Sexy Cheerleaders Banned
May 4, 2005 10:39 PM   Subscribe

If we don't ban the sexy cheerleaders, the terrorists will have won.
posted by Saucy Intruder (67 comments total)
 
wait. the terrorists haven't already won?
posted by quonsar at 10:42 PM on May 4, 2005


Important legislation out of Texas--your move, Florida.
posted by leftcoastbob at 10:52 PM on May 4, 2005


The terrorists won a couple of years back.
posted by arse_hat at 11:04 PM on May 4, 2005


Is there no "sexy" tag?
posted by BackwardsHatClub at 11:07 PM on May 4, 2005


So many grown men whose sexual security is threatened by those teenage girls...
posted by clevershark at 11:08 PM on May 4, 2005


wow.

ANKLES OUT OF TEXAS
posted by blacklite at 11:13 PM on May 4, 2005


First they came for the sex toy merchants, and I didn't say anything. Then they came for the sexy cheerleaders...
posted by homunculus at 11:25 PM on May 4, 2005


"This link is worthless without pics."
posted by fungible at 11:30 PM on May 4, 2005


Slightly NSFW (otherwise I'd post it inline). GIS for "sexy cheerleaders" came up with this group of scantily clad babes.

(FWIW, if searchsafe is off you get lots of other interesting results)
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:44 PM on May 4, 2005


Ah, finally! thedevildancedlightly saved the day!

I was getting really annoyed by this. It's bad enough that I have to get hammered over the head with this, the latest example of the giant mistake that letting Texas into the union was, but I don't even get pics of sexually suggestive acts of cheerleading!

OK, just kidding about Texas. Sort of. And whichever politicians had the time to write this bill: fire them. At once. They are too fucking stupid to be trusted to drive, let alone run anything of importance.
posted by teece at 11:54 PM on May 4, 2005


Hey thedevildancedlightly, are those cheerleaders supposed to be scary? I want to tell 'em "Make love not war!"
posted by davy at 12:23 AM on May 5, 2005


are those cheerleaders supposed to be scary?

The context of the page implied they were from the Lingeree Football League. I think that was the ill-fated halftime experiment [annoying flash, but reasonably SFW].

As for the law, I don't think it's the worst thing in the world. It doesn't ban sexy dancing in public, nor sexy dancing on TV, nor sexy dancing in the privacy of your own home. It just says that the state isn't going to pay to support high school cheerleaders who dance like strippers. Now, you can argue that cheerleaders are supposed to serve as sexual focii of the high school population, but it does seem like discouraging absolute stripper moves might not be a bad policy. Let 'em turn cartwheels in their spankypants and that'll give the 9th graders enough kitten-killing material to last 'em until they get their own girlfriends. But leave the stripper pole for private parties.

The "how dare they take our underage sex symbols away!!!" argument doesn't fly very far in my book.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 12:57 AM on May 5, 2005


Note, I disagree with the policy a little bit just because it's vague, but I don't think it's the end of the world to place limits on what the state is going to pay to support. Being supported by the state to dance like a stripper at age 16 is far from a fundamental right of our society.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:01 AM on May 5, 2005


Important legislation out of Texas--your move, Florida.

Hold on; isn't it Ohio's move now? Florida just did the free-fire-zone-on-the-streets thing, didn't it?
posted by mr_roboto at 1:02 AM on May 5, 2005


Being supported by the state to dance like a stripper at age 16 is far from a fundamental right of our society.

Why do you hate America so much?
posted by Saucy Intruder at 1:02 AM on May 5, 2005


Why do you hate America so much?

These girl will have plenty of time to turn into ho's when they turn 18. Until then let's not have any competition with real strippers. It's hard enough for working girls to make ends meet as it is. [all intentional]
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 1:14 AM on May 5, 2005


Not if you expect America to be able to compete in the global teen cheerleader market.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:36 AM on May 5, 2005


Why is the Texas legislature involved in this at all? Are the parents of these girls so spineless that they can't tell them to stop? Is there a public outcry against sexy cheerleading in Texas?

This is a situation where the parents and the PTAs should be stepping in and saying "cease and desist" if they consider it a problem. The fact that the highest legislative body in Texas feels a need to address it just makes them seem like a bunch of nannies.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:47 AM on May 5, 2005


Are the parents of these girls so spineless that they can't tell them to stop?

