Go, Fight, Win!
So there may be hope for decency in the public forum after all...
Does it appear to anyone else that problems like suggestive cheerleading are being addressed with renewed vigor? First a principal who bans "freak dancing," then in Virginia the legislature tried to pass a law requiring that one's undergarments not be visible in public, and now Texas is attempting to restrict suggestive cheerleading. Maybe some other states will take the cue from Texas and Virginia and bring back decency within their borders as well...
Of course, suggestive cheerleading is by no means the only representative of indecency in our nation, but it's a start. Think about it: At a high school game, is it really doing the adult men any good to see underage girls dancing in ways that most adult women would be ashamed to? Heck, is it even good for the boys? Tell me, what purpose can such suggestive cheerleading really serve, besides promoting unhealthy lust?
Rah rah.
posted by jacob.thrasher @ 5/04/2005 08:49:00 AM
30 comments
30 Comments:COMMENT POLICY
Please refrain from the use of foul language. Any failure to comply will result in comment deletion.
AGREED!
Dude, your a teenager. You should like looking at honeys like that. There's nothing wrong with it.
As for the politics behind it, there's nothing like watching conservatives install a Nanny State. In a few years, I'm sure the government will regulate how we dress, how we talk, what we watch, etc., just to ensure it is decent.
Thank God for the Second Amendment.
Um... er... Second Amendment? I agree, the right to keep and bear arms is very good, but I'm hard-pressed to find a connection between it and cheerleaders. :)
"You should like looking at honeys like that. There's nothing wrong with it."
Isn't there? The transformation of girls into sex objects is very wrong indeed, whether I like it or not!
In response to the alleged "Nanny State," there is a vast difference between what is permissible in public and what is permissible in private. To restrict such things as foul language and revealing clothing in public is perfectly acceptable, and does not constitute what one would call a "Nanny State."
I have to disagree. In this country, the majority of people's morals are based on Christianity and other religions. This is a violation of something that is (supposed to be) fundamental to our country: freedom of religion. People who do not agree with others' moral shouldn't be forced to accpet them ,like they are now.
Exactly. If I do not wish to have the image of, say, some mis-guided Brittany wanna-be burned into my retina just because I want to walk in a public place, it should be my right to walk there freely, with young children in tow.
As it is, the culture has degraded to the point that dress and behaviour which was once considered fringe is now called acceptable by many. Some think it is new; it is only part of a larger cycle which has repeated many times in history. Moral standards slowly wane, as sensuality grows. It is a symptom of a society in which people are too comfortable to realize that there is a God, much less that He is worthy of attention. It will not reverse itself, unless there is a massive correction (i.e overall lowering of comfort level).
"Dude, you're a teenager. You should like looking....."
That mindset is, unfortunately very common. As is premarital sex, unwanted pregnancy, venereal disease, and a host of other social dis-orders.
I can speak frankly as a middle aged man, married for 20 years, with a healty appreciation for the value of sex (with my wife).
I have many friends of the "looking is ok" persuasion. Unfortunately, none of them have made it past 10 years with the same woman.
Of course it is healthy and natural to want to look; the key to success in your life is to understand that disciplining yourself to NOT look is crucial. If you can't control as simple and impulse as that, then others impulses in turn become more and more dificult to control.
Yes, I agree that those who want to flaunt their desire to dress scantily and build their flawed sense of self-worth by stoking desires (no great feat)should be allowed to do so at home.....not in the public arena, where others with religions outside of secular humanism may wish to travel, free from imposed sexual imagery.
A Concerned Dad
Yeah, it serves no purpose. However, it's one of the problems that you can't get rid of without limiting freedom of speech. And it's not up to legislation to stop it. If you want that kind of cheerleading to stop, form a boycott on those games, and start holding "Decent Cheerleading" classes. I'm sure you'll remember this quote: government isn't the solution.
It's a trip. The big thing on my block is cheerleading for the 6-7 and 8 year old girls. My kids aren't into it - mainly because I really couldn't stand the cheerleaders when I was in high school. My girls are into swimming and gymnastics.
