HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A dress code needs to be ...

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:11 PM

A dress code needs to be instituted for all Superbowl performers.

Long pants, or skirts at least knee length.

Cleavage should not be exposed.

Clothes must not be excessively tight or revealing.

Perhaps a couple of nuns could be hired to enforce this?

98 replies, 6998 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 98 replies Author Time Post
Reply A dress code needs to be instituted for all Superbowl performers. (Original post)
Nye Bevan Feb 2013 OP
yourout Feb 2013 #1
vaberella Feb 2013 #2
yourout Feb 2013 #8
historylovr Feb 2013 #14
libdem4life Feb 2013 #21
barbtries Feb 2013 #67
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #3
Nye Bevan Feb 2013 #5
Agschmid Feb 2013 #4
EastKYLiberal Feb 2013 #6
pinboy3niner Feb 2013 #7
Coyotl Feb 2013 #9
longship Feb 2013 #10
xtraxritical Feb 2013 #19
longship Feb 2013 #20
Art_from_Ark Feb 2013 #97
JaneyVee Feb 2013 #11
HERVEPA Feb 2013 #13
JaneyVee Feb 2013 #15
vaberella Feb 2013 #12
Nye Bevan Feb 2013 #17
vaberella Feb 2013 #18
snooper2 Feb 2013 #59
jeff47 Feb 2013 #29
jberryhill Feb 2013 #30
jeff47 Feb 2013 #32
jberryhill Feb 2013 #34
jeff47 Feb 2013 #35
jberryhill Feb 2013 #38
lunatica Feb 2013 #42
wildeyed Feb 2013 #51
jeff47 Feb 2013 #58
wildeyed Feb 2013 #60
jeff47 Feb 2013 #70
wildeyed Feb 2013 #71
jeff47 Feb 2013 #83
wildeyed Feb 2013 #87
jeff47 Feb 2013 #89
wildeyed Feb 2013 #91
jeff47 Feb 2013 #57
wildeyed Feb 2013 #62
jeff47 Feb 2013 #77
wildeyed Feb 2013 #80
lunatica Feb 2013 #63
jeff47 Feb 2013 #78
lunatica Feb 2013 #98
vaberella Feb 2013 #41
jeff47 Feb 2013 #54
wildeyed Feb 2013 #88
jeff47 Feb 2013 #90
wildeyed Feb 2013 #92
seabeyond Feb 2013 #48
jeff47 Feb 2013 #56
seabeyond Feb 2013 #61
jeff47 Feb 2013 #75
Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 #36
vaberella Feb 2013 #40
xtraxritical Feb 2013 #72
LineLineLineLineReply ?
Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 #73
Paulie Feb 2013 #93
Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 #94
Paulie Feb 2013 #96
aptal Feb 2013 #65
postulater Feb 2013 #16
pinboy3niner Feb 2013 #22
Cleita Feb 2013 #23
pinboy3niner Feb 2013 #25
cynatnite Feb 2013 #24
bluestateguy Feb 2013 #26
Apophis Feb 2013 #27
DJ13 Feb 2013 #28
jberryhill Feb 2013 #31
DJ13 Feb 2013 #33
DollarBillHines Feb 2013 #81
jberryhill Feb 2013 #82
DollarBillHines Feb 2013 #84
jberryhill Feb 2013 #85
Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 #37
alittlelark Feb 2013 #39
Jennicut Feb 2013 #43
HappyMe Feb 2013 #44
Shankapotomus Feb 2013 #45
mfcorey1 Feb 2013 #46
Autumn Feb 2013 #47
tarheelsunc Feb 2013 #49
kentauros Feb 2013 #50
riqster Feb 2013 #52
riverbendviewgal Feb 2013 #53
foxman007 Feb 2013 #55
Sheldon Cooper Feb 2013 #64
TeamPooka Feb 2013 #66
Bandit Feb 2013 #68
LanternWaste Feb 2013 #69
Warren DeMontague Feb 2013 #74
jberryhill Feb 2013 #76
longship Feb 2013 #79
zappaman Feb 2013 #86
Autumn Feb 2013 #95

Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:13 PM

1. How about it be required they can actually sing. You know.....harmony without...

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yourout (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:14 PM

2. Sounds like Rihanna or Beyonce or both were performing. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:21 PM

8. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yourout (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:40 PM

14. That would be nice. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yourout (Reply #1)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:57 AM

21. I'm old school...but you just nailed how it sounds...that or yodeling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #21)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:59 PM

67. oh the yodeling

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:16 PM

3. You're just trying to claim "Non-Turd" status.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:16 PM

5. DUDE! 36,000! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:16 PM

4. Well that is no fun... n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:17 PM

6. It shall be titled: "The Insecurities Clause" nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:19 PM

7. Nuns armed with rulers?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pinboy3niner (Reply #7)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:24 PM

9. The standard was to kneel on the church pew and your skirt had to reach the pew too.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:24 PM

10. Another exemplar of why I never watch the Super Bowl.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:36 AM

19. It's like watching NASCAR for the crashes!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:39 AM

20. Or hockey for the brawls. (Thank you very little, Philadephia Flyers.) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to longship (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:44 PM

97. Or baseball for the donnybrooks!

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:28 PM

11. Huh? We're Liberals, save the christian conservative prudish BS for the fundies.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #11)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:38 PM

13. Wow, you are really sarcasm challenged, aren't you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HERVEPA (Reply #13)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:40 PM

15. Sarcasm is my specialty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:35 PM

12. The SuperBowl should be a more family friendly thing.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #12)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:44 PM

17. YES. You can't even take 5-year olds to the beach any more.

THIS is what women should be wearing at the seaside:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #17)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:13 AM

18. I'm sure you're also the advocate of Thongs for Toddlers...go you!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #18)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:06 AM

59. How about we have Tool do the next one?

They are a good family band...




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:34 AM

29. So....you think 5-year-olds are having sexual thoughts

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #29)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:46 AM

30. Nudity is one thing

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #30)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:49 AM

32. Again, the 5 year old just thinks it's a funny dance.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:59 AM

34. I can remember coming across porn at that age

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #34)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:01 AM

35. The only thing strange about it to me back then was I knew it was forbidden (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #35)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:18 AM

38. I saw something odd

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #32)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:44 AM

42. What about the 8 year old or the 10 year old?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #42)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:20 AM

51. Or my 12 year old.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildeyed (Reply #51)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:56 AM

58. Because it's not possible to talk about complex issues with her?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #58)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:08 AM

60. And I will.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildeyed (Reply #60)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:00 PM

70. And her "uniqueness" is to use those gifts, plus her body.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #70)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:04 PM

71. It's not just the clothes.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildeyed (Reply #71)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:42 PM

83. I used shorthand.

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

She is in 6th grade, not 9th. There is a big difference.

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.

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.

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #83)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:25 PM

87. People who do things I consider harmful to my child, even just mildly, lose my respect.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildeyed (Reply #87)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:32 PM

89. And I'm trying to figure out what, specifically, the harm to your child was.

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

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

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

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.

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.

There is even evidence that exposing children to high sexualized images lowers the age that children go through puberty.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #89)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:59 PM

91. You think people let their ten and twelve year olds view hardcore porn for a 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.

What can be causing this premature pubescence? Researchers have many theories, including an increase in obesity among children, low birth weight, absent fathers, unrelated males in the household, a sedentary lifestyle, chemicals that act as endocrine disrupters and the sexualization of children by the media.


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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #42)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:52 AM

57. What about them?

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #57)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:12 AM

62. Oh please.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildeyed (Reply #62)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:26 PM

77. So that's acceptable when the dancer is wearing pants?

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #77)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:40 PM

80. It's just weird with pants. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #57)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:18 PM

63. The idea that women and their bodies are exploitable

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #63)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:29 PM

78. What in the routine did that?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #78)

Tue Feb 5, 2013, 06:29 AM

98. You really think you're holding your own in this argument don't you?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #29)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:43 AM

41. That's not what I am suggesting...so get off it.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #41)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:43 AM

54. As I said above, it's just a funny dance to a 5-year-old

They don't understand what sexual is.

Even dance competitions for girls seem to be revolving more around how much little clothing you have to wear.

