Skip Navigation
17 comments

  • I think that Senator Julie Daniels does have a valid point. People of one gender wearing clothing traditionally worn by the other is prohibited in the Bible:

    Deut 22:5:

     A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.

    1 Corinthians 11:14-16:

    Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.  If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

    I mean, that's pretty explicit.

    And I suppose that one could call exposing children to view of an adult doing so obscene. Maybe society would be best off if we jailed people with the temerity to do such things.

    On an entirely-unrelated note, I see that in the article's picture, the senator cuts quite a striking figure in her pantsuit and with her short hair.

    Sen. Julie Daniels, R-Bartlesville, awaits votes on a veto override during the Senate session on Thursday, May 29, 2025. (Photo by Janelle Stecklein/Oklahoma Voice)

    • Ironic that all the paintings of Jesus show him with long hair.

      • Sounds like that was most-likely ahistorical, and resulted from the paintings having been created in different societies in a different time.

        https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/did-jesus-have-long-hair.html

        In the Bible, there aren't any verses describing Jesus' hair. However, there are verses that describe how Jewish men took care of their hair according to the Law. Based on these verses, Jesus likely had neatly trimmed black hair, long sideburns, and a beard. Long hair was an exception. Most Jewish men had shorter hair.

        https://allthatsinteresting.com/what-did-jesus-look-like

        Iconic artistic depictions of Jesus, such as Leonardo da Vinci’s The Last Supper or Michelangelo’s The Last Judgement, look nothing like a typical first-century Jewish man in the Roman province of Judea. While we have little solid evidence of what the real face of Jesus looked like, he probably did not resemble the paintings hanging in most Western churches and museums to this day.

        The artist Bas Uterwijk created a photorealistic depiction of Jesus based on DNA and forensic anthropology.

        If you've ever looked at depictions of Jesus around the world, he changes quite a bit...like, in China, Jesus and company can be pretty Chinese-looking, in African art, he can look pretty African, etc.

    • That's not a woman, that's a trans women! It's clear because she looks a bit butch, that's the sign!!

      Quickly, someone check her private parts every time she goes to the bathroom, wouldn't want to harm women now, do we?

      • Check out the two bored-as-shit guys in the pic. Top center with the dyed hair and LSD tie, bottom left looking for all the world like a former BigOil exec. I think they're texting each other while searching that old Sears catalog online to see where Julie got the high fashion 1975 threads.

        Tie dye: Hey, check it out there it is, page 287. Looks like it came in Avacado green too. That would have matched the furniture around here better.

        Oil: Yeah, you're right, good catch. Whoa, turn the page. Look at that. Wanna order her a tube top? Rayon. Pink!

        Tie dye: And some Frye boots! And black lace panties. We'll ship it all to her office. Heh heh heh. Hey cool, there's a COD option on the order page, let's get that too.

        Oil: COD, what the fuck is that?

        Tye die: It's some kind of fish. What are you, a moron? Old time people used get their oil from them.

        Oil: No shit? My oil sponsors aren't going to like that.

        Tye die: Never mind. Get some stamps and an envelope, we gotta get this order in the mail. Check out J, she's been standing there forever with her butt all pinched, she's gonna have to hit the john soon or take a fucking dump right here on-camera. If she makes a break for the restroom you chase her and check her parts.

        Oil: Fuck no! It's your turn, I checked her yesterday! She's probably still OK but you and I have a deal!

        Tye die: Christ, I remember. Couldn't get the smell off me afterwards last time, it was awful. I had to take an extra hit of acid, maybe it was two, after I got home.

        Oil: I get it, that's why you've got the fucked-up tie. Hey don't we have interns here, ones from the Panhandle? We'll get them to do crapper security, protect the children and all that shit. They live for that kind of thing.

    • That's one butch-looking senator they've got there. And all decked-out in those eye-catching Satanic colors. The whole outfit looks 100% polyester "male-ordered" from a 1970s Sears catalog. Some kind of odd kink I guess, I'll have to check Reddit for the explanation. No judgment from me, the 70s were weird fun.

      • The whole outfit looks 100% polyester

        I would certainly hope so!

        Leviticus 19:19:

        “‘Keep my decrees.

        “‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.

        “‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.

        “‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.

  • “The Legislature has made it abundantly clear that sexually explicit performances have no place in public spaces, especially in front of children,” Daniels said. “Unfortunately, drag shows continue to spark controversy in Bartlesville and across the state, underscoring the need for further legal guidance.”

    Hold up. Wait a minute. I thought that law was about keeping children safe from sexual stuff in public. Who could have possibly thought that they would conflate drag performances with sexually deviant acts, that must be outlawed in order to protect children. That is absolutely not what the law was intended for, right?

    Bringing back obscenity laws surely won’t be used to criminalize wearing clothes that do not align with someone’s assigned sex at birth, right? Putting the now illegal trans people in prisons that correspond to a persons sex assigned at birth is not a threat to their safety, right? I thought it was about protecting women?? Stopping their access to hormone therapy, mental health services, and proper clothing while imprisoned surely is not a punishment for being an illegal person, right?

    Banning trans health care for minors is only about protecting children as well, right? Surely they will not use that as a basis to prohibit trans health care for all trans people, right?

    There’s no way any of this could be about erasing, and eventually cleansing, a minority population, right?

  • I have a photo, circa 1919, of two of my great aunts all dressed up for a "masquerade ball" - one of them in "masculine" clothes, top hat and all. Obscenity? AFAIK the "drag" one wasn't arrested, but that was in a relatively civilized northeastern state, not OK.

17 comments