Texans Tackle the Tough Issues

[Colleen Thomas]

Eek.

Totalitarian regimes rarely impose massive change right off the bat, revolutions being an exception, Shang. They start with very small steps. In general, steps where you see some good in them and thus you don't protest too loudly. They progress to steps that are horrific, but ingeneral, aimed at a small enough segment of the population that the hue and cry is manageable, for example the Nuremberg laws. you don't loose your freedoms in one fell swoop, you loose them gradually, in tiny packets where you can convince yourself it isn't really that big a deal. When you look up and the Stazi is on the door step because your neighbor denounced you for opposing the government, it's too late.

So my response:

Quote:
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.

The slippery slope is one thing. I agree that prudent and rational actions can be taken that take you closer to the precipice, but you don't have to go over. However, it's just as true that some people aren't only unafraid of going over, they Want to. And they are, for better or worse, exercising an undue amount of influence in our government today. AS long as the religious right holds such sway, can you afford to let this one slide or that one? Can you really afford to think you can control fanatics if they go to far? Especially if you encourage them when they are making baby steps towards a theocracy with your form of government? Von Papen, Blomberg and Hindenburg thought Hitler could be controled, are we going to find out if we are better at controling Fanatics or do we just say no to their program when it's still in its infancy? I feel better about my chances fighting them tooth and nail at the borders, rather than waiting until they are at the gates.

Quote:
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.

If you don't fight the small steps, what do you stand on when they are fait accompli and they move on to larger ones? If government has taken the right to legislate what a cheerleading routine may and may not look like and you said, great, have fun, on what do you stand when they move on to the next goal or the next? Do you start fighting when they do over turn Roe V wade or they do ban books? That's giving up a hell of a lot of ground before you make a stand.

In my humble opinion, you suffer from a terrible handicap. You are a rational and thoughtful person without an axe to grind. You are also damnably fair minded and non judgemental. You are, very much like Rodrigo of Bivar, in both the classic poem and the movie. Like El Cid, Mountameen's words seem to fit you. "Such a noble subject, if only he had a noble king."

Quote:
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?

How many girls are cheerleaders Shang? What percentage? I bet it's far less than the percentage that end up getting pregnant thanks to an abstinance only mentality in sex ed. So you're going to ban bumping and grinding on the field and in the gym, but still tell them nothing about sex and how to protect themselves in the classroom? Are you banning hollywood movies too, since they glorify sex? And rap music? Pop culture in general? If I had a daughter, I would encourage her to play a sport, rather than cheer for one. If however, she chooses to cheer, I don't think she and her school should be afraid of the thought police busting in and arresting them for sexually suggestive behavior. Considering what the religious right considers sexually suggestive, that could be anything from shaking her booty to wearing a short skirt.

Quote:
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?

This I can clear up a little perhaps. the government has a responsibility to legislate some morals. In as much as some immoral things should also be illegal. to me, the acid test has to rest on the question of do you think a person should go to jail for an offense? Killing people is immoral, it's also illegal. it should be. A guy sucking another guy's cock might be immoral, but I don't see that it should be illegal. If the cheerleading squad wants to nab it's routine from the local adult dance club, I'd say it was immoral. But do you want highschool girls, teachers or administrators going to jail because Rep. Edwards thinks the last move was too suggestive? You're putting the decision of what is or isn't sexually suggestive into the hands of people I wouldn't buy a car from.

Kids have sex. I don't know about gender confused horses, but I was taking an interest in others sexually by thirteen or fourteen. I don't have any problem with suggesting to kids in the strongest manner possible that sex isn't something to be taken lightly, but I am not enthused at the idea of saying abstinance only is going to do much good. Our sex ed didn't encourage us to try, but I know by my senior year in HS I was in the minority because I was still a virgin. How many pregnancies could be prevented by simply saying if you must try it, at least be responsible and use at the least a condom, not only to protect yourselves from pregnancy but also from disease? At lit, Laurel and Manu can mandate no sex happens before 18. In real life they are trying to do the same thing. It isn't working and by refusing to see that, how many are they dooming to being mother's before they are even done being kids or being infected with a disease that will never leave or will even kill them?