I don't know where you went to school, but in my school the cheerleaders were definitely the top of the female food chain. I think that telling your daughter that "you can't be one of the cheerleaders because they dance too sexy" would be an easy way to either (a) make your daughter hate you and need years of therapy, or (b) make her join just to rebel. Either way the problem isn't solved since there are plenty of working mothers these days who aren't involved enough in their daughters' lives to know what's going on or step in and stop it (if they feel it's offensive).

As for the PTAs, that's a stronger argument, but I'm going to guess that in the days of No Child Left Behind parents are busy worrying about other things.

I think there's still an argument based on the fact that the state is funding cheer as an activity and can direct how that money is spent. If you want to have an all-ho dance squad then by all means do so, but don't do it on the state dime.

Do I think this is the ideal solution? Hardly. But I don't think it rises to the level of idiocy suggested by the Florida commentary.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 2:25 AM on May 5, 2005


So it's alright for cheerleaders to be a bit sexy, but not too sexy?

Unintentional is good, intentional is bad?
posted by asok at 2:34 AM on May 5, 2005


Fantastic, I knew my cheeleading burkha would one day come into fashion.
posted by sien at 3:00 AM on May 5, 2005


sien, you've just made laugh so much i've sent coffee through my nose.
posted by handee at 3:25 AM on May 5, 2005


If we don't keep using the phrase "the terrorists will have won" incessantly, the terrorists will have won. LET'S ROLL!
posted by ZachsMind at 3:36 AM on May 5, 2005


Thinking back on how horny I was in HS, there's no way a cheerleader could wear those outfits and NOT be incredibly sexy -- to a 16-year-old boy, anyway. I wonder if some middle-aged men haven't quite gotten over themselves?

Also...maybe I'm wrong, but I swear I remember this being on MeFi last month...maybe I'm just remembering seeing it in the news and imagining all the fun the MeFi bunch could have with it.
posted by alumshubby at 3:56 AM on May 5, 2005


I'm so proud today to be a Texan.

Not.
posted by damnitkage at 4:37 AM on May 5, 2005


Whether or not it was on MeFi last month or not, it only just passed and has been in the news heavily (at least here in Texas) this week.

I applaud this legislation. Since this is about high-school cheerleading and football, an extremely important part of rural Texas life, maybe certain people will start to see how silly legislating morally can be.

And yes, it is wrong to make vaguely sexy cheerleading a crime. I mean, come on. This is coming from the same people who don't want STD and pregnancy awareness education in schools. You know, 'cause if you don't talk about it and it's a crime to dance like you know about it - it won't happen in the back seats of cars.
posted by melt away at 4:47 AM on May 5, 2005


Since this is about high-school cheerleading and football, an extremely important part of rural Texas life, maybe certain people will start to see how silly legislating morally can be.

No, they won't. Discussed this with my mom yesterday ... a rural, Republican Texan, and she and all her friends are thrilled with this bill, because "those girls shouldn't be acting that way. WE wouldn't have let you girls dance like that."

She's right, of course, that my parents and the parents of my friends would have had something to say about our routines if they didn't approve of them, which is the way it should be ... individual communities and active parents staying involved enough in their kids' lives to know what's going on and talking to the school about it if they don't like it. It certainly doesn't need to be some overly vague law that allows anyone to complain about anything on the basis that it seems sexually suggestive (to them).

Personally, a cute girl tossing her hair and smiling coyly is stimulating to me, so they better stop tossing their hair and smiling.

I'm sick of living in Texas, and I grew up here. Our legislature, the whole lot of them, are morons.
posted by Orb at 5:00 AM on May 5, 2005


This is assinine. It's impossible to judge what is teh sexay and was isn't. Where do they draw the line? Is it sexy when the cheerleaders do a kick? You know, that exposes that naughty area between their legs when they do that. Is it when they clap? Because that makes their boozies bounce. Maybe cheerleaders should stand stock still, arms at their sides, and chant.

Or maybe we should stop the chanting and have them recite inspiring passages from the Biblee?

"The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not lose"
posted by papercake at 5:22 AM on May 5, 2005


So if the judge interpreting the law just happens to think that 'sexually suggestive' means high heels and makeup or fishnet stockings or cfm-boots, they might all end up having to wear like big foam coveralls and parachute suits and commando grease on their faces else they be raising errant members hm?
Or, what if they do over-the-top pelvic thrusts. Would you be able to argue that it's not humanly possible for those movements to occur in the act of coitus therefore they must not be 'sexually suggestive'?

