It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Texas House Committee Approves Ban on Suggestive Cheerleading, Drill Teams and Dance Squads

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Truth_Hunter_1976
THE ACLU will be all over this like Flies on Shyte..........I mean I agree Cheerleaders should not be acting like Strippers when the do thir Routines but not Defineing the problem MAKES EVERYTHING a problem.....What is suggestive and what is not....I agree This is a STUPID LAW and I am a registered REPUBLICAN


But how do you define something like that? Do you say "No simulated mounting" and "No simulated digital stimulation"?? C'mon, that's not going to work. What they should do is give warnings to school officials and then fire their arse if the problem isn't fixed. They need to let the school officials use common sense and make them responsible.

Peace




posted on May, 4 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Well, I see it like this. I dont want some old man lookin at MY daughter on a stage gyrating her hips against another girl. If my daughter grows up to be a stripper, then so be it. But not while shes a minor in MY house.

They wanna cheer, let em cheer, but its not going to turn into a soft core porn show to appease other old man freaks out there.

I doubt there are any laws concerning this at all. There might be some old antismut law or something, but its all open to interpretation. I'd rather them make a new that forbids it during school functions. The teen boys and old men can use their puters for porn, not my kids football game.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep

I'm going to go, get down on my knees and thank God my child was a boy. I doubt my old ticker could take the threats against young women these days.

To you parents of females at or nearing their teens, my heart goes out to you.


No.........you are wrong I will never change my daughter for a son and I have both.

Its all at home, the teachings the responsibilities and morals start at home, it worked for me and it will work with any parent that chose to run the house instead of allowing their children to run their lives.

It all starts at home, I know I been there and I came with a success story.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   


THE ACLU will be all over this like Flies on Shyte



The American Civil Liberties Union said the measure was unnecessary because state law already prohibits public lewdness by students on or near a school campus.


apnews.myway.com...


[edit on 4-5-2005 by Truth_Hunter_1976]



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020

Perhaps if any of you had a 15 year old daughter you'd understand.
Again, argue it all you want, untill you see YOUR daughter up there doing it, you wnt understand. Way to go Texas!!!!


I have a teenage son and beleive me I get disgusted looking at what the girls wear to high school and to the mall. If that were my daughter I wouldn't let her out of the house dressed like a lil skank. Most kids are outta shape anyway nowdays. All you see is cropped tops, hip huggers and those stupid panty straps with a slab of fat bulding from their backs and tummies. If they don't want old men and boys oogling all over them they need to get some common sense and cover the heck up. When we are at the mall its those same lil hussies all flirting and batting their eyes at my son.

Shame on the parents who let those lil tramps go to school dressed like that. Shame on the parents who let them hump the air and act suggestive in cheerleading routines.

Put the blame where it belongs.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   
I see a problem with the supporters...

They've forgotten that they never had to let their daughters gyrate. If it offends you, forbid it.

The state doesn't have to set laws for parents to see results. Parents still control the extra-curricular activities their children participate in.

If you don't want your kids going out for the squad, don't let them. If you don't care, then don't.

This is just another insertion of the legislature into our private lives. If the school doesn't like provocative dancing, they can ban it under current law, by simply removing the option to cheer from the curriculum. They can instruct coaches to enforce strict morality guidelines when coming up with routines. The parents can advocate more responsible routines.

This law is unnecessary, and presumptious. If I'm at all bothered by cheerleading (which I am, but for different reasons, then I don't have to watch, I don't have to support it, and I don't have to let my kids go out for the team), there are options besides ambiguous legislation.

I propose a solution. Everything south of the Mason Dixon line shall henceforth be known as Big Daddy Land. All those who wish to submit to an over-arching moral authority, move there. All those who are secure in their adulthood, come north.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   
WyrdeOne

That's kind of unfair to a girl that wants to be a cheerleader, but doesn't want to be a supa-skank at the same time. The school officials should allow them the opportunity to cheer using routines that are at least somewhat decent. You can have it both ways.

Peace


[edit on 4-5-2005 by Dr Love]



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Why do so many people want more and more government in our lives? Geez, people wants laws for everything! Don't like cheer leading, don't do it. Don't like watching, close your eyes. Quit dragging government into our lives! It's like we have a bunch of conservative right-wing socialists running around in the US! Christian commies!



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
I said:


If the school doesn't like provocative dancing, they can ban it under current law, by simply removing the option to cheer from the curriculum.They can instruct coaches to enforce strict morality guidelines when coming up with routines. The parents can advocate more responsible routines.


(bold added for emphasis)

So yeah, you can have it both ways, and I understand that.

