Sexy Cheerleading Ban dies:

[Da Blonde]

When I began a former career as a pole spinner it was obvious cheerleading had provided me the tools I needed to survive:

***Sexy cheerleading bill’ appears dead in Texas
Senate says it’s not likely to take action on legislation this yearThe Associated Press
Updated: 4:09 a.m. ET May 15, 2005AUSTIN, Texas - A bill approved by the state House to ban bawdy cheerleading routines apparently isn’t going anywhere in the Senate this year.

The legislation prohibits “overtly sexually suggestive” cheerleading routines at school events and gives the state education chief the authority to ask school districts to review performances. It does not define sexually suggestive.

The House approved the legislation May 3 and sent it to the Senate Education Committee, where it is expected to die.

“We have some very important work to do in the next two weeks, and that’s not one of them,” Republican state Sen. Florence Shapiro, who chairs the education committee, said Friday.

Democratic Rep. Al Edwards, the bill’s sponsor, has argued that sexually suggestive cheerleading exhibitions are a distraction that results in pregnancies, dropouts and the contraction of AIDS and herpes.

Shapiro said the problem needs to be handled by parents and school districts, not the Legislature.

But Edwards vowed to bring it up in the future.

“If there’s anybody who thinks there’s not a problem with the way our young folks are performing ... then they’ve been somewhere with their head in the sand,” he said.

***

Al Edwards used to be called "Ayatollah Al" for a previous bill to cut the fingers off drug dealers. He's really a pretty good guy, an African-American liberal Democrat who represents North Houston.

[DivineOb]

Yeah I had seen this. Really this is a great argument just in favor of getting rid of public schools.

[sixfootsvn]

Yeah I had seen this. Really this is a great argument just in favor of getting rid of public schools.

So you think the bill is good? The government knows more about what's best for our children than the educators and parents do. Then you turn around and say you want to get rid of public education. LOL....... ok... which is it? The government should get more involved or less/not at all?

[The Laughing Man]

While I disagree with the bill and think that this sort of thing needs to be handled at the school level, I guess I was wrong with the impression that liberals were against the sexual objectification of women. Feminism is dead, I guess.

[sixfootsvn]

While I disagree with the bill and think that this sort of thing needs to be handled at the school level, I guess I was wrong with the impression that liberals were against the sexual objectification of women. Feminism is dead, I guess.

Nobody said that. I too agree it should be handled at the school level.

[DivineOb]

So you think the bill is good? The government knows more about what's best for our children than the educators and parents do. Then you turn around and say you want to get rid of public education. LOL....... ok... which is it? The government should get more involved or less/not at all?


You are misunderstanding me. I think the fact that this was an issue which people sought to be 'corrected' by armed thugs (i.e., government intervention) only tends to demonstrate that public schools are a bad idea.

[sixfootsvn]

You are misunderstanding me. I think the fact that this was an issue which people sought to be 'corrected' by armed thugs (i.e., government intervention) only tends to demonstrate that public schools are a bad idea.

Yeah. They screwed up this one. Public schools are still a pretty good idea in general.

[guacamole]

Darn that Elvis and his gyrating hips.

[Da Blonde]

I guess I was wrong with the impression that liberals were against the sexual objectification of women. Feminism is dead, I guess.

Man, you must've been asleep for 25 years or something. Feminism long ago split between "porn women and "prune women" as Lindsy Van Gelder characterized the two factions.

To help bring you up to speed here's a link to Susie Bright's blog entry on the death of Andrea Dworkin. Regarding the two factions there Bright is a poster child for the former, Dworkin for the latter.

http://susiebright.blogs.com/susie_brights_journal_/2005/04/andrea_dworkin_.html

Obviously in this instance Al Edwards, a liberal who offered this bill, was for it and the argument can be made the bill was an attempt to negate sexual objectivation of women.

[Blemonds]

Obviously in this instance Al Edwards, a liberal who offered this bill, was for it and the argument can be made the bill was an attempt to negate sexual objectivation of women.It doesn't really strin one's imagination to realize why you would be in favor of "sexy cheerleading"

[Da Blonde]

It doesn't really strin one's imagination to realize why you would be in favor of "sexy cheerleading"

Actually I am not so much in favor of it as opposed to big government intervention in local school business.

[Ryokan]

I stand by my wife feeling that feminism says women should be allowed to objectify themselves if they want to.

[anthrogirl]

I agree that it should be handled at the school level. Government regulation will only serve to homogenize the population. Different communities hold different cultural values, and as long as no laws are being broken--these kinds of decisions would better serve the community if they were made locally.

fwiw.
ag

[NeilUnreal]

Sounds like the proposed law was doomed from the get-go anyway: too broad and unenforceable. It would have been ignored until challenged and then ruled against.

