texas cheer ban on "sexual" cheers

Whil I agree with the "how do we define the line" and "why the need for legislation" points...and the ACLU (because evidently they have nothing more important to do either) stated that there were already rules and statutes in place for such matter...

It raises the question then of why the stuff is being allowed to happen?

I mean if there are already rules and no one is enforceing them, more rules aren't going to do much.

The issue is with those with the appropriate authority and responsibility to stand up and say..."Uh, hey...um...this isn't very appropriate attire/behavior for young ladies (or men). Stop it."

Culturally and socially speaking, this is just another data point in the apparent trend toward "sexualizing" people at ever younger ages. Abercrombie & Fitch being the poster-child and all that.

Teenagers are sexual creatures, too. Let's not forget that.

Well...at our base level we are all "sexual creatures." But saying that doesn't really help the discussion or shed any new light on anything. Some questions that might would be what does it mean to be a "sexual creature"? Are there sexual (or sexual-like) behviours that are appropriate or inappropriate and at what ages and in what contexts?

Some are of the "let it all hang out" perspective but then want to figure out other "cures" (bandages) to treat the resulting problems such as STDs, out of wedlock pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies, pedophelia, rape, etc.

( and I am not just speaking about teenagers here...they are simply at one point in an age spectrum...these various issues exist to one extent or another across the age spectrum )

Bingo.

I think the issue is two-fold. There is an obvious increase in the sexualization of things such as marketing and advertising targeted towards younger people. The second is the push to move away from older customs of girls becoming wives and mothers at much younger ages than is currently the case, on average.

I'm not commenting on either of those being good or bad, simply an obvservation.

Not sure I understand this statement.

Are you saying that the current trend is one of women becoming wives or mothers at older ages? Are you saying that women are being pushed in that direction? If so why do you think they are? Who is doing the pushing?

Law makers with little to do, makes you wonder when will they ever stop and how many laws until the police state is a police state.

Yeah...this...and the whole major league baseball steroids thing. Sheesh! They have nothing more important to be worried about?

Every year I feel more and more like this is all just smoke and mirrors designed to keep the "masses" distracted from the really important matters of our time.

It depend on what you mean by "current trend".


Yes I am saying that.



It's not so much "who", as "what". Changing of laws, changing sociopolitical influences, the growing need for women in the workforce, the growing desire for women to be in the workforce... etc.

Perhaps you could mount a critique against capitalism for commodifying sex, but we wouldn't be a whole lot worse off if society simply acknowledged the sexuality of teenagers as something other than an unnatural plot from the liberal media. In fact, we'd be better off. Teenagers are indeed sexual creatures, and whether or not A&F decides to highlight that or not does not change that fact. Sure, it may socialize teenagers into specific sexual roles. And that's bad. And it might shamefully remind Grandma of her own elicit teenage past. Can't argue with her there. But we should probably focus more on sex education, encouraging healthy feelings about teenagers' own sexuality and assuring they have knowledge of and access to contraceptives should they decide to act on those feelings. Because trust me-- they will. Even if we live in the hellhole James Dobson and company envisions for this nation, they will.

This just a load of political bull. Sexualized cheerleading is so subjective that any law will be unenforcable. This is just politicians masterbating their conservative voters.

I would say that it operates more like a feedback loop in which the more "liberated" sex becomes the more "liberated" sex becomes. The capitalists and media feed it...but we accept it. The more we accept it...the more they feed it. Seeing this progession isn't so hard at all. Capitalists (and the media is merely a subset of this group) are simply selling what we are willing to accept and buy.

The larger issue is that their are consquences for this "liberated" sexuality. Some of which I've listed. Their may well be positive consquences, but there are certainly negative ones. Our approach appears to be to accept the consquences as just part of life and attempt to bandage them rather than looking deeper into root causes and solving those (treating symptoms rather than the root disease)...but then we have become a superficial "sympton treating" culture. Perhaps because we lack the moral wisdom, courage and fortitude to tackle real problems. The legislation referred to in the thread started is another example of this.


See this is exactly the attitude that I am talking about. "Well, they are gonna do it anyway...so..." Apply this same reasoning to almost anything else (lying, stealing, drugs, alcohol, cheating on tests, driving wrecklessly, etc.) and it sounds as stupidly ridiculous as it is. Worse it reduces teenagers (and people in general) to nothing more than animals that are unable to control our urges. I have a higher view of humanity than that. One that says we do have self-control (whether we choose to develop, strengthen and exercise it or not). As adults we can choose to take the responsbility we have as parents and foster, encourage, develop, teach, and generally engender that self-control in our children or we can just say "Well, they are gonna do it anyway...so..." That is a plainly stupid copout and abdication of our authority and responsibility.


Whatever.

Teen pregnancy is at a 25 year low, which would seem to discount your hypothesis.

Not necessarily.

