Something ugly is being peddled as “education” to justify exposing children to sexualized behavior, and hardworking parents should be furious. Whether it’s a man in a cat suit or another carnival of adult excess, the notion that children benefit from seeing nudity and twerking at public events is a perversion of parental duty and common decency. Public indecency laws exist to protect the young from precisely this sort of moral usurpation, and communities must insist those laws be enforced.
Proponents of these displays try to dress them up as inclusivity or identity-formation, claiming exposure “helps them understand who they are,” but that argument collapses under commonsense scrutiny. Parents are the ones who should guide children through questions of identity and age-appropriate conversation, not political activists in costumes turning streets into adult stages. This isn’t progressive courage — it’s a deliberate normalization of adult behavior in front of minors that would never be tolerated in any other context.
Let’s be blunt: allowing sexualized performances in public where children are present borders on grooming, and brave communities are pushing back. Elected officials who shrug off these spectacles are failing in their most basic responsibility to protect kids, and prosecutors who treat public lewdness as a nuisance rather than a crime are putting ideology ahead of safety. America needs law-and-order on basic moral protections, not courtroom theories that let indecency hide behind “expression.”
The media and cultural elites who defend these events are revealing their priorities: radical expression over family values and personal responsibility. They lecture ordinary Americans about tolerance while sanitizing content that would be rightly condemned if the roles were reversed, and that hypocrisy must be called out. Voters should remember which politicians and institutions sided with parents and which sided with exhibitionism when the next election rolls around.
There is a legal debate about where free expression ends and public harm begins, but that debate cannot be used as a smokescreen to expose minors to adult sexual conduct. Courts have wrestled with First Amendment protections for performance art and parade speech, but communities retain the right to draw lines around content that is sexually explicit and accessible to children. Legislatures and judges must craft sensible rules that protect speech while prioritizing child safety.
Parents and local officials should take straightforward steps: keep kids away from explicit floats and stages, prosecute clear violations of public indecency, and pass ordinances that set reasonable standards for family-friendly events. Grassroots pressure works — when citizens stand up and demand that public spaces remain safe for children, politicians listen. If conservatives marshal their energy around protecting childhood innocence, we can stop elites from turning our streets into moral free-for-alls.
I tried to locate the exact viral clip described — the “cat outfit” defender saying nudity helps children — and could not find reliable mainstream reporting on that specific video; what is clear from reporting across the country is a broader pattern of activists and commentators defending sexually explicit displays at Pride events while many parents are alarmed. The lack of a clear source for that precise clip means anyone sharing it should produce the original footage and context; meanwhile, the larger conversation about protecting children from public sexualization is very much real and urgent.
