Texans Tackle the Tough Issues

[Pure]

http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=3302698&nav=0s3dZTUl


05/04/05 - 9:02 pm
Cheerleading Bill Passes House


What do you consider sexually suggestive? The bill to ban dirty dancing by Texas high school cheerleaders and dance teams passed the Texas House Wednesday evening, but the controversy continues.

The sponsor still needs to get someone to help carry it through the Texas Senate.

That bill passed on its third and final reading Wednesday night with little fanfare.

There's still the controversy of whether the state's trying to become the moral thought police.

It took just minutes on Wednesday evening to pass Representative Al Edwards' bill on its final reading.

What was absent was the floor debate in which one lawmaker at one point this week called the bill an insult to the people of Texas and the Legislature.

"And we are spending our time on somebody... two, three, four, we can't shake it anymore," State Rep. Senfronia Thompson, D-Houston, said on Tuesday.

The bill would ban public school dance, drill, or cheerleading teams that perform in "overtly sexually suggestive" ways.

The author says it shows lawmakers are telling children, we've got your back.

"And too many things have happened that's not good for them. They're getting pregnant too early. They're going to jail too young. They're dropping out of school too often," Edwards said.

The bill doesn't define what sexually suggestive means. And that, some lawmakers say, is one of the bills several flaws.

"It says any performance. Are we going to start deciding 'Hamlet' or 'Romeo and Juliet' or any of those things are overtly sexually suggestive," State Rep. Rene Oliveira, D-Brownsville said on Tuesday.

"We stop football players when they run touchdowns from taunting," Edwards said. "But yet we applaud our girls for being out in the fields for being inappropriate as far as their dance movements are concerned."

Now that the bill's passed the House Wednesday night, it's next stop is the Senate.

Only problem there is, there's no Senate sponsor for this bill at this time.

Edwards says he's talking to senators trying to find the right person who's not afraid to speak out because it'll be as difficult in the Senate as it was in the House.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Wow, and I thought the Kansas School board baning evolution, again, was bad.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

The author says it shows lawmakers are telling children, we've got your back.

"And too many things have happened that's not good for them. They're getting pregnant too early. They're going to jail too young. They're dropping out of school too often," Edwards said.

Does this bit sound a little too close to the logic behind:

"Hey, she was asking for it. You seen how she dresses."

Ah, good to finally see what they mean by "good ol' fashioned values". Men are banging whores because you trollops bear your eyes in sultry manners through the burqas.

God, I hate my sex so fucking much.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Tough call for me, actually. On the one hand, I do think that government intrusion into the sport of cheerleading is a bizarre concept that smacks of people having too much time on their hands. On the other hand, I believe that the intense sexualization of children is a serious problem that distorts our social fabric in very ugly ways. I'd argue that this is one of those cases where the government looks like an ass intruding, but we'd do well to recognize that it's intruding largely because everyone else involved - the parents and persons supposedly guiding these children - has already also behaved like an ass. Someone recently posted a wonderful quotation, I think from Jefferson, that summed it up nicely; a rough paraphrase is, "There's no incitement to tyranny like liberty abused to the point of licentiousness." If responsibility does not become part of our discourse of liberty, we ask for those liberties to be removed.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

Does this bit sound a little too close to the logic behind:

"Hey, she was asking for it. You seen how she dresses."

Ah, good to finally see what they mean by "good ol' fashioned values". Men are banging whores because you trollops bear your eyes in sultry manners through the burqas.

God, I hate my sex so fucking much.

Or, alternatively, "Perhaps we should stop officially encouraging young girls to make sexual spectacles of themselves as their primary attention-seeking behavior. It's just possible that that might have some negative consequences."