-Neil

[Meh_Gerbil]

Actually I am not so much in favor of it as opposed to big government intervention in local school business.

So if my local public school decided to teach that homosexuality was immoral....

[Spinyn00bman]

So if my local public school decided to teach that homosexuality was immoral....

That's REALLY not nice of you to force Da Blonde to flip flop on something......again. The poor girl must be getting tired.

[DivineOb]

So if my local public school decided to teach that homosexuality was immoral....

Are you so desparate for a "win" that you have to so butcher DB's meaning?

For shame!

[Blemonds]

Are you so desparate for a "win" that you have to so butcher DB's meaning?

For shame!He butchered nothing. He made a very valid point. If the local schools decided to teach that homosexual behavior is indeed a perversion, I suspect Da Blonde would be all for big government intervention.

[Da Blonde]

So if my local public school decided to teach that homosexuality was immoral....

There's a difference between minutiae of programs and unconstitutional acts.

[DivineOb]

He butchered nothing. He made a very valid point. If the local schools decided to teach that homosexual behavior is indeed a perversion, I suspect Da Blonde would be all for big government intervention.

Yes I bet she would, as would I. Are you really so obtuse that you can't see the reason?

[Blemonds]

Yes I bet she would, as would I. Are you really so obtuse that you can't see the reason?If she would, it merely proves MG's point.

[DivineOb]

If she would, it merely proves MG's point.

Doesn't it seem intuitive to you that issues of morality or of teaching content (whatever they are) are distinct from issues relating to extracurricular activities?

[Blemonds]

Doesn't it seem intuitive to you that issues of morality or of teaching content (whatever they are) are distinct from issues relating to extracurricular activities?No. The extracurricular activities are part of the teaching process. In both cases, you're choosing to teach in favor of immorality

[DivineOb]

No. The extracurricular activities are part of the teaching process. In both cases, you're choosing to teach in favor of immorality


Isn't something extracurricular, by definition, *not* part of the "teaching process"?

Additionally, if your sole filter is 'immorality,' then I'd ask why you aren't out there challenging the morality of, for example, swimming (the women certainly show of a great deal of flesh) or football (engaging in and glorifying violence).

[Meh_Gerbil]

There's a difference between minutiae of programs and unconstitutional acts.

In my opinion, cheerleaders exposing themselves isn't minutiae -- it is a lesson in how to get ahead in this world along the lines of 'show your breasts dearie, and you'll be popular -- if the audience gets bored, bare a little more leg'.

I don't want my daughters taught that.

Also, it isn't unconstitutional to teach that homosexuality is wrong. How is it that you've become convinced that teaching it is moral is constitutional and teaching the opposite is immoral. In either case the instructor is taking a moral stand in the classroom.

For 200 years the constitution has had no problem with the teaching that homosexuality is wrong -- what has been changed here?

[Meh_Gerbil]

Isn't something extracurricular, by definition, *not* part of the "teaching process"?

Additionally, if your sole filter is 'immorality,' then I'd ask why you aren't out there challenging the morality of, for example, swimming (the women certainly show of a great deal of flesh) or football (engaging in and glorifying violence).

Coaches need to remember they are a very important part of the teaching process in all they do. For some students, coaches are the only teachers to which they will listen.

Education should encompass all school related activities -- learning goes beyond books.

[JCA]

For 200 years the constitution has had no problem with the teaching that homosexuality is wrong -- what has been changed here?

You are seeing the rise of those that know how to play the system. There are flaws in society that any 'constitution' written 200 years ago would not have been able to account for. Changing trends and values have made it so many minor changes - or 'addendums' - have made their way into the constiution, in attempts to refine what was meant.

What has changed is the openess of our world societies, the ability to examine other groups of people that where not so accessible before, and see how we compare. What has changed is that people have come to a time when they can look at an ever shrinking world, and find they are not so alone as they thought. Through this, they have been able to unite in ways not possible before, and actually have some impact.

In a way (and I don't want anyone to make an issue of this in this thread, as it mainly to point out a 'tactic'), it is like those people who go into Science, not to behave as a 'true' scientist, but to forward their own 'agenda' while being able to claim a 'scientific' background. You will begin to see the same thing in government when it comes to homosexuality, and maybe even other things. As these 'open' people make their way through the ranks, they are more and more able to have people accept the policies they want to 'push'.