It seems to me, that you and I are not separated so much by ideas as we are by threat asessment. I see the religious right as the greatest threat to my individual liberties that has ever arisen in this country, far more so than the Communists or socialists or white supremacists ever were or could be.

You don't see them as a threat in the same way I do and thus, you are willing to take a more reasoned approach to their agenda, on a point by point basis.

To you, it's politics. To me, it's all out war. So you can view any particular act as a singular, discreet event. To me, it's a tactical movement of troops and has to be fought with all avialable means, as the little movements presage the all out attack and if you let them go unopposed, you are going to be in a far weaker position when that main attack does come.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

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.

*looks right*

*scratches chin*

*looks left*

*scratches head*

*sighs*

Um... Bye, Luc.



Q_C

 

[BlackShanglan]

To you, it's politics. To me, it's all out war. So you can view any particular act as a singular, discreet event. To me, it's a tactical movement of troops and has to be fought with all avialable means, as the little movements presage the all out attack and if you let them go unopposed, you are going to be in a far weaker position when that main attack does come.

As you wish. I appreciate the generosity of your comments on my character, and I see that we come at this from radically different perspectives. It's always best, I think, to know when debate would not be fruitful. Thank you for your kind words.

Shanglan

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

*looks right*

*scratches chin*

*looks left*

*scratches head*

*sighs*

Um... Bye, Luc.



Q_C

I'm sorry, but I'm rather silly.

Perhaps later I shall be merely quite mad.

 

[BlackShanglan]

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.

Might we not agree that teaching young women to use their sexuality as their chief means of attracting praise and attention feeds into this problem?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

As you wish. I appreciate the generosity of your comments on my character, and I see that we come at this from radically different perspectives. It's always best, I think, to know when debate would not be fruitful. Thank you for your kind words.

Shanglan

Debate is only fruitful when everyone has an open mind. It's the possibility of being shown you are wrong, even if it's highly improbable, that makes debate more than just an arguement.

Since GW has come to power, I have seen my personal rights assaulted. From the possibility of ever marrying the woman I love, should I meet her, to my reproductive freedms, to my right of privacy under USA Patriot. You are argueing about a single inititive where I see it as just one in a braod swath of attacks on the rights of individuals, especially individuals like myself.

I apologize for broadening the scope of the issue in such a way. I hope you'll keep posting and I will donfine my responses to th eissue at hand.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Debate is only fruitful when everyone has an open mind. It's the possibility of being shown you are wrong, even if it's highly improbable, that makes debate more than just an arguement.

Since GW has come to power, I have seen my personal rights assaulted. From the possibility of ever marrying the woman I love, should I meet her, to my reproductive freedms, to my right of privacy under USA Patriot. You are argueing about a single inititive where I see it as just one in a braod swath of attacks on the rights of individuals, especially individuals like myself.

I apologize for broadening the scope of the issue in such a way. I hope you'll keep posting and I will donfine my responses to th eissue at hand.

Colly, this is very kind of you. And I do understand your point. It's only my opinion that this issue can be dealt with in isolation and examined on its own merits rather than being viewed as part of a connected initiative with a more dangerous goal in mind. As you point out, extremists have a way of starting with small measures and working toward larger ones. It's always wise to keep that in mind. When, for example, ones finds that some of the "English as the Official Language" movements have funding ties to Neo-Nazi groups, I think it behooves one to think carefully about their potential long-term goals. Connections do exist.