Maybe I should have read all the links and comments b4 jumping in but....well this law is really really really stupid, on the face of it.
posted by peacay at 5:26 AM on May 5, 2005


"$500 fine for pelvic thrusting beyond the 6 inch limit"....now that you could police and m e a s u r e
posted by peacay at 5:29 AM on May 5, 2005


This, from the same folks that brought us the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders? Puhleeze.....

Did we not learn anything from watching "Footloose"? Let the kids gyrate, I say!
posted by spilon at 5:39 AM on May 5, 2005


This is anecdotal, but I knew a girl from a very conservative, born-again Kentucky family while in college. And her mom was a cheer booster, not exactly a coach, but involved in every aspect of practicing, travelling with the local HS cheer team, a proxy mom to these girls, if you will (said friend was not a cheerleader, and hence not very close to her mom).

Just thought it was interesting that sexualization of teen girls went hand in hand with an incredibly fundy outlook on the world. Don't know why.
posted by bardic at 5:48 AM on May 5, 2005


Of course, there will now be a story about a renegade set of cheerleaders in Small Town, TX that protest by screwing the football team on the field.

Nothing like legislation to make any situation 10 times worse than it already is.
posted by psychotic_venom at 6:15 AM on May 5, 2005




Mmmm... sexy dance.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:20 AM on May 5, 2005


Either way the problem isn't solved since there are plenty of working mothers these days who aren't involved enough in their daughters' lives to know what's going on or step in and stop it (if they feel it's offensive).

As far as I am aware, it is not the government's responsibility to pick up the slack for busy parents. To my mind the fact a parent either doesn't care enough or is too busy enough to pay attention to what their children are doing is not grounds for the government to step in. Also, I find it typically hypocritical for such a 'conservative' state to make such a logical leap given that 'conservative republican' used to mean 'adamantly opposed to big government'. Funny how when the cause is something they believe in, suddenly government intrusion into life isn't such an evil.

Please mind that I am not calling YOU, thedevildancedlightly, hypocritical, or hyper-conservative, or anything. I'm just saying I think your argument is a slippery slope.

I have to go to a meeting or I'd elaborate further.
posted by spicynuts at 6:55 AM on May 5, 2005


Of course, there will now be a story about a renegade set of cheerleaders in Small Town, TX that protest by screwing the football team on the field.

There better be pictures, or even better, video.
posted by graventy at 7:14 AM on May 5, 2005


(a) make your daughter hate you and need years of therapy, or (b) make her join just to rebel

Boy, parenting is so hard these days.

(a) She'll get over it.
(b) Ground her.

Wow, that was tough.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:16 AM on May 5, 2005


I have tried to work up some outrage over this issue, and I have failed. The only thing that's really wrong here is that if you have state legislators working on this sort of thing, you probably should just send them home and save some bucks since they obviously don't have anything pressing to attend to.

I mean, come on, it's Texas. It's a state that exists primarily so that liberals will have something to laugh back at when the conservatives are laughing at California.
posted by anapestic at 7:17 AM on May 5, 2005


"I'll know too sexy when I see it.
Can we roll that tape again?
I think I missed a little shimmy shake that time.
OK, OK, can we zoom in on that pubic mons?
That may be too sexy right there."

Heh, fun for the activist judges in Texas.
Maybe the legislator saw American Beauty?
posted by nofundy at 7:21 AM on May 5, 2005


Just like to note that it's a Democrat that sponsored this bill. So, the usual "small government Republican" arguments don't apply.
Yeah, we're showin' Texas that those Democrats care about values, I tell you what.
posted by klangklangston at 7:33 AM on May 5, 2005


At least one thing: he can't say that the sexy cheerleaders lead to homosexuality. He claims it leads to every other bad thing there is, but he can't blame the gays. Hurray.
posted by benjh at 7:45 AM on May 5, 2005


*runs off to sign up for the HS football team in Small Town, TX*
posted by raedyn at 7:49 AM on May 5, 2005


I think this is amusing on the face of it, but if they start being specific and naming specific moves and stuff, so there's some kind of objective standard going on, I can't see a problem with it.