 

[silverwhisper]

what i find really laughable, it bans "overtly sexually suggestive" dancing. b/c heaven knows that dancing has never been overtly sexual in the history of humanity, right?

dumbasses.

ed

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Tough call for me, actually. On the one hand, I do think that government intrusion into the sport of cheerleading is a bizarre concept that smacks of people having too much time on their hands. On the other hand, I believe that the intense sexualization of children is a serious problem that distorts our social fabric in very ugly ways. I'd argue that this is one of those cases where the government looks like an ass intruding, but we'd do well to recognize that it's intruding largely because everyone else involved - the parents and persons supposedly guiding these children - has already also behaved like an ass. Someone recently posted a wonderful quotation, I think from Jefferson, that summed it up nicely; a rough paraphrase is, "There's no incitement to tyranny like liberty abused to the point of licentiousness." If responsibility does not become part of our discourse of liberty, we ask for those liberties to be removed.

Shanglan

Beautifully stated, Shang. I'm on the fence on this one, mostly because, while I hate to see behavior that can be seen as somewhat innocent be vilated by governing officials, there are too many threats to these kids and no one bothering to protect them, when it's at all possible, as often as not.

Does this bit sound a little too close to the logic behind:

"Hey, she was asking for it. You seen how she dresses."

Ah, good to finally see what they mean by "good ol' fashioned values". Men are banging whores because you trollops bear your eyes in sultry manners through the burqas.

God, I hate my sex so fucking much.

You lost me Lucifer. Where the hell did this come from?

Q_C

 

[R. Richard]

I do not support the ban or the idea behind it. However, you have to understand the culture of many small Texas towns.

On Friday night during the football season, almost every citizen of a small Texas town and their families will turn out to watch the local high school football team face their hated rivals (all of their rivals are hated rivals here). Watching the team is not just a male past time, it is a family affair and there is some room for reasonable concern about the young children.

You also have to understand that there are two main sports in Texas. There is football number one and Spring football number two.

If you really want to get upset about Texas high school football, consider the case of the young men in the community. If you are a high school boy living in a small Texas town you don't have to play on the football team. At least you don't have to play if you don't mind the fact that nobody will talk to you and guys are always picking fights with you. There are guys whi enlist and guys who are drafted, but everybody able bodied serves. It is more like a religion than a sport.

I been there.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

what i find really laughable, it bans "overtly sexually suggestive" dancing. b/c heaven knows that dancing has never been overtly sexual in the history of humanity, right?

dumbasses.

ed

It actually bans it in accordance with certain things, not dancing altogether. It's controlling what goes on in schools, not what goes on in people's homes or at parties or clubs, etc. These are publicly sanctioned events, not privately held ones. It changes everything.

It makes allowing them sanctioned by the state, regardless of the fact that these girls are being represented as "objects." They're underage girls. Like Shang said:

Or, alternatively, "Perhaps we should stop officially encouraging young girls to make sexual spectacles of themselves as their primary attention-seeking behavior. It's just possible that that might have some negative consequences."

Q_C

 

[Liar]

So, who's gonna monitor all high school cheerleaders' moves and bestow approval labels upon them?

I volunteer for the position. Bribes could get interresting.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Or, alternatively, "Perhaps we should stop officially encouraging young girls to make sexual spectacles of themselves as their primary attention-seeking behavior. It's just possible that that might have some negative consequences."

Where exactly does it end Shang?

That's my problem. Where exactly does the governments ability to legislate moral conduct end?

Does it end by taking my reporductive freedom away? Or does it end when my sexual orientation is banned? Or does it end when they ban any books I might read that don't contain their interpretation of the right moral message? Does it go even further than my healthcare decision or bedroom activities and reading? When do we as a society draw the line and tell these pompous asses to keep their nose out of our fucking bussiness?

Or even our non fucking bussiness

Really, when you see legislators trying to manipulate and control the morals of their consituency, rather than doing all they can to protect the rights of the individuals that make up that constituency, you have to pause.