That said, personally I believe in examination of individual steps as individual actions rather than as parts of movements - and if you'll allow me, I think I might make a fair case for saying that this approach helps to prevent extremist movements from gaining a toe-hold if applied properly. You asked how I would prevent small steps from becoming dangerously large ones; my answer is to scrutinize each step carefully and to examine it as much as possible on its own merits. This does at times mean that we will agree with people with whom we do not normally have much in common. On the other hand, it also means that we must subject to that same scrutiny the proposals and plans of those whom we normally regard with approval, and therein, I think, lies the real benefit of it. Great conquests of human rights so sometimes come from someone who terrifies the people, but most of those sorts are people who come to power through physical might more than legislation - coups and military juntas. I think most of those who choose the political road choose instead to tell people what they want to hear, whip up a sense of fear and desperate need to cling together, and then march them in such directions as s/he pleases. This, to me, is the real danger - not a recalcitrant people struggling against someone trying to push them further than they want to go, but a mob who feels that they must accede to every demand of their own "side" and reject every proposal of the other. This, to me, seems the situation most likely to rob people of their rights and to do permanent damage to the foundations of a civilized state. Fear is a terribly powerful motivating factor, and it can lead people to take quite drastic steps.

Of course, I grant that many people are driven in just that way, and that quite a lot of America percieves politics as an us/them war in which they cannot afford to give an inch for fear that the opposition will take an ell. I would only point out that this state of permanent hostility and villification - which, naturally, exists quite as virulently on both sides - does no one any good. The very unyieldingness with which each side defends its turf becomes part of the fear that drives the opposition. By making themselves into what their opposite numbers fear - people unwilling to consider a single measure supported by the opposition and unable to concede any good will, good sense, or humanity to the other side - they become the very caricatured spectres that the opposition is dangling in effigy to scare their troops with. One has only to look at Rush Limbaugh to see this force in action; I could hardly come up with a more effective stereotype to horrify progressive thinkers, or a better demon to scare them with. Yet he has made himself into this, and largely because he's swallowed the mantra that one can never, ever yield an inch of ground to the opposition. I think this not merely aethetically and ethically displeasing, but ineffective; he's thoroughly unable to speak to anyone who doesn't already agree with him (and hardly charming enough to enthrall even those who do). In the long run, his behavior actually does more harm to his side than good, and I think that true in all cases when fear and hostility overcome the will to understand the opposition. Even when they are thoroughly wrong, it only provokes, enrages, and frightens them to declare oneself permanently and unalterably at war with them. I don't see that any good can come of it.

What a long and horsey rambling. I realize that on the surface it seems to have nothing to do with the thread topic. But at heart I think that it has everything to do with it. If one cannot, as an ardent supporter of women's rights, cheer a measure that helps to stop school officials from encouraging them to define themselves as sex objects when they are meant to be being educated, I honestly think that one must re-assess one's priorities. I don't, quite naturally, wish to have the Stazi show up at my door; however, I don't see that that is a logical result of asking schools to show better judgement in how they mold the minds and characters of young women. While I recognize that small steps may find me on the same side as people with less pleasant long-term agendas, I have faith in my own ability to recognize when our goals begin to diverge and to withdraw my support at that point - without sacrificing useful measures on which, however improbably, I happen to agree with those whom I more typically dislike.

Shanglan

 

[Pure]

Which story is satire?

Though Texas is difficult to satirize, I kinda liked this

http://www.utterpants.co.uk/news/texascheer.html

"Texas bans cheerleading sluts"

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I can agree in principal to wishing to lower or eliminate the sexualization of teen girls. I can even agree in principal to the idea that some of the routines they use are simply inappriopriate.

The danger I see most clarly is who decides? Will the bill make them conform to my morality, or yours, or Tom Delay's or the community standards of each school district?

I'm not being facetious when I point out that to members of some of the congregation at my parent's church, any skirt that dosen't cover the knees is suggestive. I did a search at the Texas legislature's site, but I can't find the actual text of the bill, perhaps someone more computer savy can help?