Anyway - the little girls are getting sculptured nails, wearing makeup and wiggling their butts all over the place. One of the cheers says the 'boys have the brains and the girls have the sexy legs.'
I fear I'm becoming my mother, however I don't think this is the right message to be giving girls - and especially girls so young.
I don't know that passing a law is the answer, but I agree that it's ridiculous and would hope that most parents would have a bit more common sense.
Yeah, that's pretty appalling, MonicaR. And wrong. In fact, you should investigate who exactly is running this cheerleading for 6-8 year olds, as it doesn't sound like a proper thing to do. Somebody is making up those chants and dances, and I don't think it is the girls.
But I still feel that restricting freedom of speech is probably a Bad Idea... there are other ways of dealing with it apart from legislation. Creating more positive activities and boycotting events and schools which promote these activities can result in change.
I don't know who's running it because I was not interested in involving my girls. These cheers are taught to the little girls who are involved who then disseminate their 'really cool cheer' to all of the kids on the block. You don't know the half of it, let me tell ya. Some of the stuff my 8 y/old asks me about I find appalling. One of the girls that IS in cheerleading (8 yrs old) demonstrated what she would do to her boyfriend if he was standing behind her and proceeded to push her butt back and forth. I've told everyone I know about it and they all have the same reaction - absolute disbelief. I told my little one that this young lady is exhibiting bizarre behaviour and we have put these kids at arms length. We homeschool and it's unreal what they are exposed to anyway.
I agree that legislation is probably not the answer to this. These kids get odd messages everywhere they turn. I would contend that many of the unhealthy messages are disseminated in the classroom of government school buildings but obviously that is not all. What kids - especially girls - are portrayed as and encouraged to be it's just pervasive - we're bombarded with these messages every day. It's not right and all I can do is talk to my kids and let them know that it's not right. Be an example of what I think is appropriate and involve them in activities that I think are good and healthy for them.
Rumpelteazer - I guess that was my point. Homeschooled kids are NOT kept locked in a house somewhere - atleast none of the homeschooled kids I know are. It is also my point in contending that legislation is not the answer. You are correct saying there is something seriously wrong about that 8 yr. old girl doing what she did.
I was publicly schooled, although it was back when they expected you to be able to read by the end of 1st grade and if you couldn't you would be held back. I have a lot of problems with government education - it is not just the negative socialization issue. Of course my kids will be exposed to the real world however the way it stands now atleast they are not a part of a bizarre Lord of the Flies social structure.
I'm having the same problems, only I'm doing Jazz dance. My teacher says "don't by shy" when she asks us to shake our butts at the audience, I'm so glad that I'm not going back there next term. As for clothing, in jazz, our costumes barely cover our butts. I don’t know if anyone else has this problem. But for me it is just as appalling to put a 7-13 year old girls on the stage doing all sorts of things.
You're just bitter because no cheerleader would touch you with at 10 foot pole.
Haha, that was pretty cold.
Would've been a lot colder coming from someone who didn't have to hide behind the cloak of anonymity... But hey, if that's what it takes to boost their starving ego, then so be it. Who am I to deny help to someone so deprived?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Neo is a decent guy. What gives you the right to make such assumptions on things you know nothing about? How dare you judge him because he is willing to act grown-up and not take advantage of girls.
It is sad that so many little boys never get over the first thrilling rush of testosterone that comes with the onset of puberty.
The drive without self discipline exhibited by your comment, Anon, is the same reason people should spay and neuter their pets.
Believe it or not, in your youthfull arrogance, you totally missed accuartely describing Neo with any of your possible scenarios.
All you really need to know about Neo, (and other young men of his calibre), is that you will be working for them one day soon.
David
Alright genius, I deleted your comment. You can disagree and debate with me all you want, but please tell me how it's "respectable" to bring up such subject matter in the presence of, of all people, teenage girls? Sure, you censored it... thanks for the effort, but there are far more appropriate ways to word your inappropriate practices.
Please look up the definitions of the words you use before you post; I'm pretty sure "depravity" is not the word you meant to use. I'm not like those folks in your little ##### chat rooms; I am undaunted by polysyllabic words. So don't try to bluff, and try to know what you're saying BEFORE you say it.
