Video of girls dancing in lingerie causes internet row

reply to post by ImaNutter


And when a baby is being breastfed, it's the same as you sucking on a strippers nipple right?

When a kid sits on your lap, it's the same as a stripper giving you a lap dance. (sarcasm)

Eye of the beholder.



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

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by thegrayone

 

Yeah I guess when a dad tells his daughter that he doesn't want her to go out in that short mini skirt with her ass hanging out he's a pedophile. You're an idiot.

And we wonder why there is so much sexualization of kids in our society. Those are just cute little dance moves?

Because a dance competition is the same as going out to the streets or to the park. Do you dress the same to go to the beach and to go to school?

Before you call me an idiot, you should look at yourself in the mirror. I'm pretty sure that the idiot looking back at you thinks you are an idiot too!

reply to post by ImaNutter


well, if we all embraced your argument, all kids would have to be banned from all dancing..

That just makes no sense..

The reason it makes no sense is because it is in the eye of the beholder, and you're the one seeing sex in these routines -- which doesn't make you a pedophile, necessarily. Men are programmed to be sexual creatures. Hell, most of us even find cars sexy (explain that one to me.) But are cars truly sexy? No, of course not. Neither are these kids.


It's all in the eye of the person watching. If you want to see sexuality in it, you will see sexuality in it. If you're a normal person, or their parents, you'll see kids doing stupid dancing which only a parent could ever find interesting enough to watch for more than 30 seconds.


/edit to add

If you're honest with yourself, and think about it for a minute or two, you'll probably realize that there's nothing wrong with this video, unless you have a problem with being aroused by kids. Even if the movements are the same as older women, clearly the actors performing them aren't. There's nothing sexual about kids doing this, period. Wouldn't you agree with this?

[edit on 18-5-2010 by Kaytagg]

Originally posted by Point of No Return
And when a baby is being breastfed, it's the same as you sucking on a strippers nipple right?

Can you really not see the difference between a mother feeding her child the way nature intended, and somebody sucking on the breasts of a stripper to achieve sexual gratification?

When a kid sits on your lap, it's the same as a stripper giving you a lap dance.

I suppose kissing your child on the forehead before they go to bed is on par with French-kissing your girlfriend just before you have sex together?

Eye of the beholder.

For about the 4th time, do you understand what context means?

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

reply to post by Dark Ghost

Can you really not see the difference between a mother feeding her child the way nature intended, and somebody sucking on the breasts of a stripper to achieve sexual gratification?

OMG, your reading comprehension really sucks.

I'm saying it's not the same:

Originally posted by Point of No Return And when a baby is being breastfed, it's the same as you sucking on a strippers nipple right?

Just as these girls dancing is not the same as a stripper seducing someone, as the other poster claimed.

I suppose kissing your child on the forehead before they go to bed is on par with French-kissing your girlfriend just before you have sex together?

No it's definately not. Just like the dance isn't the same as having sex or french kissing.

You aren't the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

For about the 4th time, do you understand what context means?

The context of this video makes me see nothing sexual, to you the context makes it sexual.

Can we agree that the context is subjective?



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

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by ImaNutter

 

well, if we all embraced your argument, all kids would have to be banned from all dancing..

That just makes no sense..

You're missing part of my argument. It's the signature moves, the steps, the little bits in the routine... like the jive hip move thing (sorry I can't explain it better) is pretty sexual (can be a sexual position if you're a strong man and your girl is adventerous) but the overall dance isn't.. so I don't think of jive as a sexual dance exactly.. but I would say that one particular move is sexual.

In balet there aren't sexual moves like modern hip hop. Quick step either. Waltz, nope. Step dancing in black fraternities, nope.

I should have chosen my words more carefully in saying "almost all dance" is sexual. Upon further reflection, dance can mean practically anything. So there is certainly dances that are acceptable for children to do.

I just don't get kids (7 year old kids) doing modern hip hop, the most sexual of all dances. Strippers take modern hip hop dance classes.

The reason it makes no sense is because it is in the eye of the beholder, and you're the one seeing sex in these routines -- which doesn't make you a pedophile, necessarily. Men are programmed to be sexual creatures. Hell, most of us even find cars sexy (explain that one to me.) But are cars truly sexy? No, of course not. Neither are these kids.

I'm shell shocked that you guys can't admit that modern hip hop is a sexual dance form.

The form of dance they were performing did not magically change just because they're kids.