It seems to me that this bill is one of many that takes a generally good idea and comes up against the wall of it making bad legislation. When politicians begin to try and legislate moral behavior, they invariably run into the problem of tresspassing upon individual rights.

If it passes, then someone body is going to be given the task of determining what constitutes sexually suggestive behavior. That same body will be in a position to bring criminal proceedings against someone, be it an individual cheerleader, their faculty sponsor or the school's administration if they disagree. You are not only legislating a moral standard that may not be the same as the participants have, you are adding criminal process to disagreeing with the adjudicating body's decisions on what is or isn't moral. Unless I totally misunderstand the bill's intent.

I honestly don't believe it's the place of government to set itself up as keeper of a moral standard of behavior among the people it governs. Particularly when the definition of moral standards varies so wildly among those governed. And even more so when it adds criminal sanction to enforce it's moral decisions.

While I can't really comment on the intent of the bill, as it seems inncouous enough, I don't see a way you can enforce such notions of propriety without trampling the individual protections we enjoy as citizens of the U.S. I guess what I am trying to say, and doing a bad job of it, is that I see the potential of abuse to far outweigh the percieved benefits here. I suppose I am stuck on the question of who decides what is too sexually suggestive. In the case of law, I am just not very comfortable with such ambiguous open ended statements.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm wondering why porn authours are worried so much about 'appropriate sexuality'?

Seriously, I can't see this bill accomplishing anything towards reducing the sexualization of minors. Our culture is steeped in sex. Picking one small thing like cheerleading is like asking the tide to stay back.

The one thing I was struck by was Rep. Edwards leap between 'dirty cheerleading' and teen pregnancy. I had a severe 'what the fuck' moment.

If we want our kids to handle their sexuality responsibly we're gong to have to teach them how. Sweeping it under the carpet and praying things turn out all right isn't going to work.

 

[BlackShanglan]

While I can't really comment on the intent of the bill, as it seems inncouous enough, I don't see a way you can enforce such notions of propriety without trampling the individual protections we enjoy as citizens of the U.S. I guess what I am trying to say, and doing a bad job of it, is that I see the potential of abuse to far outweigh the percieved benefits here. I suppose I am stuck on the question of who decides what is too sexually suggestive. In the case of law, I am just not very comfortable with such ambiguous open ended statements.

The devil is always in the detail on these things, and here I think you quite right. I remember being involved in an attempt to define the dress code for an institution with about a hundred employees, and it was an unending nightmare. In the end they went broad - "professional attire" - and let line managers call the shots, because the other result was, quite seriously, nearly a full page of specifications about how big earrings could be and what kind of pants to wear. It was ridiculous, of course, and one felt an absolute idiot sitting there making a page-long list of minute specifications about what was and was not the right kind of shirt to wear to work.

However, if I might be forgiven the extension of the analogy, there was a reason why we were engaged in that highly silly process. It was because people eager to exercise their liberties were being just as silly. We had people showing up for a position involving both regular contact with the public in a position of authority and regular interaction with nervous animals wearing bare-midriff tops, large hoops earrings, objects dangling from their necks on lanyards, and pants that at times displayed their underwear for the delectation of the masses. We were, indeed, being somewhat unreasonable in having a page of specification about what to wear. However, it was in response to our employees being unreasonable when left to their own devices.

I think that this is part of the issue in TX. While recognizing that one always apppears an ass when legislating small, individual issues like cheerleading routines, it's generally a reaction to people pushing the boundaries of reasonable behavior and pressing liberties to an extreme. My point (if I have one) is that there is plenty of foolish behavior to go around in this case. I think of it not simply as a case of the government attempting to legislate personal behavior - which, by the way, I think you are right is generally a losing proposition - but also a case of individuals refusing to control their own behavior. The flip side of the "government should stay out of individual decisions" coin is the corollary: "individuals should monitor their own behavior, establish good standards, and enact social controls rather than legislative ones." Unfortunately, it's currently very popular to argue that if something is not illegal, there is nothing wrong with it. While agreeing that this is true in the legal sense, it's had an ugly effect on both social behavior and legislation. When people refuse to recognize any authority or restraint but a legal one, then there will be more legislation - not always because people think that it's the best way to deal with a problem, but because they've found that there no longer seem to be any other alternatives.