One option is to take cheerleading off the agenda. Another option is to simply use some common sense at the school district/parent-teacher level to put a stop to overtly sexual routines. Either one works fine.

And yes, society is out of control in regards to kids and sex. I wrote a story once about a man driving to work, and he passed by Hooker row. A gaggle of school children were on their way to class, and the man had a hard time discerning who was a hooker and who was a student.

I see it every day, and it never ceases to amaze me. Thigh high leather boots on a 5 year old girl. Mini-skirts in the childrens section of the clothing store. Halter tops with 'Bitch' written in pink sparkly glitter, sized for 3rd graders.



There's an obvious problem, but it's not something the state can fix. Only the parents can fix it, and it's about time they do so. They ought to kill the television, buy sensible clothes for their children, and instruct them in the art of decency.

It's not too late to make the nanny state irrelevant people.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Re: Did Rant Jump the Gun?

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

The article she/he quotes says that this bill "cleared a subcommittee," which is a long way from "clearing the house."

Every year, there are about 5 - 8 k pieces of legislation that clear committees and never have any other action taken . . . .


She/he just changed the title again.


At 4am going from just cable news it was "Texas Bans Suggestive Cheerleading" then "Texas House...going to Senate" but as the article states now it's a unanimously supported piece of proposed legislation (I linked directly to) that's made it out of committee and currently expected to pass in full chambers as a "no brainer." It's supposed to have bi-partisan support. Or did as of this morning. We shall see.

I've also found that waiting until after new laws pass before complaining about them seems to be rather unproductive.


Thanks to Truth_Hunter too for finding the ACLU weigh in.


Though alot of us disagree on the emotional issues this knee jerk legislation is designed to play into, I think most of us also see it's an unneccessary, ambiguous and superfolous measure at best.

[edit on 4-5-2005 by RANT]



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by clearmind
once again it is the govt getting involved where the govt doesn't belong. the tend of the current interpretation of govt seems to be 'we the politicians know what's best for you, it's for your own good you know.' and as sheople sit back and say..'oh, this is a good thing. i don't want my kid dancing 'suggestively'..wait my kid isn't in a dance squad. well, i don't want my kid watching that anyway..wait, my kid doesn't go to games..well, i just think it is a good thing to ban, 'cause it my cause my head to explode if i watched it....agian'

the point is not wheather there may or may not be a 'suggestive' move performed by a high school dance line, the point is that a govt entity is making or trying to make laws that are outside of the scope of govt. if the TX legislature follows the same thinking, why should they not begin to bann shorts in high school, or girls wareing those skimmpy tanktops or spagetii strap tops or tight jeans or push up bras, or 2 peice bathing suites or low cut tops......they're children for gods sake!!!! save the children!!! it always seems to be about the women...i geuss men are not able to control themselves or more likely it is the legislators who can't control themselves


if something is or has become a problem, our govt does not trust the population to make a choice of any type...they will do it for you. ( i would asumme that 'suggestive' high school dance teams and cheerleaders must be a huge problem ..you know, since the STATE GOVT got invovled. i wonder what they had to put on the back burnner while they debated how they wanted to save the sinning children and those that watch them.)
AMERIKA is becoming a country where the govt controls all aspects of life, both personal and business. that is half the definition of 'totalitarian'....

but, what can be done. the sheople don't care and the people are too few.....


Whether anyone agrees with the law or not doesn't matter. The fact is, the state government has EVERY right to do this. You're forgetting something. Those high schools...they're publicly funded and under the administration of the Texas state board of education (which itself is an arm of the Texas state government). They have the right and authority to regulate any and every activity that occurs within those publicly funded high schools.



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
Whether anyone agrees with the law or not doesn't matter. The fact is, the state government has EVERY right to do this. You're forgetting something. Those high schools...they're publicly funded and under the administration of the Texas state board of education (which itself is an arm of the Texas state government). They have the right and authority to regulate any and every activity that occurs within those publicly funded high schools.


While true that laws are just that... legal (Hitler never broke one). And even forming an Itty Bitty Titty Inspector Committee may be your "RIGHT" if you've got the title of Representative (though I shudder to think we're now defending the "rights" of government to infringe upon on our own), the totally ambiguous nature of this bill which includes punitively withholding that funding from whatever schools are arbitrarily deemed "suggestive" stinks.

Is it so hard to imagine a "Booty Shaking" ban will be unfairly enforced on some disctricts more than others?



posted on May, 4 2005 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Al Edwards, Democrat, wrote this bill "after seeing teenage cheerleaders gyrating at football games in his district."

He's gone on to claim "booty shaking" as he calls it, promotes AIDs, pregnancy, violence and gangs.