It's all in the eye of the person watching. If you want to see sexuality in it, you will see sexuality in it. If you're a normal person, or their parents, you'll see kids doing stupid dancing which only a parent could ever find interesting enough to watch for more than 30 seconds.

So now I'm not normal because I am standing by the fact that modern hip hop is a sexual form of dance?

Damn man.

If you're honest with yourself, and think about it for a minute or two, you'll probably realize that there's nothing wrong with this video, unless you have a problem with being aroused by kids. Even if the movements are the same as older women, clearly the actors performing them aren't. There's nothing sexual about kids doing this, period. Wouldn't you agree with this?

Maybe we're both using different definitions of sexual. I don't know. I've lost energy for this.

Proposing people are perverts, not normal, or have latent pedophilic (sp?) impulses because they're not agreeing with you is flipping retarded.

And I'm being honest with you and myself.



[edit on 18-5-2010 by ImaNutter]

reply to post by ImaNutter


I think when a stripper is doing some kind of hip hop strip routine (involving clothes coming off), then that's sexual.

I think a breast squirting milk into the mouth of a partner (male or female) is sexual too.

But that same breast squirting milk into the mouth of a child is not sexual..

I can't explain why, despite the fact that the breast is doing the same thing in both scenarios, only one of them is sexual, and the other is not.

That's just the way I see it. I suspect most people see it that way.


Likewise, when these kids are doing their hip hop dancing, I don't see it as sexual at all. I think it's boring and silly.. but definitely not sexual.

I think you're confusing the "moves" with the meaning.. When kids are doing them, it doesn't mean "hey, come get some lovin.." Therefore, it's not sexual. When adults do it, then that can be a whole different story.

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by ImaNutter

 

I think when a stripper is doing some kind of hip hop strip routine (involving clothes coming off), then that's sexual.

I think a breast squirting milk into the mouth of a partner (male or female) is sexual too.

But that same breast squirting milk into the mouth of a child is not sexual..

I can't explain why, despite the fact that the breast is doing the same thing in both scenarios, only one of them is sexual, and the other is not.

That's just the way I see it. I suspect most people see it that way.

Context!

Mature woman taking clothes off... YES, sexual.
Mature man and mature woman playing with boobies... YES, sexual.
Mother feeding son... no, not sexual.

Its different because the context of the two situations are different.

Likewise, when these kids are doing their hip hop dancing, I don't see it as sexual at all. I think it's boring and silly.. but definitely not sexual.

I think you're confusing the "moves" with the meaning.. When kids are doing them, it doesn't mean "hey, come get some lovin.." Therefore, it's not sexual. When adults do it, then that can be a whole different story.

That's what dance is. Meaning through moves. Maybe you disagree and that is where we're differing? I don't know...

A long way back I said also that these girls have no clue what they're doing. I'm going to post this and edit back in the pertinent section because I think it might help explain where I'm coming from and it's been buried at this point... one second...

EDIT: okay here it is... I said this some pages back in a post:

Let's get one thing straight and that is children of this age have absolutely no clue of what they want to be, who they are, or what they're going to do in their life. When you see 8-10 year olds doing something like this, it's NOT because they conceptualized it.

Grown ups did.

Grown ups wanted to see 8 year olds dance like strippers.

Cool.

We can debate back and forth prudishness and morals but really this is on a different level than Miley Cyrus.

Miley chose to do what she did... these girls are being made to.

(and don't give me "they want to dance" crap... their brains aren't even fully formed yet)

That's my beef with it. They're 7. Do you know what the mental capacity of a 7 year old is? A 7 year old would be so lost and confused in this kind of conversation we're trying to have.

And I DO NOT think those 7 year olds KNOW that they are doing the "come hither" moves. They can't possibly grasp it.

But the adults can. And they still had them doing these stripper moves. In these girls brains they might not associate this with sex but any grown up that has had sex, had a lap dance, or had a stripper has seen these exact kinds of moves the girls are doing in the bedroom before.

At 7, they don't know that.

As grown ups, we do.

edit again: less sleep I have the worse my spelling and grammar get lol

[edit on 18-5-2010 by ImaNutter]

reply to post by ImaNutter

I'm shell shocked that you guys can't admit that modern hip hop is a sexual dance form. The form of dance they were performing did not magically change just because they're kids.

It's not per definition. If you look at hip hop clips and you see a lot of guys grindin' girls and such, yes, it does look sexual, but it is still just dance.