I have no idea what this means.


Thanks for point that out, but I don't see how this absolves capitalism at all. To the contrary, the idea that people would essentially buy and sell sex in a market system seems a very good reason against it.


No one denies this. But somehow I sense some perverse subtext here romanticizing the 1950's or Puritan New England...


We must fix 'em up! Sex=evil!


I'm talking about two things here: teaching teenagers both 1) to make informed sexual decisions and 2) to develop healthy attitudes about their own sexuality. Some "copout and abdication of our authority and responsibility," eh?


Someone's got a softspot for Dobsiepoo!

Not sure how else to explain it. It is a bit like building up a tolerance to something...the more of something you tolerate, the more you are able to. You become less sensitive to smaller amounts of whatever it is. See drug, alcohol and porn additions for examples.


I am not trying to defend capitalism or absolve it of anything.


You sense wrong. Sorry.


I didn't say that and not trying to imply that. This and the previous comment are clear methods to avoid any debate or rational discussion by attempting to pigeonhole me into being some puritanical, backwards, regressive, "sex is evil" something or other. Let's not be so simplistic.


Okay. Fair enough. So let's talk about what "informed sexual decisions" and "healthy attitudes about their own sexuality" means. For example...would abstinence be the healthiest choice a person can make in regards to avoiding STDs, unwanted pregnancy not to mention the mental and emotional problems that can come from intimate relations absent a strong relational commitment?


Whatever.

The first people to stand up are the good Christian (and Muslim, but not in Texas) Dads (and Moms) who are "disgusted", mainly due to the fact that they get sexually turned on by 16 year-old girls due to the anti-sexual social doctrine that has been pounded into their brains all their lives.

People who grow up thinking sexuality is no big deal don't get hard or wet by drooling over teenagers who are simply dancing for their team and developing their own sexuality.

Quit projecting.


Of course. If you say so.


Yeah. That's what it is. Simply dancing for their team.

What a bunch of crap. Sadly you've added little value to this discussion. with your pop-psychology "analysis". \

That's a stupid question, but I'll bite anyway.

Yes Chris, it's a good idea to teach that "abstinence [is] the healthiest choice a person can make in regards to avoiding STDs, unwanted pregnancy not to mention the mental and emotional problems that can come from intimate relations absent a strong relational commitment?"

Now, since pretty much everyone agrees on that, what do we do to educate teens about responsible ways to protect themselves once decide they want to get laid (which most teens would if presented the opportunity)*?




* crossing your fingers doesn't count

You don't get turned on by 16 year old girls? I hate to tell you this, but you may be gay.

Everyone I know gets turned on by 16 year old girls, they just don't act on those impulses.

I wouldn't mind being gay. I really wouldn't. Well, bisexual, anyway.

Unfortunately, I'm not attracted to men. I'm not repulsed by them either, they just don't turn me on. Like teenage girls. They don't (usually) turn me on more than a raised eyebrow. There are no impulses, other than to raise an eyebrow. 16 year-old girls haven't developed the traits that I like best in women, namely ample hips/ass/thighs, sexual experience, and complete non-societally reactive independence.

Maybe short girls don't turn you on. Or flat-chested girls. Or black girls. Or redheads. Or fat girls.

Well... young girls just don't turn me on, and that doesn't make me gay.

"Oooh111 highschool girls dunt make him horny1111 he must be gay111"

Also... Paris Hilton doesn't turn me on either. I must be gay!

(Nicole Ritchie, on the other hand... if only she dressed in Paris's outfits instead of her slightly more conservative gear, I'd buy the series.)

It is probably a cultural thing. In the US 16 year old girls look like adults physically - in other parts of the world maybe not.

If a person exclusively likes 16 year old girls, then they have a problem, I'll admit.

Actually..it is the question and not stupid at all. Many don't seem to be asking it actually from what I can tell.


First not everyone does agree on that. Second, we teach them that "getting laid" is a bad choice and that there are likely to be negative consquences (STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and emotional troubles) that come from intimate relations absent a committed relationship. Or maybe we should create measures to take away the consequences (condoms, abortion, etc.) Which is what we do instead.

Were you planning to add anything useful to this discussion?




Interesting statement. So...if I do get turned on by a 16 year old girl (I am 36 years old)...what should I do if I want to give into "the urge"? Should I resist it? Should I just go with it? Should I just make sure that I use a condom so she doesn't get pregnant (well, I guess I can get her an abortion if she does anyway)?

The urge, and the reaction to the urge, are completely different subjects. The problem with the christian right is that you all demonize the urge, when it is only the action which matters. If you demonize the urge, you just end up with a guarenteed sin, and perpetual guilt.

Obviously you should not have sex with 16 year olds, it is illegal.

Let um cheer for God's sake. Everyone has better things to talk about. Like the culture which has given rise to this problem. Why not concern yourselves with sexuality creeping in through TV, music, and magazines. (not to mention the internet).