I love when politicans just make crap up.

In the past 20 years, no one can argue with the fact that teens have been exposed to more "dirty" dancing and half-naked celebrities, a la Christina, Britney, Paris Hilton, Eve, L'il Kim, all the eye candy in the background of every music video, and of course, Janet Jackson's boob.

To emulate their favorite celeb, girls have started dressing more provocatively--and at younger ages. When I was in high school in the mid-80's, we weren't allowed to wear tank tops or short skirts (but tight jeans were de riguer. My mom had to wear skirts down to her ankles in the fifties, but that didn't stop her from wearing tight sweaters. Guess it didn't matter as long as we were covered...) These days, I see girls on their way to school wearing outfits that would make the pre-op Trannies on the West Side highway blush.

And clearly, exposure to movies and music videos has had an impact on dancing. It started with Jennifer Beals in Flashdance and the trend now is moving towards something akin to the Pussycat Dolls (remember the furor over "the Freak" a few years ago?) I've even seen teenage girls taking the strip-aerobics class at the Equinox in my neighborhood (not that I've been in there myself... ahem)

With all this looking and moving like whores, you would expect that girls would be behaving like whores, right?

Well, not so fast.

According to the latest CDC studies, since 1991:

* the percentage of high school students that have had sexual intercourse has decreased;

* fewer high school students are engaging in behaviors that will result in STDs and pregnancy;

* the number of high school students who have had sex with more than one person has decreased.

www.cdc.gov...

Sure, some teens are still "doin' it", but with the massive increase in sexuality that kids have been exposed to since the advent of cable television and saline breast implants, shouldn't they be having way more sex--as in reaching Sodom and Gomorrah proportions?

What is also interesting about these stats is that in the 70's, when TV was still "clean", girls didn't walk around with plumber's butt, and cheerleading was still something that didn't require a stripper's pole nor the involvement of one's pelvis, a greater percentage of teenage girls were having sex and getting pregnant than they are now.

Not that I am an advocate of adolescents dressing up like prostitutes, but even though they may be watching more suggestive behavior on MTV--and dressing and dancing like their favorite half-naked celebs, it seems as if they are certainly not engaging in behavior that promotes pregnancy and AIDS because of it. The number of girls in high school having sex has been decreasing since the late 80's (way before abstinance education was on the radar screen, too... curious.)

So Mr. Edwards, just because a girl dances around in her underwear, it doesn't make her Madonna.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043


No.........you are wrong I will never change my daughter for a son and I have both.

Its all at home, the teachings the responsibilities and morals start at home, it worked for me and it will work with any parent that chose to run the house instead of allowing their children to run their lives.

It all starts at home, I know I been there and I came with a success story.



Uh, Marg, that was actually meant as a compliment to you and the other parents of teen girls. You might want to read carefully before going off and getting offended. My hat is off to you for the great job you have done. Like I said, I doubt I could withstand the thought of what threatens our youth in this day and age especially young ladies.

You know, we try and try to equalize the sexes and I think we should. I don't think my gender makes me any better nor any worse than any other human being. But, to have the progress made be reversed by people that take young girls, dress them provocatively and send them out to humiliate themseleves sexually in front of crowds men some of whom are embarrassed and some of whom are aroused is something our school boards need to think about when they hire coaches.


Lets look at who wins regional cheerleading competitons, shall we since it was brought up that the old bump and grind wins routines. What college team wins nationals every year? Why, the University of Kentucky (Go Cats!) and do they simulate sexual intercourse or wear revealing outfits? No, absolutly not. In fact, their uniforms are among the most conservative in the NCAA division. Their routines are amazing and professional. Not once have I ever seen them simulate sexual intercourse in a routine. How could it be they take national championships every year?

So, now that we have established that it doesn't take sexual simulation to win competitions nor support a sports program, why then would any coach ever feel the need to work such a thing into an atheletic routine? Hmm.


One of you made the comment, "Don;t want to do it, don't join the squad" or something like that. I would say just the opposite. Realize that these young girls are athletes and not harlots and they deserve to be treated as such. If you want an erotic show, go to Vegas.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
AC I think your words are wise, but I wouldn't go so far as to say anyone is supporting "sexual simulation" or wouldn't be shocked or outraged if that were to occur as part of a HS routine.

Again that (by my reading) is covered and already illegal.


The American Civil Liberties Union said the measure was unnecessary because state law already prohibits public lewdness by students on or near a school campus.


It's the ambiguous nature of government decided "sexual suggestiveness" that bothers me.

We're all against sexual explicitness (which would include simulation) and it's already illegal. But "suggestiveness" is just too ambiguous a law IMO. Not that you support the law, but I'm just clarifying my position regarding previously mentioned cheer competitions.