I would not have nearly as much problem with the legislation proposed, if there were not the fallicitous linkage of social problems to it. If teen pregnancy is a problem, perhaps a realistic sex ed program would be more meaningful than banning hip grinding at cheerleader practice? If you are worried about them being jailed at a young age, perhaps properly funding and regulating afterschool activities might make more of an impression than making sure the cheerleaders aren't shaking their chests during a routine? If they are dropping out of school, perhaps funding the schools properly and instituting a minimum requirement for literacy and knowledge among teachers might help more than making sure no one see's Hannah Hurrah's bloomers?

Dealing with the root problems, rather than legislating a moral code that is at best subject to interpretation and is at worst oppression seems not to be too much to ask of those we elect to represent us.

I don't want anyone's morality imposed upon me by legislative fiat. I absolutely refuse to swallow the line that you can cure deep seated and complex social problems by legislating that people act in a moral way. At the end of the day, what you consider moral I may not and vice versa, but we can both agree that something needs to be done to curb teen pregnancy. It seems to me linking that social ill to your program of moral reform legislation is at best deceptive and at worst out and out sophistry.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Or, alternatively, "Perhaps we should stop officially encouraging young girls to make sexual spectacles of themselves as their primary attention-seeking behavior. It's just possible that that might have some negative consequences."

I was referring to the quote specifically where it basically blames "girls being sexy dancers" as if not solely, primarily responsible for the problems of teen pregnancies and STDs when history has shown again and again, these things are often driven by certain beliefs of young male society where not only is the pursuit of a woman's violation sacrosanct, but that one is to do so without a condom because male pleasure is what is most key in a sexual act. Specifically, temporary male pleasure with the absence of all the things that make sex more than just a base act done by rutting dogs in heat.

The sex-object cult of the female in high school, middle school, and college is an entirely separate debate and one not merely bound by cheerleading and dance troupes but rather the philosophy of the alpha male propogated into the whole social hierarchy of current youth culture. On that debate, this law would be a "fighting the effect not the cause" law and one which reinforces the stereotypes and older more misogynist ones at the same time.

But yeah, my main rant was in response to the quote itself and its blaming of "the sexual wiles of women" for problems that are statistically pretty heavily the fault of men and their attitudes towards sex.

 

[sophia jane]

I'm with those who have said already that it's not really the government's place to decide.

That said- have any of you been to a dance competition or recital lately? Have you seen the kind of dances that young girls are doing? I'm talking 7,8, and 9 year olds shaking their asses at the judges and doing bump and grind moves. This kind of stuff bothers me, especially since I have a daughter.

But the point here is that a law like this really does open up a can of worms. First is the issue of how to decide what is sexually indecent or whatever (something which is way too open to interpretation). Then is the problem of what's next. Do they start changing the dress code too? Do they start censoring the music used for performances? Why stop there? Shouldn't they then go in and decide that the drama club shouldn't put on a certain production because of sexual references?

I'm with Colleen- there is way too little attention being given to the importance and rights of the individual.

SJ

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

You lost me Lucifer. Where the hell did this come from?

Q_C

The quote which in context is a play on the misogynist tradition of blaming the "sexual wileness" of the fairer sex for the poor, holy men's lustful impulses.

Hey, the dumb alpha male fuckers are going to try and sleep with as many women as they can, resist the condom (because it cuts off some pleasure and besides "real men know how to pull out"), and push harder and faster for sex for sex's sake regardless of whether a cheerleader flashes a bloomer (gym shorts cut similarly to panties, i use the japanese term here) or not.

The road of the "provocation prevention" method to combating the stupid excesses of lust has always the same ending. The same basic root behind it. The same reasoning behind it. The rapist saying he ain't guilty because "hey, she was asking for it, dressing all provocadly." It's blaming the victim for crimes of one's inability to sanely lust. It ain't fucking difficult to do a condom, to be safe, to be non-promiscuous and it has nothing to do with whether women dress or dance sexy in a public non-intimate forum.

That was where I came from.

 

[neonlyte]

Great post Luc.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Where exactly does it end Shang?