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

You think protecting young girls from the abuse of women in general is an issue that stems from the discomfiture of adults?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #54)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:30 PM

88. How do you know that?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wildeyed (Reply #88)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 05:34 PM

90. That isn't sexuality.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #90)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:03 PM

92. How do you know what they know?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #29)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:49 AM

48. sexualization of our young girls.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #48)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:49 AM

56. It's sad to see you never really bothered to read my posts.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #56)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:08 AM

61. first i did read and i did not see, " I never claimed the feminist title" so there was not the

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to seabeyond (Reply #61)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:24 PM

75. Well, I made that point 2 times in replies to you

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

it seems the only purpose was to challenge.

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.

because it is all about the challenge and not seriously adopting the role.

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.

second, it would be an opinion it is sexism fighting sexism. and this would be an example why it is not sexist

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.

third. i hear NO ONE "screaming" "think of the children!!!".

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?

that you and others sneer at

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.

all your language to dismiss the very conversation you say we cannot talk about.

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.

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.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:09 AM

36. Yes, the five year olds should be able to see the grown men smash their heads together

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.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #36)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:40 AM

40. Nah...I'm pretty much against the smashing of the head too.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #36)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:09 PM

72. You better not take those five year olds to the beach. lol

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xtraxritical (Reply #72)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:10 PM

73. ?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #36)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:23 PM

93. Funny you should say that

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paulie (Reply #93)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:25 PM

94. Word World is great TV.

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!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #94)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:48 PM

96. She fast forwards through the repetitive stuff

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vaberella (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:26 PM

65. I agree with you as

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Sun Feb 3, 2013, 11:42 PM

16. And that's just for the players!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to postulater (Reply #16)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:00 AM

22. UPDATE: Tebowing to be mandatory, announce nuns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:05 AM

23. Perhaps the Taliban can suggest some tasteful Burqas for the performers to wear.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #23)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:17 AM

25. Entertainment announced for next Super Bowl: Sing Along with Mitch




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:08 AM

24. Tassles are most definitely out of the question. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:27 AM

26. That's right! We need to start getting back to some traditional American family values!

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:30 AM

27. There's more skin at a public beach.

 

I don't understand the outrage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:31 AM

28. Whether man or woman, one breast must be exposed at some point in the performance

A special exception will be made for Elton John.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #28)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:49 AM

31. Well, there was this...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #31)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:52 AM

33. Oh crap!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #31)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:40 PM

81. ...

More Camel-Toe!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to jberryhill (Reply #82)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:48 PM

84. Whoa!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DollarBillHines (Reply #84)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:48 PM

85. TiVo, HD, large screen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:10 AM

37. Typical.

The church lady crowd is NOT. PLEASED.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 02:21 AM

39. As a 48 yr old woman... I'll say it was hot.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:47 AM

43. Really? My daughters took dance class for a couple of years.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:07 AM

44. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!11!



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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:14 AM

45. The NFL is a vast, brain washing enterprise

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:23 AM

46. Maybe you need to talk to cameraman who seemed to have a penchant for zooming in on certain parts of

the body. Prudes should not watch halftime shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:44 AM

47. Perhaps the half time should be silent. A time of reflection and grace.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 08:55 AM

49. "It's time for the Pepsi Halftime Show, presented by the Pilgrims"

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:11 AM

50. I never watch the Stupor Bowl

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





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:27 AM

52. I thought the half-time show was a yawner

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 09:30 AM

53. I loved Beyonce's outft

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,'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:22 PM

64. Yeah, because I was so grossed out when Sir Paul, and Bruce Springsteen,

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 12:58 PM

66. When did this become The Puritan Underground? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:33 PM

68. Women should only wear Bhurka

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:44 PM

69. I've always assumed there's a large degree of difference between any two extremes

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #69)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:19 PM

74. don't you cast those spells at me, Harry Potter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #74)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:25 PM

76. ROFL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:32 PM

79. Or maybe the players should play nude.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 04:52 PM

86. I like your idea about nuns...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Original post)

Mon Feb 4, 2013, 06:29 PM

95. Those football players have no business wearing such tight clothes either

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread