; and I wonder if they get challenged when they try to use the bathroom. How many of the following would you challenge if they tried to use the women's bathrooms? The latest "bathroom laws" would have Paulo Batista ("XX" chromosome pairing) using the women's bathroom. I suspect that most people might be upset about that:

I would think that the debt ceiling would be one of those items that could be passed through budget reconciliation (with a simple majority vote); because it is budget related. So you would have thought that the Democrats would have raised the debt ceiling to take into account all of their added spending when they put those huge spending programs in place. I guess the optics wouldn't have been very good if they telegraphed that the debt ceiling was being raised trillions of dollars to take their spending into account.

See for yourself (scroll down at each link for the comments from the peanut gallery): - https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217807499 - https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217912038 - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143062730

There's an outside chance that Paulo Batista would (though I suspect Paulo would be more interested in women bodybuilders; which is what most posters on this board would refer to Paulo as): Honestly though, I suspect that Mulvaney is not really trans at all, but merely an attention-slut suffering from a syndrome like Munchausen's (in which someone fabricates or induces symptoms of illness in themselves to garner attention). His outlandish and flamboyant "look at me" behavior is over the top.