Move along.

Agreed. I haven't said anything different. In fact it is self-control of (actions deriving from) urges that I am talking about.


First, you can address the points I am making or you can address some vague, generalized "Christian right" and lump me into them if you wish. I that makes you feel better, fine. Bottom line is that I am not "demonizing" the urges. The urges are (mostly) quite natural (though, admittedly, some urges are deviation from what is natural). I am talking about self-control of (actions deriving from) urges...and specifically teaching, training, educating and encouraging young people about self-control.

Self-control is a bit like muscle. If you don't use it or exercise it, it withers and dies. You have to exercise it...train it...condition it...strengthen it.


But that is merely a structured, man-made consequence that our culture has setup. We've said (through the law) that it is wrong. It is (somewhat) arbitrary if you think about it.

It is somewhat arbitrary that we haven't said that it is illegal for 16-year olds (or younger) to have sex...period.

Teenagers are just not mature enough to make those kind of decisions in any informed matter. I teach my eight year old many a moral lesson, but frankly that doesn't "inform" him of anything. He's still eight years old and still things the world is all good to him.

The point is that teenagers are teenagers -not adults. Even "adults" are many times misinformed or stupid in their decisions. Its why for thousands of years the young have respected and listened to the old - the ones who experienced life. Copping out and not giving our children a moral handle based on generations of experience only leads to greater deaths, violence, and civil stagnation. I'm not saying the adults are perfect either, but there was far more civility in our nation (with some huge exceptions, I grant - but that's part of learning from history) 100 years ago than there is now.

Actually, we already (briefly) discussed those things. It seems that those things are less the cause than symptoms of the deeper problem of our willingness to accept these things in our culture do to increasing liberal sexual mores.

You know those things that are so obvious that it is practically useless to bring them up when having a discussion because everyone knows it to be true already? Me too. This is one instance.


Yeah yeah yeah you'll find a few morons to disagree. The overwhelming majority of people, however, know abstinence is best. They just don't care. So again, what comes after that?


What? Yeah I agree with all that, so I must be reading it wrong. Because you were railing for abstinence and now you're agreeing with what I said: that they should be taught the most responsible routes to take once they decide to forego abstaining.


I don't do that. I usually don't assign characteristics primarily to one group, but from everything I've seen having lived in several very different communities in my life, it is the people with strong religious convictions that encompass this "we" you speak of. Outside of that group, I find the vast majority of people willing to have open and honest discussions with their children and encourage them do do all things responsibly. And contrary to many beliefs, you can responsibly have sex, even as a teenager.

While I am still not certain that most people agree with the abstinence position that you and I (apparently) do...let's assume they do...but, as you say, they simply don't care. Perhaps then you have struck on the root problem. People really know what's best but they don't care.


I wasn't speaking of you perosnally.


The "we" is our culture and society. This is the "we" that appears to be willing to create measures to take away the consequences (condoms, abortion, etc.)


I disagree. But then our definitions of "responsibly" must differ.

I'm all for a more liberal view of sex. That being said. My views do not reflect that of the nation. I think the essence of the issue is that any *real* discussion of sexuality and/or sexual behaviour has been so hidden that the effect is that the public acts like a nation constantly poo-pooing about the sexual decline in America.

Positions like "Healthy consenting adults should be free to do as they wish in their bedrooms without legislation" seems to be a 'okay' idea. But the idea that a store which sells sex toys and videos etc. is going to destroy a neighborhood seems stupid to me. There is this disconnect between what we say, and what we do.

I'll give you another example: Sex clubs. You go to a private place, you pay for a membership, sign legal documents, show ID, pass a background check, and enter into a private building to do what you wish with other consenting adults. Again... where is the problem?

I have people in my neighborhood who would cring at the idea of seeing two gay people kiss in public. I find the disturbing LACK of conversation about sex to be the single greatest point of personal frustration with the society I live in.

It astounds me that so many people still blush furiously at something which is perfectly natural and is both as simple and as complex as a kiss. Physical human interaction is the essence of the thing. The emotional connotations are a construct of society building (which is fine and all)... but when sex is pointed at and demonized... I can't help but wonder where the common sense of the nation has gone.

... more later....

But for me the bottom line is that the nation can't FIND a bottom line about sex. I don't see moralitiy, or even 'acceptablity' to be an issue. People can and do agree on the fact that minor shouldn't have sex. Great, fine. But discussion above and beyond that? What point does it server? Sure... we shouldn't have porn on public television that kids can watch. Great. Again though.. beyond that.. what is the point?

Too much taboo.. not enouch talk. It's like the don't ask don't tell policy REALLY exists for ALL sexuality and it is policy for the nation.