On the topic of the government as a keeper of moral standards, I'm a bit torn. The main thing I would say is that it's already doing it. I agree that it's uncomfortable and difficult to get people to agree on what standards should be enforced and how they should be defined, but I think it impossible to avoid. There is no action we can take, short of completely disbanding all government and eliminating all laws, that would allow us to escape the subjective nature of moral judgments. As I think you were kind enough to point out yourself earlier, even laws against murder are, in the end, subjective moral judgments. We think it wrong to kill a person and take his possessions, but that's simply something that most of us agree upon. I agree that it gets progressively more difficult to agree as we move toward ideas on which there is less consensus, but all laws do require some moral judgements to be made in order for them to be enacted. It's all relative, and aside from a very few concepts, it's difficult to get people to agree on what's appropriate. I don't think that that difficulty is in itself a reason not to make a law; it will be an issue with any law, however good or bad, and it's something that has to be faced and dealt with.

The other thing I would say about this law is that I lean toward supporting it very specifically in its context: what Texas schools should encourage and allow students to do in cheerleading routines. I wouldn't support a law broadly banning all such actions in public. I wouldn't support a law banning it from professional sports teams employing adults. I wouldn't support a law banning the broadcast of such actions on television, with some reasonable allowance for time and likely audience. My support, in this case, hinges on the location - the school - and the people in charge - school employees. That, to me, is the difference between two 17-year-olds having sex with each other and a 45-year-old teacher having sex with his pupil. It's very much to do with authority and perceived role. I honestly think it a very different thing to have a group of teenagers messing about amongst themselves and having a school sponsored and supervised group of students being guided and encouraged in an activity. I'm not such a dull old horse that I wish utterly to curb the high spirits of youth; I do, however, believe that schools carry both authority and responsibility for educating and guiding their students. It's one thing to recognize that young people will blow off steam, run a bit wild, and do things that they can look back upon with a certain rakish satisfaction in their old age; it's quite another to officially sanction such behavior and to incite and intensify it. That's what I take issue with, and that I think is what makes this bill reasonable. It's not really about what individual people can do; it's about what state employees in a position of authority should guide and encourage, and that's quite a different matter.

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'm wondering why porn authours are worried so much about 'appropriate sexuality'?

Seriously, I can't see this bill accomplishing anything towards reducing the sexualization of minors. Our culture is steeped in sex. Picking one small thing like cheerleading is like asking the tide to stay back.

The one thing I was struck by was Rep. Edwards leap between 'dirty cheerleading' and teen pregnancy. I had a severe 'what the fuck' moment.

If we want our kids to handle their sexuality responsibly we're gong to have to teach them how. Sweeping it under the carpet and praying things turn out all right isn't going to work.

While recognizing that changing a sex-steeped culture is extremely difficult, I think it an odd choice to reject what small changes can be made. Surely the difficulty of the problem and the massive influence it carries means that we should recognize from the start that there is no one single action we can take that will possibly have a substantial impact on the problem as a whole. Rather, only a steady application of small, individual efforts can really begin to nibble away at the structure and start making some inroads.

Personally, I don't see the law as attempting to sweep sexuality under the rug. It's not restricting information; it's not ever restricting personal public behavior. It's merely suggesting that we don't actively encourage young women to make sexual objects of themselves. While I certainly agree that cheerleading itself seems an unlikely major contributor to teen pregnancy and other ills, it would take a good deal more argument to convince me that a relentless focus on the sexualization of young women isn't. Again, it's a small step toward trying to change that, but if we're not prepared to take small steps, then we are left to throw up our hands and do nothing.

