Draggin' Rites

The State of Tennessee, famous as the state in which the Scopes "Monkey Trial" took place, has apparently sought once more to display its peculiarity by, supposedly, banning drag shows.   The bill awaits the state governor dragging a pen across it, signing his name to it, at the time I type this post.

Or at least drag shows of a sort.  It's an odd law, which is perhaps appropriate in more than one sense.  It includes among those things described as "adult cabaret performances" those by male and female impersonators, acting in such a way as to arouse a "prurient interest."  Those performances among others deemed adult cabaret performances under Tennessee law may not take place in public, or in an area where they may be seen by minors.

I've been to a few drag shows.  They aroused no "prurient interest" in me.  They aroused no other interest in me either, really.  I found them silly, and occasionally amusing.  I'm not sure why they're popular, as it seems they are to some at least.  Most of all I found them not at all evocative of lust or sexual desire.

One of the odd characteristics of this law is that, since a prurient interest must be aroused in order for the performance to be prohibited, it would (as would be expected) seem to exempt from the law's operation drag shows which fail to do so, and prohibit only those which do.  But performances arousing prurient interest of other kinds are already prohibited under existing law.  It seems, then, that this law accomplishes nothing of substance, unless drag shows are assumed in all cases to arouse prurient interest.

It would be difficult even for the State of Tennessee to maintain that performance in drag arouses prurient interest in and of itself.  A picture of Milton Berle in drag graces this post.  Uncle Miltie dressed himself in women's clothes fairly frequently.  So, for that matter, did Flip Wilson.  Robin Williams impersonated a woman in Mrs. Doubtfire.  Dustin Hoffman did in Tootsie.  Williams and Hoffman impersonated women, via film, a in public place and where minors could see them.  Julie Andrews impersonated a man in Victor/Victoria.  Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis impersonated women in Some Like it Hot.

Drag performances have, in fact, taken place for centuries.  Shakespeare's Portia; Peter Pan, are roles in which impersonation of male and female is expected to take place.  Women weren't allowed on stage in ancient Greece, so the many female roles in plays written and performed then were played by men.

As this law is seemingly insubstantial, it is to be inferred that it isn't intended to do much more or different from existing law.  Like so much else in our increasingly less Glorious Union, then, it is a stunt; something politicians engage in efforts to impress those they seek to gratify.  

Who would be gratified in this case?  Not someone who actually reads the law, as anyone who does will understand its limits and know it achieves nothing beyond expressly lumping drag shows with other forms of "adult cabaret performances."  More likely it would be those who don't read the law, but believe it to prohibit kinds of performances they think harmful in some sense, particularly to minors.

Given the history of actors and comedians appearing in drag together with the fact that those appearances have generally thought to be funny, the current concern about this can only be explained if some people now consider drag performances as something different from what they've been considered in the past.  Now, they somehow have the potential to harm children.  It's doubtful that Uncle Miltie was thought to be harming them by appearing on TV in drag, or that the many others who did so on the small and large screens over the years were harming as well.

Some of us seem to be fearful that performances by male and female impersonators will influence minors to change their gender, or perhaps sex, or perhaps sexual identity.  There is what appears to be a growing fear of or revulsion against transgenderism (is there such a word?).  Perhaps it's more correct to say fear of or revulsion against transgenders.

However, is there any evidence that drag shows induce or influence anyone to do anything but part with their money, or giggle, or groan, or do several other generally harmless things?  I strongly doubt it.  In the absence of any evidence, why is a law required?

More laws, less justice, to paraphrase Marcus Tullius Cicero and others.  This is a show law, one with no purpose but to assuage prejudices, and law shows are more dangerous than drag shows.