Video of girls dancing in lingerie causes internet row

page: 11
16
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaNutter
 





I can not help that when I watch this video it is painfully obvious that these girls are doing what strippers do and you don't want to acknowledge it. I've seen strippers. I saw the video. The only difference is the strippers take it off at the end and they take my money.





You're getting loonier each response.


Am I?

They took your money, so you payed, so you must've liked it? If there's no further difference, did the girls arouse you to?

The difference is that a stripper is an adult woman with sex appeal, wheraes a kid is just a kid, wich has no sex appeal whatsoever, and makes the moves just look funny.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Point of No Return]




posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost

Originally posted by Point of No Return
Yes, and nothing in that definition happened in the dance.

It happened in your head.

That's a good defence

"Officer, my 8 year-old was not reversing the car out of the drive way when the car struck the tree. I know my neighbours told you he was driving, but they are wrong. I am telling you it was me reversing the car. If you think otherwise, it's all in your head!"


In this case the kid was actually seen driving, it's pretty staight forward, again, I didn't see any sexual behavior in the dance. It's a matter of perception, and not as clear as in your (bad, off course) example.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaNutter
 





Your example question is bogus as hell too because its about CONTEXT.


Exactly, that's why I posted my example. Apperently it's the context that matters, wich makes it a subjective thing, so i'm right when i say it's all about perception.

I'm being called a pervert, because I DON"T see anything sexual in it.

People that DO see something sexual in it are apperently the "moral' ones here.

Whatever.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:33 AM
link   
give me a break, it's only dirty in the eye of the beholder. These kids don't see it as dirty, only old and confused pervs are watching this and saying "omg im so confused!"


If this isn't your cup of tea, then don't watch it. But don't confuse your latent pedophilic desires with harmless dancing by kids who do something different from your generation (I know, I know.. when will they bring back square dancing, and those bathingsuits that cover a womans entire body, arms, and legs? My how far we've come..)



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


You've got the right idea.. If you're watching this and thinking "HALP, I'm aroused" then YOU have a problem, not the kids..



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by ImaNutter
 


Am I?


Yup, this one too.


They took your money, so you payed, so you must've liked it? If there's no further difference, did the girls arouse you to?


Of course I liked it. The mature female form is art in itself. The immature female form sends absolutely no signal to my brain or penis however. Sorry.


The difference is that a stripper is an adult woman with sex appeal, wheraes a kid is just a kid, wich has no sex appeal whatsoever, and makes the moves just look funny.


It does look funny for 7 year olds to dance like strippers you're right.

Modern Hip hop dance is not for 7 year olds. Modern hip hop dance is 110% sexual.

I'm sorry you're oblivious to such things like definitions of the words sexual, exploit, and context.

Please don't bother responding... have a good one



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Kaytagg
 





If this isn't your cup of tea, then don't watch it. But don't confuse your latent pedophilic desires with harmless dancing by kids who do something different from your generation (I know, I know.. when will they bring back square dancing, and those bathingsuits that cover a womans entire body, arms, and legs? My how far we've come..)


Bam! Thank you.

The more i think about this, the more its clear who the real disturbed ones are.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 

I'm going to take a wild guess and say you are either in your late teens or early 20's. How do I know? Because a lot of people your age think you are so smart when you really don't know s***.

It's actually pretty humorous.

I mean, what you are suggesting is that mothers the world over are pedophiles because they didn't like the sexually suggestive clothing the little girls were wearing?

Because according to you're flawed logic, if you think their clothing was sexually suggestive that you have to had sexual feelings? You poor thing. You just don't get it, do you.


[edit on 18-5-2010 by harrytuttle]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaNutter
 





Of course I liked it. The mature female form is art in itself. The immature female form sends absolutely no signal to my brain or penis however. Sorry.


You said that there were no further differences.

And why should I take lessons in morality by someone who needs to see and pay strippers?




The immature female form sends absolutely no signal to my brain or penis however. Sorry.


Then what's the problem with the girls dancing?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg
give me a break, it's only dirty in the eye of the beholder. These kids don't see it as dirty, only old and confused pervs are watching this and saying "omg im so confused!"


If this isn't your cup of tea, then don't watch it. But don't confuse your latent pedophilic desires with harmless dancing by kids who do something different from your generation (I know, I know.. when will they bring back square dancing, and those bathingsuits that cover a womans entire body, arms, and legs? My how far we've come..)


Thank you for coming to a thread based on the discussion of a video, and telling everyone not to discuss the video in question.

Are you measuring the moral compass of society based on how few clothes they permit their women to wear?


[edit on 18/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by harrytuttle
 





I'm going to take a wild guess and say you are either in your late teens or early 20's. How do I know?


You don't know, cause you're wrong.

I'm thirty.




Because a lot of people your age think you are so smart when you really don't know s***.


Since you are wrong, it appears you are the one that doesn't know poo.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return

Exactly, that's why I posted my example. Apperently it's the context that matters, wich makes it a subjective thing, so i'm right when i say it's all about perception.


You're bonkers. Context is not subjective.


2. The circumstances in which an event occurs; a setting.


What part of setting is subjective?

It was a dance routine choreagraphed by adults.
It was to a song about Marriage (adult concepts).
It was done in stripper outfits.
They are 7 years old (according to the woman in the video).

These are facts. And they make up the context of the situation.

What they do must be evaluated in the context of the situation.

When evaluating those type of stripper moves by 7 year olds in that context, those girls were sexually exploited.


I'm being called a pervert, because I DON"T see anything sexual in it.

People that DO see something sexual in it are apperently the "moral' ones here.


You need to go back and read my first post in this thread. We're at the point now where I am just going to start repeating myself.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by ImaNutter]



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Are you measuring the moral compass of society based on how few clothes they permit their women to wear?


[edit on 18/5/2010 by Dark Ghost]


Thanks for editing your whole post in order to make that part bold. I find that adorable.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by harrytuttle
 




I'm going to take a wild guess and say you are either in your late teens or early 20's. How do I know?


You don't know, cause you're wrong.

I'm thirty.



Because a lot of people your age think you are so smart when you really don't know s***.


Since you are wrong, it appears you are the one that doesn't know poo.

Well that's actually quite embarrassing for you. You've made it to 30 and you still don't get it? Well, maybe the next 5 years you'll learn. You'll know it when you see it.

You're thirty, really? LOL



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaNutter
 





These are facts. And they make up the context of the situation.


Yes, and all these facts are open to judgment by different people.

Making the context a subjective thing.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaNutter
 


The girls weren't doing anything sexual..

which means that in order for it to be sexual exploitation, somebody ELSE must be doing something sexual to these kids, or using their routine for something sexual..


So it is in the eye of the beholder.

A perv will find ALL children sexually stimulating, regardless of how they're dressed or what they're doing.

You might as well ban highschool cheerleading, aerobics for people



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by harrytuttle
 


Ok, I see, everyone that disagrees with you, hasn't come of age yet, or is not adult enough.

Look, I'm just being honest.

I watched the vid, expecting to be shocked, but I wasn't.

I had no sexual association whatsoever.

I'm just posting it how I see it.

Or should I abandon my own observations and jump on the hysteria bandwagon?



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Point of No Return
 


No offense but we can't have an argument if you can't comprehend English.

Sorry.

Bye.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaNutter
 


Off to the stripclub are we?

Don't spend all your money at once.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by ImaNutter
 


The girls weren't doing anything sexual..


I've spent way more time on this thread then I wanted to already but I will offer a final retort...


sex·u·al (sksh-l)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, involving, or characteristic of sex, sexuality, the sexes, or the sex organs and their functions.


You can say that almost all dance is sexual. There is some ritual, some formal, some classy... but almost all of it relates to sex in some shape or form.

Something like the jive even has a signature male to female hip humping type move. Then there is things like the samba and tango which are entirely sexual. Modern hip hop dance is completely sexual.

These girls were performing a modern hip hop routine.

Modern hip hop is filled with sexuality. It is more sexual than the tango and samba.. and those are supposed to be intense dances.

Therefore by definition of modern hip hop, these girls were behaving in a sexual manner.

The popular notion seems to be that because they're kids, the form of dance they're performing is suddenly irrelevant. I disagree. If a kid does a jive, it's still a jive. If a kid does modern hip hop stripper routines, it is what it is.

And really can we all stop calling each other perverts? It's getting kind of annoying.





top topics
 
16
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join