I don’t know how else to interpret hip thrusts and that hoochie move where you’re doing a plie while working your crotch around, other than as an imitation of sexual intercourse. You are minimizing it by saying “swivel their hips”.
what a ridiculous question that’s divergent of the spirit of the OP. is it ok for a 10 year old to put on fishnets and go out into the cul de sac and proposition sex to other 10 year olds? clearly no. is it ok for a 10 year old to put on fishnets and go out on stage and dance? yes.
In Beyonce’s vid, that hoochie crotch thing is going on between 0:55 and 0:59, to illustrate.
Musicat’s Kid: Hey mister, I need a good fucking.
Mister: [aghast]
Musicat: What’s the problem?
Mister: Your kid just told me she needs a good fucking.
Musicat: So?
Mister: That’s completely inappropriate!
Musicat: Why?
Mister: Well… she’s a kid… and she’s eagerly asking me to have sex with her.
Musicat: No she’s not.
Mister: Did you not just hear her?
Musicat: Yes, I did hear her. I taught her to say it in fact.
Mister: You taught your kid to tell people she needs a good fucking?
Musicat: I taught her to make those sounds. But she has no idea what they mean.
Mister: You… what? Why?
Musicat: She’s going to need to say it to somebody someday when she does understand what fucking is. Might as well get her started early. Good clean fun as far as she’s concerned.
Mister: But… you’re teaching her to tell people she wants to have sex with them.
Musicat: No, that’s how you interpret it. The problem isn’t with me or her, the problem is with you.
Musicat himself made the point that there’s no reason why it’s OK to dress up as nurses but not witches or devils and that dressing up like a prostitute doesn’t make you one because it’s all make believe.
Hahaha. Lawls.
My analogies are on point, and you should take them seriously. You offered an argument concerning these dances. I offered an exactly parallel argument concerning murder. If you don’t accept the argument about murder, you must not accept the argument you offered concerning the dances.
Your argument has this form:
Kids are inevitably going to learn that people do X. So we should teach them how to do X even before they’ve learned that people do X.
That is an invalid form. Your argument replaces “X” with “act in ways designed by convention to signal sexual enticement.” I illustrated the invalidity by replacing “X” with “murder”.
i’m still with musicat (in this particular situation). dressing up as, is different than pretending as especially with “prostitution”. there is no “prostitution” uniform. short skirts and revealed navels double as a dancer’s outfit as well as ho’s. these girls aren’t make believing that they’re prostitutes. they’re make believing they’re dancers.
if they were dressing up in leather chaps and putting on a female interpretation of midnight cowboy, i would be more inclined to agree with you.
Beep! Does…not…compute…must reset…
Funny, but not everyone sees dressing up for a dance routine as propositioning someone for sex, innocent or not, nor do they expect a dance routine to lead to a lifetime of prostitution, which apparently you do. As someone once said, “The problem isn’t with me or her, the problem is with you.”
The parent is being a troll and using his child as a tool. Pranking a kid is being a jerk and when the kid realizes it, his trust in his parent might diminish. But outside of that, I’m not seeing where you think the child is harmed in any of this. Does the child become an axe murderer? Does the child become a slut? What exactly do you think happens beyond that the kid feels like his dad is an ass when he finds out what it was all about? And note that that’s not applicable to allowing your kid to dress like Beyonce or Wonder Woman, or whatever, because there you’re not playing a prank on a kid, you’re empowering them to dress how they want.
The question of whether they’re pretending to be prostitutes or not is a red herring.
The kids were sexualized. X is sexualized by Y in culture C when Y emphasizes traits of X which, by conventions active in C, draw attention to the possibility that something might be used for sexual gratification.
So for example, a cucumber is sexualized by me in mainstream American culture when I draw attention to its length and width and roughly penis-like shape.
And kids are sexualized by parents in mainstream American culture when the parents draw attention to the ability of the kids to move in certain ways–ways which, by conventions active in that culture, serve to draw attention to the usefulness of the female body for sexual gratification.
The kids were sexualized. And I take it as practically axiomatic that it is wrong to sexualize kids.
Well done.
Yes. And if she wanted to dress up as the devil, the pope, or Richard Nixon, none of whom I hope she grows up to be and all of whom I despise, I would be OK with it.
And if a son wanted dress up as a kick-ass biker dude with protruding switchblades, that’s fine, too. I would be considerably more upset if if it wasn’t make-believe.
That’s why it’s called make-believe. That’s why it’s called acting. Do you think it was wrong for Dick Shawn to dress as {you-know-who}[sup]*[/sup] in The Producers? It was only a play!
[sup]*[/sup](Trying to avoid Godwin’s Law)
OK. As long as we’re all clear that Musicat would be perfectly fine with his ten year old daughter literally dressing up as a prostitute. Not like a prostitute, but actually make believing as one.
Musicat, please bear with me. Do you think the “Musicat” character in my dialogue gave a poor defense for her action? If so, where do you think her defense goes wrong, and how does it go wrong?
The problem with your mythical dialogue is your assertion that the adult programmed the kid to solicit sex, innocent or not. If you believe that dancing is the same as sex solicitation, you have a point. If you do not, you don’t.
So it comes down to what’s in your (or my) mind). I’m perfectly willing to believe that you believe what you believe. I don’t think dancing is necessarily sex solicitation.
And, in all seriousness, please refer to a previous post of mine where I described my mother, may she rest in peace, as interpreting ANY dancing as a prelude to and invitation to sex. “If the dancers are touching, that’s simulating sex or arousing to sex. If they are not touching, why are they standing so close?” – she might say. And what purpose would dancing have if it wasn’t for erotic arousal? I kid you not; we used to have heavy arguments in our family, and dance=evil=devil worship=immoral=going to Hell. She didn’t like card playing much, either. :rolleyes:
I equate my mother’s response to dancing and yours. They differ only by degrees. Both of you are offended, both of you think it’s wrong. Hers was due to religious upbringing, but it was a mental attitude she would never change. The world was headed for Hell in a handbasket and dancing was taking them there. And the problem was only a perceptual one, as I never grew up to be any of the things she predicted (gangster, devil worshiper, decadent hedonist or even civil servant).
BTW, I once put on a long dress for Halloween as a young kid, pretended to be a girl, and thought it was fun. Guess what? I never did it again, and I’m not gay by a long shot. Oddly enough, my mother had no problem with it at all – see, it’s all about perception, isn’t it?
I don’t think the girls were soliciting sex. I think they were taught to execute moves which, by convention, draw attention to the usefulness of the dancer for sexual gratification.
I’d really like to know this, and I think we can make progress if you’ll answer the question: Did the “Musicat” character in my dialogue give a poor defense for her action? If so, what was poor about the defense?
Well, I watched the kids. I thought it was hilarious and not even slightly erotic.
They I watched the Beyonce video, which I though was overly artsy and not even slightly erotic.
Man, that is one vapid song.
You have taken words I supplied in one context and inserted them in a context I did not intend in an attempt to twist the meaning. I cannot honestly answer your question unless you first tell me, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”