Basically, the thing that has changed is society, and the size of the world as we perceive it. Every group within it wants to think they have remained 'unchanged', but it simply isn't true. In schools you have science teachers who believe in channeling Chi and Fen Shui, and now another relatively small group of people also want religion in the science class - In poltics and Government, you have both religious and 'gay' activists.. who probably aren't in government to serve any 'people' but those they consider 'their own'. These kinds of things weren't acceptable before.. an actually probably still aren't by the majority of people.. but we are now a society of politically correct people (apprently), and have come to believe that each persons individualism should somehow be reflected for, or upon, the whole - no matter how many people may actually be against it. What has changed? We are a collective society that people therein had lost their individualism (so they thought/feel), and are fighting to claim it back - without realising that the system is WAY slow to change, and others may not want that particular brand of 'individualism' anyway.


Now I don't know any of that for actual fact.. it is just part of my observations. And quickly put too.


As for Sexy Cheerleading.. of course there are limits to decency. I think a lot of that has to do with the actual TV camera's being right on top of the girls though doing the routines. I've been to games with lots of cheerleaders.. some of the things where provacative, but never have I actually seen any body parts I couldn't see opening any magazine and browsing through some ad's. I think the whole TV idea up close of such a thing lends a whole new erotic angle to it. I mean really, does the camera man HAVE to be taking almost up-the-skirt and deep cleavage shots? Good luck on seeing such things from 5th row back... (not that I have tried.. sheesh).

I don't see how a bill would help in any way though, other than add more power to government - which while some say is fine now, as it suits them to, when it ISN'T going their way, they are shouting loud enough. maybe the true problems stems from the notion of mine that government is itself no longer about just 'governing' the economy, and base social structure (houseing, food, communications etc.) and such, but is more about running government itself, and giving voice to those who work within it for whatever amount of time they do. Add this agenda type person into the mix that I mention above, and you have for what you see today - lobby groups for a minority of people, who can make changes for the majority. A two-edged sword I might add.



Okay.. I'm done waffling.. my tea is cool enough to drink.


Love and Peace

JCA

[DivineOb]

Coaches need to remember they are a very important part of the teaching process in all they do. For some students, coaches are the only teachers to which they will listen.



That may be but the point still stands. EXTRAcurricular activities have that name for a reason.

Furthermore, this is a weak argument since only a very select group of students have the opportunity to interact with coaches on that level, so they are hardly comparable to 'teachers at large'

[Da Blonde]

In my opinion, cheerleaders exposing themselves isn't minutiae -- it is a lesson in how to get ahead in this world along the lines of 'show your breasts dearie, and you'll be popular -- if the audience gets bored, bare a little more leg'.

I don't want my daughters taught that.

There's a considerable difference between a Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction and females moving as Elvis did on The Ed Sullivan Show in 1956 which wasn't shown below the waist.

Also, it isn't unconstitutional to teach that homosexuality is wrong. How is it that you've become convinced that teaching it is moral is constitutional and teaching the opposite is immoral. In either case the instructor is taking a moral stand in the classroom.

For 200 years the constitution has had no problem with the teaching that homosexuality is wrong -- what has been changed here?

I doubt you can find a documentable instance of a public school teaching "it" is moral. You can find respect for kindren from diverse families, as you should.

Unless there's a Supreme Court case on the topic I don't know about, say, Frank Kameny v. District of Columbia Public Schools, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Blemonds]

Isn't something extracurricular, by definition, *not* part of the "teaching process"? No, it means it is outside the regular curriculum, yet still fallws within the purview of the school.

Additionally, if your sole filter is 'immorality,' then I'd ask why you aren't out there challenging the morality of, for example, swimming (the women certainly show of a great deal of flesh)Showing flesh at a swim meet is not meant to be sexual. or football (engaging in and glorifying violence).Football is not violence, it's a high contact sport

[Paul]

For 200 years the constitution has had no problem with the teaching that homosexuality is wrong -- what has been changed here?

In fact Thomas Jefferson, the holy grail of archliberals, supported legislation that mandated severe penalties for homosexuality (sodomy).

[Blemonds]

In fact Thomas Jefferson, the holy grail of archliberals, supported legislation that mandated severe penalties for homosexuality (sodomy).Rightfully so

[Da Blonde]

In fact Thomas Jefferson, the holy grail of archliberals, supported legislation that mandated severe penalties for homosexuality (sodomy).

TJ was ahead of his time on many issues. This was not one of them.

[Ryokan]

In fact Thomas Jefferson, the holy grail of archliberals, supported legislation that mandated severe penalties for homosexuality (sodomy).
Thomas Jefferson was a serial debtor, abused his slaves, and had little respect for human life. Who cares what he thought?