I recognize the universal fear of the slippery slope. Yes, we worry that by allowing any sort of government legislation of morality, we allow all possible ramifications. I can only say to this that (1) people of good will and character can take a step and not the next one and (2) that the argument works just as well in the other direction. That is, if we reject government intrusion into the individual life as inherently vicious, then we have to legalize drug use, and drug distribution, and incest, and bestiality, and cannibalizing one's own babies. My point here is that while it is always prudent to consider the potential ramifications and precendent-setting significance of an action, it's also possible to paralyze oneself and refuse to take a simple, useful, and harmless action for fear that one is about to pull the single thread holding the entire world together. All actions have the potential to legitmize other, less acceptable actions. This is the nature of human ethics and morality, which are not yes/no, on/off switch areas. We have to have the nerve to take a step knowing that extremists could try to push it too far. Otherwise, we simply stand frozen in horror of the ramifications of our actions and do nothing. I don't find that any better a solution.

Therefore, my answer to this ...

Does it end by taking my reporductive freedom away? Or does it end when my sexual orientation is banned? Or does it end when they ban any books I might read that don't contain their interpretation of the right moral message? Does it go even further than my healthcare decision or bedroom activities and reading? When do we as a society draw the line and tell these pompous asses to keep their nose out of our fucking bussiness?

Fight them when they try to ban them. For most of them, I'll be there fighting with you. But we do ourselves and others no good and considerable harm when we jump and startle at every shadow. To equate an attempt to encourage schools to stop actively teaching young girls to make sex objects out of themselves with attempts to ban books and change Roe vs. Wade causes serious problems in ethos and consistancy. If we fight small measures that have some good in them, we put ourselves into a corner from which we can do very little, and over which it's very easy for others to envision a sign reading "Extremist Who Opposes All Opponents' Measures." Once they've got you in that corner, it's very easy for them to ignore you - even when the really big, significant, and vital issues come up. It's important to take these issues one at a time and seriously weigh the balance of good and danger in each one. Otherwise, if one's reaction is "government regulation is never, ever right," then it's very easy to end up being demonized and ruthlessly over-simplified by the opposition.

Dealing with the root problems, rather than legislating a moral code that is at best subject to interpretation and is at worst oppression seems not to be too much to ask of those we elect to represent us.

On this, I think that we must disagree in root causes. Personally, I can't quite bring myself to believe that teaching girls from an early age to use sexual behavior to seek attention and approval doesn't change their attitudes or behaviors. It strikes me as a good example of basic behavioral conditioning. We reward what we wish to see more of. If we reward sex, why would we assume that we wouldn't see more sex?

I don't want anyone's morality imposed upon me by legislative fiat. I absolutely refuse to swallow the line that you can cure deep seated and complex social problems by legislating that people act in a moral way. At the end of the day, what you consider moral I may not and vice versa, but we can both agree that something needs to be done to curb teen pregnancy. It seems to me linking that social ill to your program of moral reform legislation is at best deceptive and at worst out and out sophistry.

While recognizing your frustration, I query what your definition of morality and moral behavior includes, and what it's leading you to reject. Surely there's nothing particularly sophisticated or unusual in suggesting that one might reduce pregnancy by suggesting that teens try not to have sex? While I'm happy to agree that there are other ideas that would also be good to include, I think it a bit draconian to suggest that in addition to rejecting methods that rely only on conservative religious principles - i.e., "abstinence-only" sex ed - we must now reject any measure that includes them at all. I must confess that I don't forsee a means by which I can be convinced that teaching young children to practice sexual self-discipline and to avoid casual sexual relationships at an early age is an undesirable practice. While it might coincide with conventional morality, it also makes a great deal of practical sense in terms of emotional and personal development, disease transmission, pregnancy, and long-term physical health. I think it very unwise to reject this approach simply because one dislikes the idea of morality as an abstract concept. In this case, what is generally accepted as moral also happens to be an excellent solution to many problems. Why reject it when it's useful?

Shanglan

 

[Quiet_Cool]

The quote which in context is a play on the misogynist tradition of blaming the "sexual wileness" of the fairer sex for the poor, holy men's lustful impulses.