Actually, my point is that just because you aren't doing the number 1 most responsible thing you could possibly be doing, doesn't mean you're being irresponsible. There are levels of responsibility, and as I see it one can responsibly have sex in light of the fact that not having sex is the pinnacle of responsibility.

The main topic of this thread doesn't matter much to me one way or another, but the above comment brings up something interesting.

Do you imagine that a particular thing (teen sex would just be an example) is bad simply because it is by definition bad, and that possible bad consequences are no more than a kind of "evidence" of that inherent badness, or that a thing is bad because of its consequences, and that eliminating or reducing the risk of bad consequences eliminates or reduces the badness?

When I ask this question, please understand that I consider wrecklessly risky behavior immoral. For example, I wouldn't say that firing a gun into a crowd wasn't a bad thing to do simply because you got lucky and didn't hurt anyone. In my view, exposing others to undue and unnecessary risk is a wrong that can't be righted by nothing more than good fortune.

By the above reasoning, I consider drunk driving immoral. But if we some day have computer-driven cars that can take over the controls for us and make us even safer that we are today with the most sober human driver, drunk driving ceases to be immoral. There is no inherent wrongness is being inside a vehicle while intoxicated, or even in controlling that vehicle if "driving" consists of no more than sitting at a console and telling your car "take me home". It's the degree of risk that you impose on other than defines the degree of immorality.

I think this is a good way of approachign the issue (and other issues too). It may not be the onyl way, but it certainly is one good way.

What I think is that the natural consequences of some particular action can be instructive as to the "goodness" or "badness" (or "rightness" or "wrongness") of the action (though not always...I'll explain in a minute). In other words if we see bad things happening as a result of some action(s), then there is a good possibility that the action(s) themselves are bad (and vice versa).

By eliminating or reducing the negative consequences we may simply be "masking" them...or really just hiding them...maybe even delaying them. In the example of sexual relations, there are certainly potentially negative consequences aside from the immediate (STDs or pregnancy)...there could be much longer term (emotional, mental and relational) problems that are a consequence of having intimate relations absent a single, monogomous, committed relationship.

Often we focus only the physical and short-term (STDs and pregnancy) consequences and ignore or wave off the longer term (emotional, mental, relational) and larger (societal and cultural) consequences.

( NOTE: This is true about a lot of things. Sexuality just happens to be the topic at hand. Often those that desire the "liberalization" of some thing or another operate from an assumption that what is old, traditional, etc. is bad...those that desire a "conservative" approach can be guilty of assuming that any change is bad too. )


While I agree with what you are saying here, I'm not sure that this analogy is comparative to the topic of sexual issues. The main reason is that in the example the person is really no longer "driving" as we have defined it. They are riding. Our laws today address the action (driving while intoxicated)...not the location (being in a car while intoxicated.)

Speaking about temptation, lust and displays of jailbait, is it common for teenage girls in Dallas to perform, what I gather to be some sort of mandatory public service or fund raising as part of their curiculumn, car washes. What happens is that many of these girls are on street corners and curbs waiving "free car wash" signs, and they'd be dressed in beachware, bikinis and such, while thousands of drivers pass by, presumably half them enjoying the view?

If it isn't, then I guess it is just a Houston thing.

That's for those who don't want to drop the cash to go into one of our many gentlemens clubs.

16 year-old girls don't (generally) look like the adults I like. Or behave like them.

And I'll forgive you because you're relatively new here, but as most people here know, I'm American, white and spent the first 25 years of my life in Southern California.

So perhaps a topic for another discussion... but where do we draw the line? There are stories of young men going to Jail for 10 years (in Georgia) for having sex with 16 year olds. Is this justice? We aren't talking about rape here... we are talking about a kid who turns 18 and is sleeping with his 16 year old girlfriend...

How 'zero tollerance' can we be? When does 'youthful indiscretion' turn into abuse? Why do we 'wink and nod' at things like "girls gone wild" and obviously strive to make younger and younger women into sex objects and then turn around and try to cook the very people who are attracted to them?

Thoughts on all this?

I think it, possibly, illustrates the somewhat arbitrary nature of some of the "rules" (both unwritten social mores as well as written law) we establish around this kind of thing.

Your example is, perhaps (I don't know all the details of the statutory rape laws, and they vary), a great example. On Day X, the boy is 17 years old, his girlfriend is 16...it seems that can have sex with impunity. On day X +1, the guy is 18 and now (potentially) liable for "statutory rape". Wait a few more years (or she's a couple years younger) and he's a pedophile.

One consistent "rule" (not saying "law" here...but social "norm" or "moral guideline") would be sexual relations only within the confines of the single, monogomous, committed relationship of marriage.

I know someone will be quick to point out how difficult this "norm" would be to achieve and that it is unrealistic to expect this.

Difficult? No doubt. But then nothing worthwhile is ever easy.

Unrealistic? Perhaps, but that doesn't necessarily make it untrue.