But is the dance in itself sexual? Maybe, maybe not, like you said a lot of dance forms seem to refer to sexual acts.

I think the tango is also called the "the vertical expression of a horizontal desire", lol.

I just see dance as dance. Now if there would've also been 7 year old boys grindin' these girls on stage, that would've shocked me, as those are real sexual references.

Now, all I saw was five girls doing a modern dance routine.

edit:

That's my beef with it. They're 7. Do you know what the mental capacity of a 7 year old is? A 7 year old would be so lost and confused in this kind of conversation we're trying to have.

You could be right, but that's not what this discussion was about.

The same could be applied to young athletes, singers, etc. The discussion was about the way they danced and the clothing

But I think these girls are really enjoying themselves, but I do share your concern, this is what I said earlier on:

I just hope the parents aren't pushing these young girls too much.

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

reply to post by Point of No Return


I can respect that post and I'll respond to it..

A stripper at a strip club or a dancer on stage at a burlesque show does not need a man to grind on to be sexual. The moves are sexual in themselves.

Maybe this is our major impasse... whether or not the moves retain the meaning if a 7 year old is doing them.

And of course I'm still operating from the stand point that that was modern hip hop... and maybe we disagree on that too, what type of dance it is.

If so, I know of no other option than agreeing to disagree?

edit: yeah actually when I was looking back for my post I saw that and read it and thought "hmm.. maybe she's not satan after all" lol


[edit on 18-5-2010 by ImaNutter]

Edit: actually, this is pointless. Walking and talking in circles. There is not much that can be added to this discussion without repeating the same information.

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

reply to post by ImaNutter

A stripper at a strip club or a dancer on stage at a burlesque show does not need a man to grind on to be sexual. The moves are sexual in themselves.

Are they? Hipshaking and such are just universal dance moves. You still see it in African tribal dancing, halfnaked kids and all.

And this strippers intent is too be sexy, i think that matters alot.

Maybe this is our major impasse... whether or not the moves retain the meaning if a 7 year old is doing them.

Agreed, I think that in the way it was done, it didn't retain a possible meaning.

edit:

yeah actually when I was looking back for my post I saw that and read it and thought "hmm.. maybe she's not satan after all" lol

Dude...you thought I was Satan....and a girl?

That hurts dude!



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

reply to post by ImaNutter


While I agree about the "making kids do stupid things they probably dont want to do.." sentiment, I think it's irrelevant in this discussion.

Actually, one of the first things to come to my mind, while thinking about all this nonsense, is how much I hate mothers who take their daughters around the country and force them to compete in beauty pagents.. But that's also irrelevant.

And at least these parents are getting their children to do PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, which is so important in our technological age of TV/video games/computers. So for that, I applaud them.


You're right, these kids don't know that the moves they are doing are derived from moves that have sexual connotation. However, when they're doing the moves, to them, there is no sexuality to them. So I see nothing wrong with it.

And i'm willing to give the parents the benefit of a doubt that they didn't set up this routine because they wanted to see kids doing "stripper moves." I think they're totally innocent, in that respect..

Which really just leaves the third party viewers: People who aren't related to these girls or involved in the "dance off." If these people want to see sexualized children, then they will. But I think the reality of the situation is that they are not being sexually exploited, and what they're doing isn't wrong; it's different, I'll give you that.. but all dancing is "different." And it's all really, really stupid (imo). I'm not a dancer, btw

How is this any different than society being upset at women in the 1900's who pushed the bounds and didn't wear full body swimming suits? There's always people looking to go backwards at any point in our history. Some of you back then would have said anything less than full body coverage is immoral or whatever, it isn't.

Hate to inform you guys, but mediocrity in this country isn't rewarded. If you just do what everyone else does you'll end up impoverished one way or another.

How about we find out if the kids enjoy this before we start dictating what is right or wrong. If they enjoy it, then people need to be quiet. What messes with kids' minds is when they feel like society is against them instead of being accepted. The dance isn't destructive, it's society's attitude towards them. Kids can be made to laugh or cry based on social ques if they fall down for example.

reply to post by Wolf321

Isn't that typical though? The minority always sets the terms and conditions in modern day America.

No, they do not, you have missed the point entirely.

Family 1 wants to dress their children up like this and allow them to dance in this manner. Fine. No one can stop them because they have natural rights as parents.