Hey, the dumb alpha male fuckers are going to try and sleep with as many women as they can, resist the condom (because it cuts off some pleasure and besides "real men know how to pull out"), and push harder and faster for sex for sex's sake regardless of whether a cheerleader flashes a bloomer (gym shorts cut similarly to panties, i use the japanese term here) or not.

The road of the "provocation prevention" method to combating the stupid excesses of lust has always the same ending. The same basic root behind it. The same reasoning behind it. The rapist saying he ain't guilty because "hey, she was asking for it, dressing all provocadly." It's blaming the victim for crimes of one's inability to sanely lust. It ain't fucking difficult to do a condom, to be safe, to be non-promiscuous and it has nothing to do with whether women dress or dance sexy in a public non-intimate forum.

That was where I came from.

Except that isn't what's being discussed.

At all.

Not even a little.

The reasoning behind a bill like this (and no, I'm not trying to say that the government should step in, but merely pointing out that the rest of the world hasn't bothered) isn't because the way they are treated is entirely their fault, but let's face it. Britney Spears isn't seen as a sex symbol because she doesn't act like one. She plays the angle of the sex goddess to draw said attention to herself. These girls are being taught the exact same ritual. Does it make the men who lust after her any different, any less responsible for thier actions should they choose to take any? No; not at all. But teaching them to present themselves as objects instead of as individuals is far from healthy. And takes the problem you represented and multiplies it.

Objectionalizing them, then placing them on a platform for others to watch and cheer over, and hold up like trophies, so other female students who aren't as thin or as perky, or as popular to feel worse about themselves over....

How many new problems can that cause? Do you really think Britney and Christina Aguillera (sp?) got where they ar today, at the ages they are, because we didn't glorify this behavior when they were younger. Britney had fake boobs at 16 for chrissakes.

Q_C

 

[BlackShanglan]

The quote which in context is a play on the misogynist tradition of blaming the "sexual wileness" of the fairer sex for the poor, holy men's lustful impulses.

Hey, the dumb alpha male fuckers are going to try and sleep with as many women as they can, resist the condom (because it cuts off some pleasure and besides "real men know how to pull out"), and push harder and faster for sex for sex's sake regardless of whether a cheerleader flashes a bloomer (gym shorts cut similarly to panties, i use the japanese term here) or not.

The road of the "provocation prevention" method to combating the stupid excesses of lust has always the same ending. The same basic root behind it. The same reasoning behind it. The rapist saying he ain't guilty because "hey, she was asking for it, dressing all provocadly." It's blaming the victim for crimes of one's inability to sanely lust. It ain't fucking difficult to do a condom, to be safe, to be non-promiscuous and it has nothing to do with whether women dress or dance sexy in a public non-intimate forum.

That was where I came from.

While understanding your take, I think your distribution of blame a little uneven. While society has a long and charming history of blaming women for all sexual misconduct, I wouldn't like to see us swing too far in the opposite direction. Women must also take responsibility for their sexual behavior; in fact, if we go with your paradigm of thuggish men driving sexual mores largely on their own, we're actually perpetuating a perception of woman as sexually helpless, passive, and receptive. While rape is an ugly crime and must be fought and despised whereever it occurs, I would be surprised if the majority of under-age sexual behavior fell into this category. Given that assumption, the women play an active role in the situation, and must take responsibility for their actions rather than simply complaining that men are brutes.

From that perspective, I think that the law would actually achieve good progress in precisely the area that you identify. The problem with the actions that the legislators in their infiinite wisdom have chosen to debate is that they prepetuate exactly the conditions you describe - conditions in which young girls are objectified and treated primarily as sex objects by young men. While one might like to argue that dress and behavior should not affect how one is perceived sexually, I think it quite unlikely that one could support the idea that it does not. Given that dressing to display secondary sexual characteristics and dancing in such a way as to further display them tends to send the message "Hey, look, sex!", one can hardly be surprised when those watching think "Hey, look, sex!" Encouraging young ladies to find other means by which to attract attention would ideally lead, not to a further entrenchment of sex-object treatment, but a liberation from it. I think that's a goal that deserves some support.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Except that isn't what's being discussed.

At all.

Not even a little.

The reasoning behind a bill like this (and no, I'm not trying to say that the government should step in, but merely pointing out that the rest of the world hasn't bothered) isn't because the way they are treated is entirely their fault, but let's face it. Britney Spears isn't seen as a sex symbol because she doesn't act like one. She plays the angle of the sex goddess to draw said attention to herself. These girls are being taught the exact same ritual. Does it make the men who lust after her any different, any less responsible for thier actions should they choose to take any? No; not at all. But teaching them to present themselves as objects instead of as individuals is far from healthy. And takes the problem you represented and multiplies it.

Objectionalizing them, then placing them on a platform for others to watch and cheer over, and hold up like trophies, so other female students who aren't as thin or as perky, or as popular to feel worse about themselves over....

How many new problems can that cause? Do you really think Britney and Christina Aguillera (sp?) got where they ar today, at the ages they are, because we didn't glorify this behavior when they were younger. Britney had fake boobs at 16 for chrissakes.

Q_C

I addressed that. Shang response part 2.

You asked me to explain what the hell I was babbling about at the beginning.

My initial babbling post was based on the official's stated reason and why it was echoing deep sexism. It was a direct response to the quote in absence of the case in general.

The case in general I responded to in my second and third posts showing how the "sluttiness cult" is just an effect of the modern social society in the lower schools and their fixation on the alpha male paragon (sleeps with all the women, not tied down by love, doesn't compromise on pleasure).

Essentially my initial post was criticizing the official for blaming the sex object for crimes of lust (underage pregnancies, STDs) especially as these crimes stem quite heavily from the alpha male paragon and its resistance to protection. My point was that this was the same reasoning more commonly seen as "Look at the way she dressed, she was totally asking for it".

Perhaps I wasn't clear or perhaps you just don't care. Either is valid.

P.S. I am quite in agreement that the male viewing of women as solely lust-objects and emotionless sex-toys is a heinous crime and something that I am forced often to apologize for on behalf of all the shithead men who are too cowardly to. Still...I believe I have a point that the reason the defender gave was sexist in itself and showed little inclination towards "liberating" women from the sex-object cult.

 

[TheEarl]

Just out of interest, where has everyone got the conviction that this bill is about pre-teens? As far as I can see, the news article that Pure provided mentions no age apart from 'high school', which I would take to mean 14-18 y/o.

I'm fully in support of the bill if it's talking about 6/7/8 y/o shaking their arses at judges, because IMHO kids get too little time being kids as it is. Why try dressing them up in Big Sister's clothing as soon as we can? But there's no age mentioned in that article, which suggests that a lot of this argument may be at cross-purposes.

The Earl

 

[cantdog]

The sponsor of the bill doesn't seem to be arguing about objectification, but about the immorality of sexual display and teen pregnancy. The bill seems to be more like a censorship bill than a legislative attempt to arrest the sexualization of minors.

People high school age are sexualized by nature, anyway. Legislate all you like, a sixteen year old is still sexualized.

 

[angelicminx]

Where exactly does it end Shang?

That's my problem. Where exactly does the governments ability to legislate moral conduct end?

Does it end by taking my reporductive freedom away? Or does it end when my sexual orientation is banned? Or does it end when they ban any books I might read that don't contain their interpretation of the right moral message? Does it go even further than my healthcare decision or bedroom activities and reading? When do we as a society draw the line and tell these pompous asses to keep their nose out of our fucking bussiness?

Or even our non fucking bussiness

Really, when you see legislators trying to manipulate and control the morals of their consituency, rather than doing all they can to protect the rights of the individuals that make up that constituency, you have to pause.

I would not have nearly as much problem with the legislation proposed, if there were not the fallicitous linkage of social problems to it. If teen pregnancy is a problem, perhaps a realistic sex ed program would be more meaningful than banning hip grinding at cheerleader practice? If you are worried about them being jailed at a young age, perhaps properly funding and regulating afterschool activities might make more of an impression than making sure the cheerleaders aren't shaking their chests during a routine? If they are dropping out of school, perhaps funding the schools properly and instituting a minimum requirement for literacy and knowledge among teachers might help more than making sure no one see's Hannah Hurrah's bloomers?

Dealing with the root problems, rather than legislating a moral code that is at best subject to interpretation and is at worst oppression seems not to be too much to ask of those we elect to represent us.

I don't want anyone's morality imposed upon me by legislative fiat. I absolutely refuse to swallow the line that you can cure deep seated and complex social problems by legislating that people act in a moral way. At the end of the day, what you consider moral I may not and vice versa, but we can both agree that something needs to be done to curb teen pregnancy. It seems to me linking that social ill to your program of moral reform legislation is at best deceptive and at worst out and out sophistry.

Well said, Colleen! I agree with you. I don't want my morals dictated by the government, nor do I want my child's dictated. Work on solving the disease at the root, not at the bud.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I addressed that. Shang response part 2.

You asked me to explain what the hell I was babbling about at the beginning.

My initial babbling post was based on the official's stated reason and why it was echoing deep sexism. It was a direct response to the quote in absence of the case in general.

The case in general I responded to in my second and third posts showing how the "sluttiness cult" is just an effect of the modern social society in the lower schools and their fixation on the alpha male paragon (sleeps with all the women, not tied down by love, doesn't compromise on pleasure).

Essentially my initial post was criticizing the official for blaming the sex object for crimes of lust (underage pregnancies, STDs) especially as these crimes stem quite heavily from the alpha male paragon and its resistance to protection. My point was that this was the same reasoning more commonly seen as "Look at the way she dressed, she was totally asking for it".

Perhaps I wasn't clear or perhaps you just don't care. Either is valid.

P.S. I am quite in agreement that the male viewing of women as solely lust-objects and emotionless sex-toys is a heinous crime and something that I am forced often to apologize for on behalf of all the shithead men who are too cowardly to. Still...I believe I have a point that the reason the defender gave was sexist in itself and showed little inclination towards "liberating" women from the sex-object cult.

If I didn't care I wouldn't have responded, and while I hear your agruments, like Shang pointed out, what you're saying seems to be more one-sided than it is actually useful. Yes, many men (not all of us) are too busy pursuing, but nowadays, women aren't much different. It's part of those various and fairly confused "sexual revolutions" everyone seems to think are constantly taking place. If I'm out and a girl walks past me in tight jeans sporting a nice ass, I look (sometimes even stare). If she's with a guy who's equally blessed and I'm with a girl, chances are, we'll both look (or both stare). Everyone's an object. Problem is, we're teaching it to young women, glorifying it.

Basically, the issue here overall, that one issue that needs to be addressed above all other, IMO, is that, while the government might not have the place to step in, again, why haven't the rest of us? We're supposed to be a society, a culture, and here everyone is, always minding thier own business, when what is going on is their business. It affects out entire society, and makes the issue you've illustrated much worse.

Oh, and this part:

http://www.kxan.com/Global/story.asp?S=3302698&nav=0s3dZTUl


05/04/05 - 9:02 pm
Cheerleading Bill Passes House



The bill would ban public school dance, drill, or cheerleading teams that perform in "overtly sexually suggestive" ways.

The author says it shows lawmakers are telling children, we've got your back.

"And too many things have happened that's not good for them. They're getting pregnant too early. They're going to jail too young. They're dropping out of school too often," Edwards said.

The bill doesn't define what sexually suggestive means. And that, some lawmakers say, is one of the bills several flaws.

I'm guessing you mean here, Luc. But the thing is, it doesn't say that what's being banned is the cause; it simply states that youths are already dealing with these issues, and that they feel the ban will keep another issue from accourring, or help to deal with another issue. An actual link, nonetheless blame, doesn't seem to be apparent.