There's pretty much only two sides to this coin: explicit or suggestive. Can't ban both. And it's morbidly cynical to think there's no inherent sexuality (if not outright sexism) to cheerleading. It may be a sex free zone, but it's not a sexuality free zone. Sexuality is healthy IMO. Shame over it is not.

But again, we're talking about what a bunch of beaurocrats find "suggestive" and I don't trust them with that anymore than I would my daughter (if I had one).

It may seem rather silly to argue over the semantics of the thing but that's the heart of the matter when it comes to legal code. And my contention is that what the spirit of this law entials is already banned. Representative Edwards by his own admission just doesn't like "gyrating." Banning that is too far. If "gyrating" is too suggestive, then you might as well ban dance IMO.

And heaven forbid that legislator ever attend a child's gymnastics exhibition. That's as close to "explicit simulation" as you can get without props. BUT we never think of gymnastics that way and the healthy among us probably don't find it even "suggestive" in nature.

I bet that has to do with the music and atmosphere more than anything. That and the eye of the beholder.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by RANT]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
He's gone on to claim "booty shaking" as he calls it, promotes AIDs, pregnancy, violence and gangs.

Uh oh!

You know what sound those things make!

The Simple fact is that dance is, has always, and will continue to be sexual by nature, no other way to look at it. Not as if sexually 'suggestive' dancing is a new epidemic like 'terrorism'.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep

Uh, Marg, that was actually meant as a compliment to you and the other parents of teen girls. You might want to read carefully before going off and getting offended. My hat is off to you for the great job you have done. Like I said, I doubt I could withstand the thought of what threatens our youth in this day and age especially young ladies.



Oh, no I am not offended at all, I don't get offended easily.


Young girls are always vulnerable, and even as young women they still vulnerable.

All we can do is prepare them for life and to be able to identify danger before it happens.

Between my son and my daughter I had to said that I will never give one for the other.

But with girls the we tend to worry more, but actually boys are the ones that have the hardest teen age years.

I find myself worrying more about my son than my daughter, even when I prepared him to use his conscience, logic and reason to deal with situations that he doesn't feel comfortable with.

It worked with my daughter and is working fine with my son.

Thanks for the compliment.



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 04:03 PM
link   
As a teenage girl myself, this law seems too rediculous. It makes a tingle of hot anger run down my spine evey time I hear an old person complaining about dance moves! I bet ya'll loved Elvis and his perfect body shaking his boody away on the dance floor.

Another thing, why do politicians look at stupid movies like Bring It On (a stupid cheerleader movie) and think this applies to the whole world?

JUST BECAUSE STUPID MOVIES SHOW CHEERLEADERS TO BE NASTY WHORES AND TOTAL #$%^&@* DOESNT MEAN ALL OF THEM ARE LIKE THAT!!!!! The cheerleaders at my school are far from any of that! In fact they are in perfect shape and can do amazing moves that 90% of the rest of the world cannot do. shame shame shame...

One last reason why this law sucks is because Texas has some of the world's most amazing cheerleaders ever. I watch their competitions on television....



posted on May, 6 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
I am very consevative religiously of course.

Problem with most evangelicals is they try to shelter the public from offensive stuff. The majority wants this stuff. We need to just turn off the TV/radio/internet and head for the woods. My values our not most Americans. I except that and pay a shizen load on private tuition to keep my children from "Hollywood" values.

Girls want to booty dance so what, they probably do daisy chains as well if my daughter tells me correctly.



posted on May, 7 2005 @ 01:54 AM
link   
These guys are mad!! :O first they hate gays now they hate sexy women getting their freak on?!?!?!?! what the hell do they like, aliens??


It's good goin to a footy game and being entertained by the cheerleaders, who doesnt like going to see a panthers (or if you are an american, packers or cowboys or something) game and watch the cheerleaders perform? :S I certainly do!


Now if it is in high school, once again I dont see the really big deal, its not as if they're wearing nothing under the skirts, they usually wear 'bloomers' or whatever you americans call them. I dont wanna ban the latest perfomance by baryshnakov and all his ladies doin swan lake just coz i can see her underpants?


Sometimes i wonder whatever happened to people's maturity instead of enjoying the show they just go 'i can see her underpants!' or something, its ridiculous.

Would it make you all happy if these chicks didnt wear skirts and they all wore Adidas Tracksuits??? lets not stop at that, those alluring smiles and nice hair is pretty sexual too, lets give them motorcycle helmets as well. Now everyone will be happy


[edit on 7-5-2005 by drfunk]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join