Has Dancing Become a Pagan Sport?

This article by Betsy Hart suggests that school dances should be carefully chaperoned and the music that is to be played should not be of a sexualy provacative type. Betsy states that surprisingly many parents when told of this could care less. "It consistently stuns me that some of the very same parents who will carefully protect little junior and junioress from every scrape and bump early on, who will trail them carefully to super-safe playgrounds and rarely leave them to play unattended even in their own backyards, will then abandon their children to real dangers, including sexual ones, later on." She believes that this is partly a result of the competition between parents ,who has the "sexiest child"or because the parents want their kid to "like" them. The good news is that some schools are cracking down on this but it is parents who can really help by not allowing their children to attend these dances or educating their children with correct values and morals.

It should be obvious that the authors main point is that this type of dancing is damaging and potentialy harmful to the young men and women who participate. These dances are sexualy provacative and lead to things such as rape, or sexual assault. She also states that the kids safty is more important than if the dance was a "dud" or not. "If the "$400 dress girl" had been sexually assaulted in the parking lot after the festivities because the dance wasn't a "dud," would her mom be happy, or suing the school?" Parents need to tighten up the rules, "turn up the lights" and be ready at all times to protect their kids from themselves if neccesary.

I absolutly agree with what Hart is saying. Of all people I, we, teenagers are living in this innapropriate dance era and we most likely now it best. On many occasions I have seen this provocative dancing even at my school, a private christian school. Dancing like that might feel or look right for the moment, but in the long run you will regret it. It could even lead you to do something that you dont want to do. So as much as we teenagers dislike having chaperones at the dances, it is done for our best interests and to protect us. The least we could do is show some respect for them and the girl or boy next to us. Face to face, leave some space.

As for the obvious rhetorical questions, Hart uses plenty of them. "Why? Because they are proud of the public foreplay their children are engaging in? Because "sexiest child" is yet another competition for parents to engage in? Because they want their kids to "like" them?" These questions are all likely reasons as to why parents seem to turn the other cheek when it comes to the dancing at dances. This strengthens Hart's point because these are exactly the kind of people whos kids end up participating in those dances and cause trouble. She uses them as an example of what other parents should not be like. By using these questions she also encourages parents to get involved and set their kids straight. She states that parents were protective of their kids when they were younger, it should be no different now, especialy since this deals with sexual matters. Hart states that if you really care about your kids that you will protect them from these things even though they are older. After all, whether we like it or not, our parents know best.

Assigment #1 Let Imus Speak

I must say that I certainly one-hundred percent agree with Stiller. True, the remarks that Imus made were very rude, but when I looked at Stillers other examples of this and how those people went unpunished for their remarks,I was deeply moved.

Obviously the example that stands out the most is the O' Reilly case. "Bill O’Reilly was unrepentant and unpunished for suggesting that African-Americans eating peacefully in a restaurant was an extraordinary event." That statement is so outright unnecessary and rude, I'm surprised it was not taken as an act of extreme prejudice or raceism and that O' Reilly wasn't punished for his actions. Judging by this example, it makes no sence as to why Imus was taken off the air and why O' Reilly can get away unpunished for his remarks. Also taking into consideration the first amendment, why was Imus punished for this anyway, we have the freedom of speech in this country dont we? At least Imus apologized and took responsibility for his actions, O'Reilly never did that. He just said what he wanted to say, and appearantly no one even thought twice about it. If someone is going to be punished for unnecessary speech, shouldn't authority at least in this matter make sure that anyone who uses this kind of language be punished? Is there no justice is this country? Cleary this is an act of hypocrisy and whoever has the power to make decisions like taking people off the air, better make sure that people like O' Reilly dont go unpunished for their deeds either. Bottom line, Imus is innocent.

With that I rest my case, if the voice of O'Reilly is to be heard, then certainly the voice of Imus is to be heard as well. Imus should have never been silenced in the first place...let him speak.