Family 2 finds this act morally reprehensible and refuses to let their daughters engage in such acts. Fine. No one can stop them because they have natual rights as parents.

You just have to get use to the fact that hyper-sexualization of kids is how it should be.

No.

You just have to get used to the fact that you can only make decisions for your children and your children alone.

Long live the republic.

Originally posted by ghaleon12
How is this any different than society being upset at women in the 1900's who pushed the bounds and didn't wear full body swimming suits?

Hello?! IT'S FREAKING CHILDREN!

How about we find out if the kids enjoy this before we start dictating what is right or wrong. ... What messes with kids' minds is when they feel like society is against them instead of being accepted.

Are you a parent? God I hope not with that mentality. You don't let kids do something simply because they enjoy it. They have to be taught right and wrong. THIS is what is wrong with society. You have this perverse idea that everything should be acceptable if someone enjoys something. That is the definition of anarchy.

I wish I could understand why and where this mentality came from, because it is becoming more and more prevalent, and society and civilization are suffering for it.

reply to post by Dark Ghost

I do not know you or how capable you are as a parent. You do not know me either and are only making assumptions. When I see bad parenting occurring in the public domain, I will call it how it is. This is an internet forum which deals with discussing issues. It's not meant to be a place where you can stroke your own ego by trying put down other members.

You made it blatantly obvious yourself that you want to control what people can do in public.

When I see bad parenting occurring in the public domain, I will call it how it is.

Exactly my point. If I do not agree with you I must be a bad parent. You opinion is simply subjective, and while you can have it, you cannot force it on other people.

Originally posted by dalan.
No, they do not, you have missed the point entirely.

Family 1 wants to dress their children up like this and allow them to dance in this manner. Fine. No one can stop them because they have natural rights as parents.

Family 2 finds this act morally reprehensible and refuses to let their daughters engage in such acts. Fine. No one can stop them because they have natual rights as parents.

No, you have missed the point entirely.

The point is, this sexualization and objectification of children is destructive to the kids and society as a whole.

I recommend you read my earlier post as well as as the link which I will quote again. If you can't get it from the link, your chance is hopeless.

Forty years ago, if you went into a department store and looked at clothes for seven-year-olds, they’d be quite different than the clothes on sale for 17-year-olds. Today there’s no longer any distinction; the same short skirts are sold to girls in Grade 2 and girls in Grade 12. T-shirts that say, “Yes, but not with you” are now sold to eight-year-olds.
Girls understand what these T-shirts are about: pretending to be sexually aware. We have girls who are now putting on a pretense of adult sexuality that they couldn’t possibly feel, and the danger of putting on a show is that you lose touch with your own sexuality. You’re wearing a mask, and when you take off the mask, there’s not a face there. Another thing that’s happening is the acceleration of the onset of puberty. Girls are losing what psychologists used to call middle childhood: eight to 12 years of age, which is the age of Pippi Longstocking and Harriet the Spy, the time for girls to have adventures and develop a sense of who they are as people without worrying about whether they’re hot.

SOURCE

Originally posted by Wolf321

Originally posted by dalan.
No, they do not, you have missed the point entirely.

Family 1 wants to dress their children up like this and allow them to dance in this manner. Fine. No one can stop them because they have natural rights as parents.

Family 2 finds this act morally reprehensible and refuses to let their daughters engage in such acts. Fine. No one can stop them because they have natual rights as parents.

No, you have missed the point entirely.

The point is, this sexualization and objectification of children is destructive to the kids and society as a whole.

I recommend you read my earlier post as well as as the link which I will quote again. If you can't get it from the link, your chance is hopeless.

And here is my advice, get a copy of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers, and learn what it means to live in a republic. You have every natural right to have your opinion. You have every natural right to expect your children to abide by your standards; but you have no natural right to expect another family to abide by your subjective standards of decency.

I personally do not care about what you think of as decent or bad parenting, and I will never abide by your standards and you cannot do anything about it. Likewise, I would never force you to have your children live up to my expectations.


[edit on 5/18/2010 by dalan.]

Originally posted by dalan.
You made it blatantly obvious yourself that you want to control what people can do in public.

This is funny. You supporters of this behavior are spouting how society should be accepting whatever behavior an individual or group deems acceptable, and in the same breath say that part of society (those who disagree) should keep quiet and not interact with society in their opposition.

So I guess from your perspective, society should only interact when everyone is in agreement, and when in disagreement, remain a collective of individuals not interacting.