I'm sick of every damn thing in this society becoming hypersexualized. They're supposed to *cheer*, not parade like strippers.

p.s. I can't stand those bare midriff uniforms either. What's next, bikinis?
posted by beth at 8:15 AM on May 5, 2005


They showed one video on a TV debate show last night (Scarborough, I think) where the cheerleaders were dressed more like a dance squad, with skin-tight pants and tops, as an example of "too sexy" cheerleading... which really confuses me. Skin-tight as they are, aren't dance moves in pants less provacative than doing splits in skirts with matching colored underoos?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:33 AM on May 5, 2005


klangklangston - In Texas the Democrats make Republicans in most states look like bleeding heart liberals. This is why Bush could say he worked across the party lines -- he worked with idiots and morons.
posted by petrilli at 8:48 AM on May 5, 2005


Gawrsh, there's gotta be a joke in here somewhere re: George W.'s own cheerleading days. (I know he wasn't actually IN Texas at that point, but still.) Quonsar...?
posted by zoinks at 8:57 AM on May 5, 2005


I thought cheerleading was on the way out, and pom pomming was the new Next Big Thing?

And, Ohio already made a move recently, with in the last few days, and here it is, which means the ball is officially back in Florida's court, maybe they can ban homoerotic displays in wrestling matches or something.
posted by drezdn at 8:59 AM on May 5, 2005


I suppose next they'll ban gymnastics and tennis.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:05 AM on May 5, 2005


I think this is amusing on the face of it, but if they start being specific and naming specific moves and stuff, so there's some kind of objective standard going on, I can't see a problem with it.

Censorship is fine, as long it's on Beth's terms. Good to know. Laura Bush will send you an invite to her next church social.

I'm sick of every damn thing in this society becoming hypersexualized.

So am I, but us not liking it is not sufficient reason to ban it.
posted by jonmc at 9:23 AM on May 5, 2005


They're supposed to *cheer*, not parade like strippers.

HAW. Funny. You'll be here all week, right?
posted by soyjoy at 9:48 AM on May 5, 2005


It's true that on the face of it it doesn't seem that bad - I think that the 'hypersexualization' has become very intense.
But this bill is part of the bigger movement of purtian-style restrictions, which I really disagree with.
posted by klik99 at 9:52 AM on May 5, 2005


How will debbie get to the championships now?
posted by schyler523 at 10:35 AM on May 5, 2005


Does anyone have any evidence that the cheerleading is really "too sexy"? I went to high school in a very football-oriented part of the south and our cheerleaders' moves was mild compared to MTV and whatnot. Actually, at MY specific high school our cheerleaders were not very attractive anyway, thanks to the high percentage of overweight teens in our country....

I found a Fox News interview with an organization who is anti-sexycheerleading and the clips they showed didn't seem bad at ALL. And the picture thedevildancedlightly posted is, as has been pointed out, from the Lingerie Bowl or whatever--those women are adults and look sexy for a living already.

I think maybe somebody is making a mountain out of a molehill.
posted by scarymonsterrrr at 10:35 AM on May 5, 2005


oh and just for relevance, I just finished my freshman year in college, so my high school perspective isn't too dated. ;)
posted by scarymonsterrrr at 10:39 AM on May 5, 2005


"Is is absolutely necessary for you to move about so much?"

Did this quote from the GoDaddy super bowl commercial go though any else's head when they read this link? It might be from the un-aired version.
posted by Four Flavors at 10:51 AM on May 5, 2005


Petrilli— If only there was an official Idiots and Morons Party that ran in elections, so that we'd know who to avoid... But unfortunately, they're just bright enough to not go for that.

Something about the hypersexualization is that it seems to me that the undercurrent of modern culture is more sexualized than ever: there's more innuendo, more barely covered genitals, what have you... But the patina that covers it is even more regimented. I mean, think about the Janet Jackson breast thing. She was definitely projecting a sexual image when clothed, and it didn't change a lot to see her nipple. But the sturm und drang over that little bit of tit was enourmous, well out of proportion with the actual "harm" that was inflicted. Things like this just make me suspect that the weird cognative dissonance about what is acceptable and what is not is self-reinforcing and detrimental. I dunno. It's kinda like how I believe if people saw more nudity, it would lose a lot of its sexual power and become more of a normal, healthy thing. I think that having lewd cheerleaders is a symptom of other repression, and simply legislating against it is doomed to fail.
But then again, I'm a liberal...
posted by klangklangston at 11:46 AM on May 5, 2005


It's kinda like how I believe if people saw more nudity, it would lose a lot of its sexual power and become more of a normal, healthy thing.

I've asked this question before, but never got a decent answer: do we really want nudity to lose it's sexual power, to the point that seeing a hot naked girl isn't a thrill?
posted by jonmc at 12:39 PM on May 5, 2005


They're supposed to *cheer*, not parade like strippers.

