Freak of the Week: Man in Lingerie Playing in Children's Area of Australian Museum

If you thought things couldn’t get weirder or worse, think again. Libs of Tik Tok has once again brought to light some serious issues that we need to talk about.

Why is a man wearing garters and fishnets allowed to play with little children at a public museum and without being hauled away in handcuffs for indecent exposure? And why do I have to ask this question at all?

“A man dressed in lingerie was photographed playing next to kids at the [Australia Museum]. They defended it and a spokesperson said the museum is “committed to being a safe place where everyone feels welcome.”

A man dressed in lingerie was photographed playing next to kids at the @austmus. They defended it and a spokesperson said the museum is “committed to being a safe place where everyone feels welcome.” Sickening. https://t.co/AC4eeO6Cl8 pic.twitter.com/njg0tt0n6s

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) May 16, 2022

Now, I don’t know all that much about our Australian cousins, but could they be this cucked? Is it possible that the men of Australia are so afraid of being called “phobic” names that they will put up with an autogynephilic exposing his satin-covered crotch in front of children? Wasn’t Australia a prison colony full of the scariest bad guys ever? Aren’t dudes like Crocodile Dundee walking around with huge knives and “fight me” attitudes? Maybe not. Maybe that’s all made-up movie propaganda, and the land down under is filled with manky soy boys.

But at the very least doesn’t Australia have decency laws? Surely, the government of Australia, which locked people down in camps over the Wuflu without any concern about rights, wouldn’t care about the rights of some fetishist over the rights of small children who have a right to be undisturbed by this spectacle, right?

It turns out that Australia does have a law against “outraging public decency” that seems to fit the bill. Wikipedia defined the law in easy terms.

Modern case law has established two elements that must be satisfied for the offence to have been committed:^[2]^[4]

the act was of such a lewd character as to outrage public decency; this element constitutes the nature of the act, which has to be proved before the offence can be established, and

2. the act took place in a public place and must have been capable of being seen by two or more persons who were actually present, even if they did not actually see it.

How could a man (or woman for that matter) wearing what is pictured above in a children’s area for children not be an outrage to public decency? I don’t know about you but I’m pretty outraged. (Then again, “stay-at-home outrage potato” was one of the funniest insults I ever received, so maybe my sensitivity meter is cranked too high. I’ll leave it to you to decide in the comments below if you feel legitimate public outrage over this). Whoever complained about this to the museum took the wrong approach. Next time call the police and force them to do their jobs. Cite this law and press charges. Protect your kids out there, folks. It’s a crazy, freaky world.

PJ Media reached out to the Australia Museum with questions about these photos. If they respond we will update our story at that time. It is interesting to note that the museum did lock down their Twitter account.