warbaling through the vocal range like looking for a lost note.

i like some of mariah carey's songs but when she starts with the yodeling i have to turn it OFF.

But they didn't check to make sure you wore underwear

Or, as how I call it, the Stupid Bowl.

The news media talks more about the commercials and the costume malfunctions than the fucking game.

That tells anybody who pays attention that the Stupid Bowl is more about the carpet woven around the game, than the actual fucking game.

But, that's what US football is all about. It's also why I never, ever watch it, let alone care about it.

Or soccer for the really up-close-and-personal stuff!

People can wear what they want when they want if they choose to do so. This isn't Iran.

It's an American tradition of sorts to get the family rallied around---young to old and they watch it. Some people don't want their 5 year old dealing with half naked girls or heavily implied perverse commercials. Even your most liberal viewpoints doesn't in anyway interfere, or shouldn't interfere with a logical sense of moral code.

THIS is what women should be wearing at the seaside:

You intentionally reinterpret my post...right back at you. The hyper-sexualization of women which bleeds into the hyper-sexualization of young girls is okay by you.

They are a good family band...

about women if said woman is not sufficiently clothed?

The 5-year-olds wouldn't give a damn if there were fully-naked girls. It's the adults who get all flustered and then blame their discomfort on the kids.

Bumping and grinding in leather lingerie is not a clothing matter per se.

The adults think about sex, feel guilty thinking about sex and then shout "Think of the children!!!!!" so that they can avoid dealing with their own issues.

And I didn't think it was a "funny dance" or just naked people. I wasn't sure what to think of it, but it made me feel strange.

And I'll leave it at that.

On the other hand, the Sour Grapes Bunch from the Banana Splits gave me a lifelong appreciation of certain wardrobe ensembles.

She is a bit sheltered. She asked me about Beyonce before the game and I explained that she is a talented, beautiful and hard working woman. Then she stripper danced for the family hour. I feel like a dumbass. Sorry, but my kid is trying to figure out how she wants to be as a woman in this world. She is looking for role models. I can SEE her doing it. What Beyonce did does not set the example I was hoping for. Should have told her that Beyonce is just another attention hound and not to pay much attention to her.

So I dunno, call me a turd or whatever. If Beyonce wants to dance like that at a concert for adult people, I have no problem with it. But not a great call for a situation where there will many, many kids watching.

Beyonce is still a talented, beautiful and hard working woman. You can talk to your daughter about how you don't like the clothing choice and way - for example, you can talk about how the outfit distracted from her vocal talents and minimized her brain for her boobs to the audience.

Wear-a-bikini-become-worthless doesn't seem like a good lesson.

But I would have preferred not to. And sorry, but Beyonce has lost a lot of my respect. She is still hardworking, talented and intelligent, but it is how you use your gifts that make you unique.

But using her body doesn't remove the others.

Annoyingly long anecdote:

I went to the same school K-12. It's a small, snobby prep school. One of the girls in my classes was great at math and science....up until 9th grade. At that point, she had learned that "hot" girls couldn't be smart - mostly taught by those trying to use her intelligence as an excuse to "not dress like that" or "not be so worried about boys".

Well, she wanted to dress like that, and really liked boys. So she followed their advice and went from being in pre-calculus in 9th grade to remedial math. From AP science classes to remedial science classes. The drop was far to sudden for the material to have become too hard, and she had no problem with all the previous material. And it's not like there were no "popular" girls in those classes - one of the perks of such a small school is there aren't enough people to form strong cliques.

I fear our obsession with scantily-clad women and demonizing them are presenting our daughters with a false choice that does them a disservice. Beyonce, or the girl in my anecdote, can be hardworking, talented, intelligent and "dress like that". That last one doesn't change anything about the first three.

It is the highly sexualized dancing. I don't give a single shit if adults enjoy that or want to dress like that. But my daughter is 12. She is in 6th grade, not 9th. There is a big difference. She is still a child emotionally, even if physically she is on the edge of womanhood. My daughter needs a few more years of Harry Potter and Girl Scout cookies before she starts to decode the rules and nuances of the adult sexual landscape. Trust me, I was a 12 year old girl once and know far, far more than you about the pressures and temptations they face.

Do I think it is the end of the world that she saw the dance? No. It just made me groan internally and roll my eyes about the choice Beyonce made to do that for an audience that she damn well knew would include large numbers of children and families.

"dress like that" was intended to mean the outfit and the dancing.

Because the girl in my anecdote was only talked to in 9th grade. There wasn't years leading up to her break away from her intelligence.


And what I'm trying to tease out is "why?".

She's still smart.

She's still talented.

Yet she's now lesser because she wore that outfit and danced like that. One outfit about as revealing as a 'standard' bathing suit, and some gyrations can somehow reduce all accomplishments before that?

Why isn't the "adult" thing to do to simply not care so much about it? The dancing didn't make her dumber. The outfit didn't damage her ability to carry a tune.

Why can't a woman be a rocket scientist and a dancer? Why must the "sexiness" of the latter take reduce the former?

Dunno why this is hard to understand. It has nothing to do with an intelligent woman also being sexy. Clearly those attributes are not exclusive. It has to do with character. An intelligent woman who makes a decision to do something inappropriate and damaging, however mild, to further her own career.

It is developmentally inappropriate for children to be exposed to highly sexualized images. There is not much medical dissent here. Nearly all pediatric and psychological professional groups would agree with this statement. There is even evidence that exposing children to high sexualized images lowers the age that children go through puberty. It is now common for 10 year old girls to have their period. Not that the media is all to blame, but it is still something to think about.

And yet, knowing that (and I doubt she is ignorant), Beyonce decided to dance in a highly sexualized manner during a time when she knew many kids would be watching. I guess she felt like she would not make enough of a splash or sell enough crap if she was more age appropriate. Which is probably true. But it puts families in a quandary. We adults want to watch the big game, and they put it on during family viewing hours, yet they air programming that is inappropriate for many of the age groups who will be watching. Seems irresponsible to me.

Bring back the Black Eyed Peas! Too much autotune, but at least Fergie doesn't stripper dance for the kiddies.

You're asserting that it caused harm. What harm did it cause?

If those attributes are not exclusive, what damage was done? What was inappropriate?


And this show was nowhere near the material in those studies. The show was not hardcore and abusive porn.

Unless you think Elvis caused similar damage.


Got a link? I'd like to see that study.

Crazy! Nope, they are talking about regular, everyday sexualized images we now take for granted.

Here is a link. Please note I said evidence, not proof.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117639&page=1

What, exactly, damages them if they see a scantily-clad woman? And what on earth do you do if you take them to a beach?

People on a beach are not duck walking and grinding their asses.

The objection seems to be the combination of clothing and dance moves that are acceptable independently.

And the idea that if you don't look like Beyonce and don't pump your hips suggestively then you don't pass some test.

And the idea for boys that they can compare all girls to women like Beyonce.

It's exploitation.

Yes, I'm fully aware that we're culturally conditioned to think so.

But what in the routine said "you can only do this if you look like this"?

Since we're talking about kids, they haven't yet been culturally conditioned to think so. Yet. So why should we do so?

Make a big deal about it being wrong, or "good girls don't do that", and we're giving that routine the power to create that exploitation by training our kids to think that same way.

Everything in that routine spelled out the message. The very fact that Beyonce is just short of pole dancing screams volumes. Maybe not to you, but it sure does to girls and boys past the age of your example of a 5 year old. Looking at her do that makes them believe it's expected behavior as you discover your own sexuality.

I have seen kid videos where they are emulating those dance moves. Even dance competitions for girls seem to be revolving more around how much little clothing you have to wear. It was even debated on one of these dance tv shows. You think protecting young girls from the abuse of women in general is an issue that stems from the discomfiture of adults? ROFL. Absurd. But keep pushing that thought.

Obviously women are not hyper-sexualized and are looked at as the pinnacle of society while dancing that way dressed in that way.

They don't understand what sexual is.

Yes, the adults around those are rather screwed up. The kids don't get it.


So clothing is abuse? Even when the adult woman chooses that clothing?

Perhaps the lesson that the woman gets to pick what she wears instead of wearing what others demand of her might be important.

Do you have a five year old? Because I can assure you they have sexuality at that age. Makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but any mom or dad has had to tell their little cherub to get their hands out of their pants when they are in public. I can absolutely assure you that the kids get it on some level or another.

That's "oh, this feels good". They have no idea the rest of the baggage we attach.

Do you have kids? Have some sort of degree? Special training? You are making these statements like they are facts, and yet I don't think they are. I think they are your opinions.

that is pretty much a feminist issue across the board with all forms of feminism. you being a feminist, i am sure you understand the issue.

jeff, after just last week and this issue that you proclaim you have the right to feminist title cause you support womens rights. this would be what we are talking about that feminism goes beyond just rights. the right issues are pretty clear and simple. this is not.

and the sexualization of our young girls is very much an issue in our circle.

i am sure we have your support

We've wondered off topic, but I never claimed the feminist title. I kept asking why it was so critical to you to deny it to men. I'm not much for titles - I don't consider myself "black-ist" for not thinking discrimination against blacks is a good thing. As I said, I didn't think using sexism to fight sexism is a good idea.

However, this is people screaming "think of the children!!!" about something that the children just don't understand. We can't talk about the issues of a woman dressing "slutty" for a halftime show. We're ignoring that so that we can pretend to protect young children from something they don't need protection from.

understanding that you do not claim to be a feminist. it seems the only purpose was to challenge. that is fine. this would be the reason why. because it is all about the challenge and not seriously adopting the role. so, you have your answer.

second, it would be an opinion it is sexism fighting sexism. and this would be an example why it is not sexist.... in fighting sexism. so another question of yours answered.

third. i hear NO ONE "screaming" "think of the children!!!". what i hear is people on a certain side giving this hyperbole to people that were discussing the issues. it is much easier dismissing what they are saying when you throw out that hyperbole. giving them a tone that i have not seen. then you can ridicule them to dismissal.

fourth, ya.... kids may not get it at the level we adults understand, but ya, .... it does leave an impression. hence why, as a parent we monitor much of their environment. that is our job and what we do as a parent.

fifth. we are talking about "the issues of a woman dressing "slutty" for a halftime show." and part of the discussion, what was brought up is the what about the kids. that you and others sneer at. a favorite on du. and insistence that kids do not need the "protection" from. all your language to dismiss the very conversation you say we cannot talk about. one of the things i see so often in these conversations is the people that say all should be visible and said out loud, work the hardest to shut some people up.

but.... it is good to know, here and now, that you are not a feminist, and all the time we spent trying to explain so you can understand the issue, was really only about calling feminist out to tell us we were merely being sexists, and was not a serious conversation.

So it's rather odd you didn't see it.

And I made this point about 3 separate times to you: Of course the questions are a challenge! That's how we expand our understanding. It's only by asking questions that challenge one's position that gets out enough information to understand that position.


And as I explained multiple times, the point of the challenge is I do not reside inside your head. I can't understand what's going on in there unless I ask questions, and those questions are going to inherently challenge the statements you have made. Not to try and render them false, but to understand what's behind those statements.


And here's a perfect example of something that makes sense in your head, but is utterly and completely confusing and contradicting to those outside your head. Of course it's an opinion. But you seem to dismiss it with "no it isn't". I really don't think you'd find that an acceptable answer if the sexism was on the other foot. "It's sexist to pay women less than men." "No it isn't."

To find out what you are actually intending to say, someone will have to ask questions and challenge your assertion. Not because it's wrong, but because you have skipped about 47 steps of logic between those two sentences.


So you can't even read this sub-thread? You know, the one that started with objections based on children, and has talked only about children up until you arrived?


I know you love being the victim, but you should actually have your statements have some basis in reality if you are going to try and argue for a position.


So, it's my fault that a large number of people who are not me are limiting the conversation to "think of the children!!!!!!".

Golly, apparently I have incredible mind-control powers. I can control what they're talking about on CNN!

People are freaking out over an outfit that covers more than a conventional bathing suit. And "dance moves" that are utterly acceptable if the woman involved is more fully covered, and their blaming concern for children for that freak-out.

Yet somehow they don't manage to freak out over the Calvin Klein ad. One might think that a feminist such as yourself might get a tad upset about the double-standard of people attacking Beyonce but not Calvin Klein for damage to children.


You don't know shit. But you have a vivid fantasy life.

Without the danger that they might be -halp!!!!- exposed to a woman in a sexy outfit, o noes.

Seriously, what "logical moral code" is that?

And how many 5 year olds are really going to appreciate two or more hours of football, anyway? You're better off letting them watch a "Wordworld" marathon in a different room.

Actually that is a growing concern that many kids think violent sports are okay to practice amongst each other. This is not something new. However we are looking at how young girls relate to other young OLDER women they may come to idolize. My mother never wore make up or perfume. I grew up not wearing them. Until I got to High School...luckily for me it was the grunge era so I only got as far as blue lipstick.

I'm saying that 2 hours of football is going to be boring as shit for your average 5 year old; not that they're going to be permanently scarred by seeing Beyonce's sexy dance.

We only have one TV and we watched Word World, Mickey Mouse Club House, Dinosaur Train and Chopped.

6yo runs the remote and she let the family watch one episode of Chopped.

Dinosaur Train, too. I can only do a little MMCH before I get that friggin' "Hot Dog" song stuck in my head, though. Oh no, here it goeees!!!!

MMCH - It's only like an 8 minute show when ya cut.

I have posted in about 50 other threads about this same thing.

I have 3 girls and I changed the channel while it was on. It's just not something I want portrayed to them.

I thought Beyonce's performance was outstanding and classy.

I didn't see anything that merited the criticism she's getting here from the DU Christian fundamentalists. Believe me I see the same moves and amount of clothing at the gym every day as well as at the beach. Cheeze! Perhaps going retro back to Lawrence Welk is more to people's liking.

nt

I don't understand the outrage.

A special exception will be made for Elton John.

More Camel-Toe!

http://www.musicforte.com/blog/beyonce-takes-2nd-place-to-gaga-in-camel-toe-award/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=beyonce-takes-2nd-place-to-gaga-in-camel-toe-award

Beyonce Takes 2nd Place to GaGa in Camel Toe Award

I missed it, as I was hanging out on the deck doing some serious drinking during half-time. I am in CA, so Super Bowl half-yime is when the flask comes out. Until then, it's beer and wine.

The church lady crowd is NOT. PLEASED.

She is beautiful, her outfit was revealing... just enough. I thought it was an excellent show!

No, I am not Bi or Bi-curious - I just thought it was a stunning performance.

The older girls in high school wore leotards with short skirts. Lots of women performers do. And men wear less too. We are so obsessed with covering our bodies in the United States and making women ashamed about their bodies. I thought she looked fine.

I don't understand all the outrage either. Or should I say, manufactured outrage.
She's a beautiful, talented young woman.

What's interesting is the fact that none of them mention that Calvin Klein underwear ad.

It's about teaching the public what it likes so somebody can stay rich off of low-brow entertainment. Meanwhile, we wonder why America stays dumb about science, politics, psychology and the environment. If this country had any brains a science lecture would be a far more attractive and entertaining prospect to the masses than any sporting event. Idolizing violent, competitive sports is not a cultural necessity. It is a preference. And a dumb one at that. We can easily make an annual scientific debate the high profile, celebrated event, if we wanted.

the body. Prudes should not watch halftime shows.

A time to look back on the year, time to got to the potty and not miss anything, A time to suck down a beer or two or a time to heat up the wings. Just a big blank screen.

At least Beyonce didn't pull a Janet Jackson. I don't really see a problem with her performance, and I would doubt many parents let their kids watch the halftime show after Janetgate.

so I have no idea what's going on with whatever this halftime show was. However, as there appears to be some kind of huge (and perhaps prudish) outrage about it, I have to wonder what the reaction would have been had it been the Bellydance Superstars that had performed instead

Another bit of lowest-common-denominator pop music, run through a veg-o-matic to create a medley with more style than substance.

If someone wants to be outraged, I suggest they rage about autotune, the lack of real instruments and musicians, and the generic blandness that is pop radio these days.

I didn't watch the game but saw her pic today. Loved it. I remembered when I looked like her when I was 45. My husband always said I had the nicest ass in the world.
She looked great. She inspired me to get back that body I had 20 years ago. I want to wear leather and lace. Why not?
Now I have to get on the treadmill. Cio,'

and the Stones, and Steven Tyler, all wore skimpy leather lingerie and shook their booties for all the world to see.

In fact they should not be allowed to entertain at all... God's will and all......

I've always assumed there's a large degree of difference between any two extremes, and that holding to only the one or the other becomes rather silly.

I imagine we often feel forced to illustrate our points through the fallacy of reducto absurdum when we have little else to illustrate validly.

At least after the game the news media (and DU) might talk about the game instead of the halftime and commercials.

Tells people what a lousy sport US football is. The freaking commercials get more attention.

They leave practically nothing to the imagination, and all the moving around and leaping and lunging and bending over the way they do is just disgraceful. This needs to be stopped, it will only lead to problems. We need some big brawny hockey players to put a stop to this.