And how do they keep their hips from flying out of the sockets or getting whiplash?
I haven’t stopped beating my wife.
Also, I’ve never beaten her.
Typically people use the “beating my wife” example when they have been asked to answer a misleading “yes or no” question, but I’ve not asked you for a simplistic answer. You can say as much as you like in explanation of course!
In my dialogue, do you think thr character gave a poor defense of her action or not? If so, then what went wrong in the defense she gave for that action?
I think you’re incapable of judging what’s erotic and what isn’t.
Can I use this as my signature? 
I’ll agree that it’s wrong of you to look at kids and think of them as sexual objects. Stop doing that. But that still has no relevance to whether or not any harm is caused by any of this.
I think you can be harmed by things that don’t have any effects that impinge on you in any way. For example, if someone makes a deathbed promise to me, and doesn’t keep it after I die, I’ve been harmed–though their failure to keep the promise has no effect on me at all. If, per impossible, it turns out that my wife and all of my friends are participating in a conspiracy to make me think they respect and love me, but are actually laughing behind my back at all times, then, even if this were never revealed to me, and everything were for me just as it would be if I had a genuinely loving wife and set of friends–even then, I’d say I’d be being harmed in that situation.
If someone doesn’t want to say these are cases of “harm,” I’d think surely they’d agree nevertheless that the people in such cases have been wronged in some way.
Similarly, even if this dance doesn’t ever impinge on these girls in any relevant meaningful way, it still might be that they are harmed or wronged by being encouraged to execute the dance.
Even barring that, the discussion doesn’t have to be about whether these specific girls have been harmed. The question might be whether it would be beneficial or harmful in general for a society mostly like ours to consider it acceptable to teach girls this young dances like this. Perhaps some individual cases might not involve harm to particular individuals, but it might yet be that adopting the principle in general would typically result in harm.
You’re welcome to it. 
There’s a crucial distinction between the following judgments:
“That kid is performing actions which conventionally signify sexuality”
and
“That kid is sexy.”
I’ve made the former judgment. I have, of course, never made the latter judgment.
I think you’re incapable of of judging the thought processes of others. So there.
At least try to put a humorous spin on it next time.
Okay. I’ve taken time to watch the video, complete with a little marketing spiel.
The parents look intelligent and successful so I’m assuming they aren’t being naive when they say the video was taken out of context. But considering the fact that they appear savvy I’d say they are being disingenous and defensive.
No, I don’t understand why the parents didn’t have a problem with the dance routine or outfits. It’s okay to train a child to act sexual as long as it’s for friends and family?
Yes, I understand the point the parents were making.
In my opinion it was the innocence of childhood which was being taken out of context and not the video.
It really doesn’t matter how many people view something as to whether it is healthy for the children or not.
But aren’t these “accidental” postings all about publicity, prestige and making money and not about children, anyway?
It’s more frightening to me that the parents appear to not understand than anything the little girls understand.
Second thought a bit off topic.
This morning I heard on the radio that two parents were in trouble for blindfolding their toddler and laughing at him while he wandered about bumping into walls and furniture trying to “find” them.
Was he hurt? I don’t think so physically.
Did he think Mom and Dad were playing a fun game with him? I imagine that’s how it had been presented.
Did the parents stop to think of the deepeer implications of what they were doing or did it just seem like a good idea at the time and kinda cute?
Guess what video came immediately to my mind?
I think he would, that’s the sad thing.
The only thing wrong with those girls’ dance performance was the music. I don’t understand why EVERYBODY is dancing to that song, including my (adult) tap class (which includes a couple of men).
Dancers, particularly in jazz/hiphop classes, but also ballet, learn pretty early that they need to get used to revealing costumes and showing a lot of skin, or else maybe their parents should sign them up for Irish step-dancing instead.
Also: There is a subset, and I mean a pretty large subset, of grown men who think school uniform, i.e. knee socks, plaid skirt, white Oxford blouse, is a pretty hot look. But no Catholic schoolgirl has ever thought it was a hot look. So the fact that some grown man, somewhere, might think it looked sexy is irrelevant.
I saw similar costumes at my granddaughter’s dance recital. Worn by dancers not nearly as proficient although, thankfully, they didn’t dance to Single Ladies.
It should be pretty clear by now that the problem most people are having with the dance is the moves. The costumes are just an exacerbating factor.
But, about the costumes, it’s possible to have a costume that allows freedom of movement–indeed, even one that happens to reveal a lot of skin–without necessarily signifying lingerie.
Yeah, the parent’s defense of the “functional” role of the costumes in showing the dancers’ lines/position and allowing freedom of movement elicited serious eye rollage from me. No, the judges can see the dancers’ lines and positions just fine without any “help” from those particular costumes. No, those are not the only costumes that will allow freedom of movement to perform highly technical dance moves - do ballerinas perform the technically demanding Giselle in a skimpy two piece?
Seconded and thanks for the second link.
IMO, anyone who finds this titillating needs professional help. What I do find disgusting are the so-called baby beauty contests where the young ladies are dressed in mini-heels and painted up like hookers. Now that’s sick. Jonbenet Ramsey comes to mind.
No, they wear body-hugging, curve-revealing leotards - that includes the men! - and if they were flesh-coloured, ballerinas would appear to be NAKED from a distance! Clearly, dressing your child in a skin-tight leotard is asking for trouble.
Nope, ballerinas performing Giselle wear full length tutus, like this.
My point was that it’s laughable that the parents are defending the costumes for its supposed functional role. As if there was nothing else that can be worn that would allow them to perform those moves. Any leotard is more comfortable than that getup. Why don’t they say it like it is - the costumes here were chosen for their aesthetic purposes to get into character, for a role of… whatever they are.
Damn, I’m really showing my lack of cultured entertainment. I bet they had skin-tight leotards on underneath tho’, and that the tutus weren’t worn for impropriety reasons.
Why would you find it disgusting? Why aren’t you a “sicko” for seeing something wrong with the pageant kids, if others are “sickos” for seeing something wrong with the seven year olds in the video?