As for a porn writer being concerned with appropriate sexuality, I don't think I see the contradictions that you do. But then, I have always felt a strong difference between art and life.

 

[R. Richard]

If it passes, then someone body is going to be given the task of determining what constitutes sexually suggestive behavior. That same body will be in a position to bring criminal proceedings against someone, be it an individual cheerleader, their faculty sponsor or the school's administration if they disagree. You are not only legislating a moral standard that may not be the same as the participants have, you are adding criminal process to disagreeing with the adjudicating body's decisions on what is or isn't moral. Unless I totally misunderstand the bill's intent.

I honestly don't believe it's the place of government to set itself up as keeper of a moral standard of behavior among the people it governs. Particularly when the definition of moral standards varies so wildly among those governed. And even more so when it adds criminal sanction to enforce it's moral decisions.

While I can't really comment on the intent of the bill, as it seems inncouous enough, I don't see a way you can enforce such notions of propriety without trampling the individual protections we enjoy as citizens of the U.S. I guess what I am trying to say, and doing a bad job of it, is that I see the potential of abuse to far outweigh the percieved benefits here. I suppose I am stuck on the question of who decides what is too sexually suggestive. In the case of law, I am just not very comfortable with such ambiguous open ended statements.

Colly:
The one affected by the new law are school girls. School girls and school boys, for that matter, do not really have rights under the law. The school district can set any policy they damn well want. Of course, the PARENTS of the school kids do have rights. Thus, really unreasonable restrictions do not stand for long.

Please do not talk about "the potential of abuse" when discussing school kids. School is an actual, ongoing process of child abuse. When I was in high school, one of the teachers was so incompetent that even the kids wanted him out. The principal told the kids to mind their own business. The same incompetent then fondled a female high school student. The incompetent teacher was then fired, but despite the valiant (and vocal!) efforts of the girl's mother, no charges were filed; it would have been "too disruptive." The police then escorted touchy feely boy out of town as any number of rednecks wanted to try the case. They did not have lawbooks; they did have rope!

 

[LadyJeanne]

If we want our kids to handle their sexuality responsibly we're gong to have to teach them how. Sweeping it under the carpet and praying things turn out all right isn't going to work.

In my high school, we had cheerleaders and pom-pon girls. The cheerleaders did the rah-rah cheers and pyramid formations. The poms did the sexy dances to music. Both wore teeny-tiny skirts with spankies underneath. The poms also did a costume change at half-time when they donned teeny-tiny short-shorts and sleeveless, low-cut, belly-baring tops.

My parents refused to allow me to try out for either.

I don't believe lawmakers should be making laws about this. I absolutely believe parents should take responsibility for what they teach their children about sexuality, and for putting the brakes on what they see as inappropriate dress and behavior in their kids. It makes me sad to see so many parents abdicating this responsibility. It's precisely because they do abdicate this responsibility that our legislatures feel free to make more and more laws regulating the minute details of our lives.

 

[BlackShanglan]

It's precisely because they do abdicate this responsibility that our legislatures feel free to make more and more laws regulating the minute details of our lives.

With you on that one. It's an ugly problem with no easy solution. In the end, there's really nothing that effectively replaces parental guidance.

 

[Pure]

bill text B R 1476

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-...&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=01476&VERSION=2&TYPE=B



[start excerpt]
Sec. 33.088. CERTAIN SEXUALLY SUGGESTIVE PERFORMANCES PROHIBITED.

(a) A school dance team, drill team, cheerleading team, or any other performance group may not perform in a manner that is overtly sexually suggestive at an athletic or other extracurricular event or competition sponsored or approved by a school district or campus.

(b) If the commissioner determines that a performance group described by Subsection (a) has performed in an overtly sexually suggestive manner, the commissioner shall inform the appropriate school district and the district shall take appropriate action against the performance group and the group's sponsor, as determined by the district.
[end excerpt]

===
This is the final lower house version, afaik. Earlier versions had penalties of funds cuts, suspensions of drillteam performances, etc.