You may post here and you may argue with me, or anyone else on this blog, but if you can't post in a civilized manner, I'll be forced to continue to delete your comments.
While it's amusing that you feel by not proofing my post on this scholarly journal of yours that somehow my point becomes invalid, that is not the case. You clearly were not deprived of my point, you just chose to ignore it in favor of pretending that your vast 16-year old-intellect is somehow too formidable to contest. I mean, you even claim not to fear words with more than one syllable! Who could possible argue with someone so couragous?
No doubt such bravery just drives those cheerleaders wild with desire!
The bottom line is that the only people bothered by displayed sexual allure are those that it isn't catered towards. That would be you.
"I mean, you even claim not to fear words with more than one syllable!"
Congratulations, you and your dictionary have conquered my post. I didn't think it possible, with your obviously limited thought processes.
As for your point, I certainly understood it, tasteless as it may be. David dealt with it quite well.
"The bottom line is that the only people bothered by displayed sexual allure are those that it isn't catered towards. That would be you."
Bottom line? Thanks for letting me know; you haven't supported your claims one bit, so I had no way of knowing where the bottom line was.
Some people have a greater ability than a baboon to control their sexual impulses. Are you actually insinuating that humans have so little control over their sexuality that their behavior is based on whether or not their sexuality is "catered towards?" Talk about flawed reasoning. Listen, you may not be able to control your own lusts, but that is no failing of mine or anyone else's.
So let's recap; your argument consists of:
"You must be either gay or undesirable to say the things you say."
You haven't supported this statement, except with flawed reasoning based on your own opinions, which were themselves based out of your own behavior. It's a completely invalid point.
Then, to bolster your argument, you claim that... Uh, well, nothing really. That's about all your argument consists of.
Astounding.
"You clearly were not deprived of my point, you just chose to ignore it in favor of pretending that your vast 16-year old-intellect is somehow too formidable to contest."
You've yet to contest it. You've tried to call me fat, socially inept, acne-ridden and the like, (such name-calling is an indication of the frighteningly adolescent intellect of your own), but you have done nothing further. You even completely ignored David's post.
Did you have a point, or were you just looking for a chance to call someone gay, fat and ugly (all under the protection of anonymity)?
I would hope that a 23-year-old could do better than that... but then, what should I expect from someone who has yet to "get over the first thrilling rush of testosterone that comes with the onset of puberty."
Perhaps a better question would be, why would any guy want to get over the 'thrilling rush of testosterone"? That's not something to 'get over' it's something to enjoy. If you think it's something to curtail, than maybe you should take David's advice and lop your pair off, especially since you value his opinion so much.
But if you think comparing my sex drive to that of a young teenager is an insult, well you have an awful lot to learn about life...
And if you think a zealous sexual attitute precludes intelligence, accomplishment, or any other virtue - you're only fooling yourself.
Neo,
What we have here is another variation on an age old theme. One school of thought says "This feels really good. I want to do it. I want to do it, therefore I should". If any thought is given to the possibility of a higher design, it is either dismissed as nonsense, or overcome by desires.
People who ascribe to this philosophy view sexual activity as recreation, and treat it as commonly as, say, an outing to the park. It is a seductive game to go through the mating rituals, and gives a primitive thrill to achieve one's objective. This mindset about sexuality (satisfy lust; there are no negative aspects) and the promiscuity which results from it, (both hetero and homo), ultimately leads people to a place in life where they ask themselves a question, in quite desperation, all the while glibly proclaiming their enjoyment of life. The question is, "Is this all there is?". The reason for this, is that what happens when sexual attraction is given an undue amount of control in one's life, the result, intentional or not, is that people worship the creation, not the Creator. The god of promiscuous people is a shallow facade; initially "beautiful" but after prolonged interaction an empty, pale, and poor charicature of truth. The person identified as "Anon" may, or may not, have asked himself that question yet; denial runs strong, because facing the truth leaves one bereft of hope.