Q_C

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

While understanding your take, I think your distribution of blame a little uneven. While society has a long and charming history of blaming women for all sexual misconduct, I wouldn't like to see us swing too far in the opposite direction. Women must also take responsibility for their sexual behavior; in fact, if we go with your paradigm of thuggish men driving sexual mores largely on their own, we're actually perpetuating a perception of woman as sexually helpless, passive, and receptive. While rape is an ugly crime and must be fought and despised whereever it occurs, I would be surprised if the majority of under-age sexual behavior fell into this category. Given that assumption, the women play an active role in the situation, and must take responsibility for their actions rather than simply complaining that men are brutes.

From that perspective, I think that the law would actually achieve good progress in precisely the area that you identify. The problem with the actions that the legislators in their infiinite wisdom have chosen to debate is that they prepetuate exactly the conditions you describe - conditions in which young girls are objectified and treated primarily as sex objects by young men. While one might like to argue that dress and behavior should not affect how one is perceived sexually, I think it quite unlikely that one could support the idea that it does not. Given that dressing to display secondary sexual characteristics and dancing in such a way as to further display them tends to send the message "Hey, look, sex!", one can hardly be surprised when those watching think "Hey, look, sex!" Encouraging young ladies to find other means by which to attract attention would ideally lead, not to a further entrenchment of sex-object treatment, but a liberation from it. I think that's a goal that deserves some support.

Yes, I admit that my views have with time passed long beyond the egalitarian standard that most strive to set in stone. It is not so much a belief that women are helpless so much as the fact that most men are evil. Now, I use this word in the...ah fuck it, I say it at face value. Hearing most of the shit-stained conversations that arise when its just the fellas, seeing what goes through the head of the common man who isn't an outcast, who's one of the "in-crowd", one would find that an intense hatred of men wasn't sexist but rather a cautious underestimation. To a great majority, men are the ones in younger sex pushing most heavily for sexual intercourse, unsafe sexual intercourse, exploratory and violent sex (face fuck, donkey punch, dirty sanchez), and for promiscuous "sex for sex's sake" (masturbation with other people's naughty parts). I won't deny that there are women who buck this trend, but far and large women are the most frequent victims of it.

I agree that women shouldn't give in to the cult of male desires, should become their own women, should learn and explore sex in their own fashion. I just don't hold a rose-tinted view on most men's willingness to let women get away with that when their alpha male madness needs feeding with the psyches and bodies of young women.

Call me a sexist pig for stating it so, but nevertheless it needs stating. There's exceptions, but in the majority of cases, the straight female's resistance is set against the straight male's drive and starts them off on a disadvantage and starts the male at a far lower moral position in terms of who deserves the brunt of the blame. Add to that the ill effects of the unions are unfairly given mostly to the woman and egalitarian blame falls apart. At least it does from where I'm standing.


And Q_C, yes, this is a side argument and I realize it has nothing to do with the main argument. It's called responding and I do it when I'm snorting crack off my own anus for the amusement of gay strippers.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Just out of interest, where has everyone got the conviction that this bill is about pre-teens? As far as I can see, the news article that Pure provided mentions no age apart from 'high school', which I would take to mean 14-18 y/o.

I'm fully in support of the bill if it's talking about 6/7/8 y/o shaking their arses at judges, because IMHO kids get too little time being kids as it is. Why try dressing them up in Big Sister's clothing as soon as we can? But there's no age mentioned in that article, which suggests that a lot of this argument may be at cross-purposes.

The Earl

The mentioning of minors came in SJ's post, about teaching the "sport" of cheerleading to younger girls, which will happen, of course. They'll leanr it young, and imitate what the older kids do, even be supported in doing so for the sake of being more prepared for it when they reach the high school age.

Honestly, the law pretty much has to apply to everyone though, doesn't it? Can't really say that being minors by law isn't enough reson for them to be included.

Q_C