Some commmentators believe the Texas Senate will be so embarrassed as to quietly kill it.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Can't say as it seems to do much as written anyway. It's incredibly vague. In fact, it reads rather a lot like a piece of legislation intended to get someone's name in the paper while actually accomplishing nothing.

Damn. I'm getting cynical in my dotage.

 

[cantdog]

A far cry from addressing the problem of sexualization you were referring to. But it could still pass, in a sort of desperate knee-jerk way, on the notion that at least there will be a tool to curb abuses.

Whereas, tools abound. Parents lie behind each cheerleader on the field, and coaches stand before them. School boards, even. Why set up a tit-shaking commissioner? Jesus. Get a grip. I know it's Texas, but dayum.

 

[sophia jane]

A far cry from addressing the problem of sexualization you were referring to. But it could still pass, in a sort of desperate knee-jerk way, on the notion that at least there will be a tool to curb abuses.

Whereas, tools abound. Parents lie behind each cheerleader on the field, and coaches stand before them. School boards, even. Why set up a tit-shaking commissioner? Jesus. Get a grip. I know it's Texas, but dayum.

We do things differently in Texas.

Glad that I'm not a native Texan; I'm only stopping through.

SJ

 

[Colleen Thomas]

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-...&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=01476&VERSION=2&TYPE=B



[start excerpt]
Sec. 33.088. CERTAIN SEXUALLY SUGGESTIVE PERFORMANCES PROHIBITED.

(a) A school dance team, drill team, cheerleading team, or any other performance group may not perform in a manner that is overtly sexually suggestive at an athletic or other extracurricular event or competition sponsored or approved by a school district or campus.

(b) If the commissioner determines that a performance group described by Subsection (a) has performed in an overtly sexually suggestive manner, the commissioner shall inform the appropriate school district and the district shall take appropriate action against the performance group and the group's sponsor, as determined by the district.
[end excerpt]

===
This is the final lower house version, afaik. Earlier versions had penalties of funds cuts, suspensions of drillteam performances, etc.

Some commmentators believe the Texas Senate will be so embarrassed as to quietly kill it.

thanks Pure

 

[oggbashan]

Here come de Judge

I have been a judge of local cheerleaders' team performances for our local carnival.

There were prizes for under age 9, under 11, under 14 and under 18. There used to be an adult category but it was dropped because no group entered.

Most of the teams were embarrassingly awful. If they could get through a short routine without someone dropping something or kicking a team mate then they had some chance of being placed. Erotic they were not.

The very best were good to watch. Good because they were performing a difficult art with skill and precision. They weren't overtly sexual unless just seeing a group of young women performing was enough.

However I have seen teams try to be overt and blatant. It never worked because a dozen or more doing the same move was too much. It looked false.

However in the US cheerleading is far more professional than it is here. I am sure some cheerleaders would try to push the boundaries of decency to the absolute limit. I think legislation is an over-reaction. A quiet discussion among the organisers and regulators of the activity would probably have been enough to stop any excess by penalising any competitors who went too far. (Or if at a match, awarding a penalty against the team the cheerleader(s) were supporting).

Politicians do tend to overreact to small stimuli.

Og

 

[neonlyte]

...
Politicians do tend to overreact to small stimuli.
Og

And not at all to public opinion.

 

[oggbashan]

And not at all to public opinion.

Both statements are true.

Politicians react to what they THINK the public wants.

They never meet and never listen to anyone who has any common sense so they go with what the party activists say will get them re-elected...

Party activists are blinkered to hear only what the party says.

Og

 

[kendo1]

Og,
There's a position coming up soon in government circles- someone's retiring I believe. Instead of a certain G. Brown, I reckon you would stand a chance.
You'd get my vote.