The other school of thought, (a road less travelled; the one you are on), aknowledges a larger design. Creation by a loving God with an overall plan for those who choose to aknowlege/worship Him. In this plan, sexuality is a precious gift; one to be protected and kept, tender and fresh, for the one person that God gives us as our life-long partner. When two flesh become one as intended in God's plan, there is a soul stirring satisfaction, deeper and more spiritually resonant than anything hedonists could ever comprehend. It is, indeed, a magical gift. It is not easy to follow this road, especially in a world where many equate lust with love. It is, however, worthwhile.
I would like to encourage you, and others like you, to stay the course. We are, indeed, "meant to live for so much more".
Ignore the derision of those who scoff; it is only a symptom of their burgeoning "quite desperation".
To the scoffers; though you may scoff at this, I have to tell you that in the wonderful plan that God made for mankind, there is a way opened for restoration of a virginal heart, if not a virginal body. That way was opened wide by Jesus. Scoff though you may, there comes a time......
the truth shines eternal, and will not suffer loss.
David
David you go, honey. Although I'm sure Anon WILL scoff at your words and may never deeply understand what it is you are saying - you are 100% correct.
Hey David, don't forget about having the women cover their skin and remain indoors. If that isn't the case, than you're just experiencing a shallow sexually impure relationship that will never be as satisfying or sacred.
Surely that is a satirical comment. Moderation (and modesty)seems to be difficult concepts for some to comprehend.
Most people understand the difference between decency and indecency. It's just that many don't mind crossing the line.
D
So Neo, you don't think it would be a Nanny State? The government solving all the problems some people have with others? That the government should regulate public places to cater to the minority?
You know many Muslim Americans find it offensive to have any woman show any part of her body in public. Now, if they decided to lobby for a law mandating burkhas, would you be all for it?
"So Neo, you don't think it would be a Nanny State? The government solving all the problems some people have with others? That the government should regulate public places to cater to the minority?"
I'm sure you'd recoil if a man stood in Wal-Mart preaching about how homosexuality is wrong. In fact, someone would likely try to have him escorted out of the store. Why? Because his views are offensive to the minority. Would you support this?
Tell me, what if the government enforces laws passed by the MAJORITY, and based on THEIR views? What a horrid Nanny State (read: Democratic Republic)!
"You know many Muslim Americans find it offensive to have any woman show any part of her body in public. Now, if they decided to lobby for a law mandating burkhas, would you be all for it?"
Am I a Muslim? No. Would I support such legislation? No. Would I restrict their right to lobby for such a law? No way.
I have to disagree. In this country, the majority of people's morals are based on Christianity and other religions. This is a violation of something that is (supposed to be) fundamental to our country: freedom of religion. People who do not agree with others' moral shouldn't be forced to accept them ,like they are now.
Allow me to quote the 1st Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
OK, where does it say:
*** You can't restrict nude dancing.
*** The Ten Commandments are evil.
*** Horror of horrors! There's a cross at the AFA chapel!
The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. If you don't like it, too bad. Move to Cuba.
Neo - your fallacies are many.
"I'm sure you'd recoil if a man stood in Wal-Mart preaching about how homosexuality is wrong. In fact, someone would likely try to have him escorted out of the store. Why? Because his views are offensive to the minority. Would you support this?"
You're sure? How do you know? In fact, I'd have no problem with it. If Wal-mart booted him, I'd have no problem with it either. It's Walmart's property, and they have the right to decide who says what on their grounds.
As to majority rule, one can also call it mob rule. Just because a majority likes something, doesn't make it right. You are true, we are a democratic republic, but the Constitution has checks and balances to avoid mob rule/majority rule.
My original post was chuckling at watching conservatives use and expand the government to regulate behavior. Old-school conservatives would mock such efforts.
If you truly want to end such behavior, then shame it. Don't regulate against it.
but the Constitution has checks and balances to avoid mob rule/majority rule.
No, Constitutional checks and balances are in place to keep oligarchy (rule of a few) from happening. Checks and balances keep one branch of the federal government from becoming too strong.
This is a republic. The common people are REPRESENTED by elected officials, thus stopping any possibility for "mob rule".
If you don't like it, too bad. Move to France. (I think I'll make that my siggy).
Post a Comment
<< Home