I'm with scarymonsterrr and XQUZYPHYR. I've been to a lot of high-school basketball games, and I've never seen anything close to "offensive." My sensitivity meter is pretty good.

Have any of you talking about "stripper moves," actually seen such things? If so ... videos, please!

On preview: do we really want nudity to lose it's sexual power, to the point that seeing a hot naked girl isn't a thrill?

No, but is that really a danger? IANAS, but we seem quite hard-wired to find opposite sex characteristics attractive (natural selection and all), regardless of how much clothing people wear. I'm not a nudist, but I would argue that people (including kids) would be well served by more nudity, not less.

I would amend klangklangston's comment slightly: "if people saw more nudity, it would lose a lot of its implied perversity and become more of a normal, healthy thing.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:47 PM on May 5, 2005


I suppose next they'll ban gymnastics and tennis.

Seriously. I know it's worse than a cliche now, but I used to love to watch Anna K. play tennis. Maria S. is also a welcome diversion (with way better groundstrokes).

And don't even get me started on rhythmic gymnastics.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:55 PM on May 5, 2005


Holy cow, Mr. Grimm. You've just given me all sorts of new GIS material. Kudos!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:15 PM on May 5, 2005


mrgrimm, don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against nudity. I just always found that "exposure to nudity desualizes the naked body," argument kind of strange, since that's the last thing I want. Hell, if I inadvertently see an average looking girls cleavage on the subway, I'm smiling all the way home. And I'd hate to lose that.
posted by jonmc at 1:24 PM on May 5, 2005


I am beginning to question your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
posted by dreamsign at 10:08 PM on May 5, 2005


Censorship is fine, as long it's on Beth's terms.

This is about withdrawing state funding, not banning. People can dance however lewdly they want to, but they ought not fund their activities with state tax money if they are edging into the territory of being obscene.

No one has a right to state sponsorship of their little club doing a "fuck me" dance at a public school gathering.

I think it's pretty damn ludicrous to say I would ban stuff. I never said that, so don't put words in my mouth jonmc.
posted by beth at 7:04 AM on May 6, 2005


What's with all this obsession about sex?

Chicken/egg. If so many people weren't so obsessed with sex, at times to the point of perversion, then sex wouldn't be used so frequently to promote everything. In other words, raise your children with an open, honest and healthy understanding about sex and relationships, then perhaps sex wouldn't be such a powerful tool in the hands of anyone wishing to exploit said sexually obsessed.
If you grew up in an environment where nudity was common and unremarkable and where sex wasn't commonly about exploitation then the market would move away from it's use at a tool. Isn't that correct Ayn Rand?
posted by nofundy at 10:33 AM on May 6, 2005


Jon: No, but we should be able to see kids naked without popping a hardon. And seeing two seconds of nipple shouldn't start a national shitstorm. Maybe it's because I see a naked woman every night that suddenly, catching a tiny bit of cleavage isn't as important to me, but I don't mind that. I can certainly stare when I like, but I don't have to be instantly captivated. (Maybe that's what happens when you grow up with your mother as a photographer. I've seen so much nudity in art that unless nudity is kind of intentionally sexualized, I have a pretty blank reaction to it. Kinda like how I can look at Mapplethorp with a bullwhip up his ass and not get any visceral reaction).
posted by klangklangston at 10:41 AM on May 6, 2005


Beth, when was the last time you actually saw any cheerleaders or dance teams doing a routine of any sort? I'd hardly call any of what I have seen lately "obscene" or a "fuck me dance". They haven't installed brass poles on the sideline, and they aren't simulating sex ... nor are they nude (or really even close to it).

Not saying there might not be some group at some school somewhere in the state of Texas that has done something that is over the line, but wouldn't that best be handled by the local community, school board and parents rather than some vague state law that allows anyone anywhere to complain about anything THEY think is overtly sexual? Everyone's idea of what is sexual, contrary to what Rep. Edwards believes, is highly different. Supposedly, we all "know it when we see it", but for some folks doing the splits would be considered too sexual.
posted by Orb at 11:20 AM on May 6, 2005


I believe I said earlier something along the lines of I hope they are specific with various moves being disallowed. This type of law needs some objective criteria, badly.

Of course those who wish to thwart it will always come up with new moves....

The point is largely moot anyway, but seriously, some of us in this country are sick of the oversexualization. I'm far from evangelical but I see some of their points about modesty as having some merit.
posted by beth at 11:28 AM on May 6, 2005


« Older Polish Circus Posters   |   did you find mr potato head? Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments