Survey Says? Inappropriate!

Look, I'm not sure what a "sex survey" that is given to middle school children should consist of, but I'm not really all that comfortable with the first question on such a "survey" being "What is your gender?" and having there be four choices. As I'm sure you can imagine, not all of the parents were thrilled either.

Over there at Hardy Middle School in Washington, DC, a 7th grade health/physical education class was given a "sex survey", the purpose of which is a little fuzzy to me. From what I can tell from reading the article over there at something called The Georgetown Dish, there's some sort of a non profit called Metro TeenAIDS which educates children about HIV and AIDS. It appears that in 2009, the Washington, DC Public Schools (DCPS) gave Metro TeenAIDS "...a $15,000 consulting contract and $80,000 contract...to provide programming in the schools". Supposedly, "This program has been selected by DCPS for instruction to meet [health learning standards] for the middle school grades and is used in 7th and 8th health classes (sic) throughout DCPS." Um, OK. How does this turn out to be some sort of survey given to 12-year olds and asking them about their gender while providing them with four choices?

That part isn't overly clear to me. But it does say that not only does Metro TeenAIDS (which is a ridiculous name, if you're asking me) provide some sort of an educational component, they also use their time in public schools to do research. I'm guessing that this little survey was more along the lines of the research end of things. Though, from what I can tell, a whole lot of kids learn a whole lot of new things that day. And I'm guessing that a lot of them were more than they ever wanted to know. At least, I'm hoping so.

Let's look at some of the questions and see how appropriate they are for middle school kids, shall we? Let's also see if we can figure out what in the world people were thinking when they decided that this would be a good idea, OK? Here we go...first question:

"What is your gender?"

Well, that seems pretty straight forward. Let's look at the choices.

A) Male B) Female C) Transgender (M to F) D) Transgender (F to M)

Wait. For 12-year olds? Transgender?! I'd be looking for "E) WTF". I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that choices C and D are completely unnecessary. 100% not needed. What is wrong with you people?

It only gets worse.

One series of questions read:

"How sure are you that you.......

Can name all four body fluids that can transmit HIV?

Know the difference between oral, vaginal, and anal sex?

Can correctly put a condom on yourself or your partner?

Will avoid getting yourself or your partner pregnant if you have sex?

Can convince a reluctant partner to use barrier protection (i.e. condoms, dental dams) during sex?"

For 12-year olds. First of all, dental dams? Really? You expect a 12-year old to have any sort of knowledge about that? Do you want your 12-year old to have knowledge of that? And seriously, who has ever used one of those? Honestly. Sure, they probably sound OK in theory (but not really), but I don't think that they're in high demand. Where do you get them? Other than at the dentist's office when you're having something done in your mouth. Are they next to the condoms? I have no idea and neither should 12-year olds.

By the way, when the kids didn't understand what certain things were and inquired about them, "...the facilitator...brought in on a DCPS contract...started to define "anal sex" and "oral sex." Are you kidding me?! Anal sex shouldn't even be explained to adults, let alone small children!

The questions on the survey continued along those ludicrous lines and included things like "During your life, with how many peopled have you had sex (oral, vaginal, anal)?" and "In the past 30 days on how many days did you......

Have 5 or more drinks of alcohol in a row, or within a couple of hours?

Use marijuana?

Use other non-injecting drugs (like cocaine, PCP, ecstasy)?

Inject drugs with a needle like heroin)?

Have sex?

Have sex after drinking alcohol or getting high?"

Hey, you people getting the almost $100k grant to do this sort of thing! Yeah, you. Question: Don't you think that you should tone things down a bit? Seriously. Are you trying to traumatize these kids? I'd be interested to know if EVER during the time that you've been taking this survey even ONE 12-year old answered "Yes" to having 5 or more drinks of alcohol in a row or within a couple of hours. I'm guessing you have not. And what does that have to do with HIV and AIDS?

Now, of course, parents were outraged. Not just so much at the content of the survey, but more so at the fact that they had not been notified ahead of time, given a copy of the survey or given a chance to have their kid opt out of this insanity. Huh. And they're angry, eh? In what way?

I'm sure that some sort of an apology is forthcoming. That I don't doubt. But I'm sick of apologies. Here's what I want: I want someone to explain to everyone how they came to the decision to distribute this survey to the middle schoolers. I want someone to explain the logic that they were using that allowed them to come to the conclusion that this sort of thing was appropriate. That's what I want. I want a detailed description of the thinking process that goes into something that is so obviously not OK. I also want to know if anyone, anyone even ventured to say anything along the lines of, 'Uh, are we sure this is a good idea? Because this seems awfully advanced for 12-year olds." Anything along those lines? Anything? Anyone? That's what I want to know. Keep your apologies and instead explain why you're so stupid. Inquiring minds want to know.

If you'd like to see more of this absurd survey, it can be found here. And I can be found banging my head against a wall. What is wrong with people?

Can't Touch That

Meet the latest "fringe" candidate to upset the incumbent in a primary, a one Christine O'Donnell, a Republican from Delaware. Ms. O'Donnell was able to beat out former Delaware governor and nine-term congressman, a one Mike Castle, for the nomination. While I am all for booting out folks that have made politics their lifelong career (while not doing much more than furthering their own power and ridiculously inflated egos), I'm not so sure that I'm in favor of the replacement people being...oh, what's the word I want? Controversial? Maybe, but not quite. Nutty isn't quite what I'm going for either, although it is closer. How about bizarre? That seems to work. Let me try it out. I'm not so sure that I'm in favor of the replacement people being bizarre. Yeah, that's it. And so is she. Bizarre, that is.

This woman has interesting opinions on just about everything. Even things where you wouldn't think that you could have an opinion because you didn't know that a certain angle even existed, she does not disappoint. Take, for example, an appearance this woman made on C-SPAN in 1996. (I know, I know. It's a little weak to be going through footage from 14 years ago. I agree. But I'm assuming that, since this is her stance from a moral perspective, she pretty much still holds this opinion.) She stated that it is a "...misconception that you, quote unquote, can't legislate morality." Wait. She thinks that it's what now?

A misconception, that is correct. She went on to elaborate by saying, "The reality of that statement is that if you don't legislate one morality then you are legislating somebody else's morality. So you can't get around legislating morality." Oohhh. I get it. Wait. No, I don't. What the hell is she talking about? Isn't this like proving a negative? If you're not doing one thing than you're automatically doing the opposite thing? That's not always true. And in this case, I'm pretty sure that it isn't true at all.

Now, if that was the only slightly strange thing that she had voiced in the past, I'd probably let it go. But she doesn't stop there. No, she's big on morality. In 1998, she was on Bill Maher's show "Politically Incorrect". I'm not sure why she was there, but she was. In fact, she was on a panel with Martin Mull, Jasmine Guy and Eddie Izzard discussing the Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky fiasco. (I cannot come up with one thing that all of these folks have in common. Jasmine Guy? Really? To discuss politics? Wow. It's like the iPod 'Shuffle' feature picked those guests. I'm actually finding having these four people on the same show for some reason a little more interesting that what Christine O'Donnell actually said.) She didn't want to let ol' Willie Jeff off the hook that easily. And do you know why? School shootings, of course. See, "If we as a nation tolerate sin, generations to come will reap the effects of that....For example, we took the Bible and prayer out of public schools, now we're having weekly shootings practically." Oh, good Lord, woman.

It's hard to imagine that taking the Bible and pray out of public schools was the only thing stopping school shootings for all of the years prior to 1998. But what any of that has to do with a President getting blown in his office by a plowhorse of an intern is beyond me.

As I'm sure you've guessed by now, she's not so much a fan of the evolution. In 1996, she was a spokeswoman for something called the Concerned Women of America. For some reason, she was on CNN debating a one Michael McKinney, am evolutionary biology professors over there at the University of Tennessee. Her take on evolution was: "The tests...they use to support evolution do not have consistent results. Now too many people are blindly accepting evolution as fact. But when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory." Merely a theory? As opposed to what? Creation? Why, yes, actually. "Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that."

Thank you for breaking down what six days amounts to. She didn't really get into the evidence that she says is out there that supports that other than the Bible saying that it's so. She gives more evidence that there are 24 hours in a day than she does to prove creation. I'm also thinking that those concerned women should be a little more concerned that she is going around spewing out ridiculousness like she was.

And you know that I've saved the best for last! And what could be better to save for last than her views on masturbation? Not much, let me tell you. Would you be surprised to learn that she is pro-abstinence? Of course you wouldn't. We all saw that one coming. (No pun really intended there, though it's not bad.) Back in 1996, she was on MTV's "Sex in the 90s" speaking about her campaign

"The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery. So, you can't masturbate without lust...The reason that you don't tell [people] that masturbation is the answer to AIDS and all these other problems that come with sex outside of marriage is because again it is not addressing the issue...You're gonna be pleasing each other. And if he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?" Has this woman ever had sex in her life?! Oh, for cryin' out loud!

Look, lady...if you think that taking care of business yourself is on a par with having sex, you are clearly mistaken. Taking care of business yourself gets the job done; there's no doubt about that. But it is a far cry from having sex. You know why everyone wants to have sex? Because it's great! Masturbation isn't a substitute for sex! You could sit around all day long pleasuring yourself like a monkey in a cage, but that isn't going to change the fact that you're not going to turn down sex instead should it present itself. And how in the world is it committing adultery? What if you're doing it, but you're not in a relationship with anyone? Are you cheating on yourself? I don't think that you are. And if you expect me to believe that this woman has never pleasured herself, that is more ridiculous than her statement that you're committing adultery if you do.

The good thing is that if she is elected to the Senate, it's highly unlikely that she'll be involved in any sort of legislation aiming to curb masturbatory practices amongst Americans. So you don't have to worry about that. You can worry about other things that she may do if she's elected, but dictating (again, no pun intended) the relationship that you have with your own genitalia is not going to be one of them.

Have You Seen My Dog?

It's not very often that I read a headline and really don't know where to start. I mean, I know there has to be a starting point somewhere in the midst of all of it, but it's like my brain demands to know everything all at once! Such was the case with a headline appearing across the pond in The Telegraph, which read "Transvestite had sex with a dog at English Heritage castle". Ah-HA! See? You felt the same way, didn't you? Had to know it all at once, didn't you? I knew it!

I found the sub-heading to be of little help, as it read "A transvestite had sex with a dog in the moat of an English Heritage castle". Yes, we know that. We just read that. OK, the part about the moat was new. But other than that, it's pretty much the same. No need to repeat. But, my God, what is wrong with you, sir?

According to the article it would seem that the owner of the pet was with a friend and taking a stroll around the castle. The article states "...the pair spotted the lone transvestite on the morning of Saturday July 10th at around a quarter to twelve." The lone transvestite. That was important because...they usually travel in packs? What's more than one transvestite? It can't possibly be a pride, can it? Not much there to be proud of. Um...a gaggle? A gaygle? Help me out here!

In case you were wondering, said transvestite "...was wearing a black dress and walking around the steep-walled, empty moat." No word on what kind of shoes or bag, if any. But a black dress on a beautiful Saturday morning? Seems a bit somber to me. Not as somber as what was about to happen, but still pretty somber. When the transvestite saw the two women, he ran away (as they are known to due in their natural habitat). But it's later where things really start to pick up. That's when "...one of the dogs chased after the man; by the time the women had caught up, the man was having sex with the pet." Good Lord. So many questions. So, SO many questions.

I'm going to assume that this was a rather large dog. Though I don't know why I'm jumping to that conclusion. I think it's because as unpalatable as human-dog sex is, it is somehow more tolerable when it's a larger creature. Something small like a chihuahua just seems especially wrong. Huh. You wouldn't think that there would be varying degrees of wrongness when it comes to having sex with a dog, but apparently, there are.

My main question is how long did it take these women to find the dog? That is one dog-screwing transvestite that doesn't mess around, let me tell you. Gets right down to business, that one does. Did the mood just strike him or something? Seriously, who sees a dog running past them when they're cross dressing in a black dress whilst wandering about the outside of a castle and thinks, "I'm gonna get me some of that!" Holy canoli, man. And what do you say when you encounter something like that. "Stop that" just doesn't seem like enough, you know?

The article goes on to say that the man was restrained by the castle staff while they called the police. That'd be hard to do. I don't know that I would want to physically restrain someone who had just been making sweet, sweet love to a canine beast. I realize that it was completely necessary, but I wouldn't have liked it. Those staff members should have got the rest of the day off after that. Or a particularly tasty scone to go with their lunch or something.

In case you were wondering the castle in particular was Pendennis Castle. That's too close to some weird spelling or insinuation of "penis" if you're asking me. I'm not implying that they were asking for it. I'm merely noting the coincidence of it all. Regardless of the name, Pendennis Castle "...is a popular family tourist attraction and was heaving with visitors in high season." That's not all it was heaving with. It seemed to also be heaving with a fair amount (in this case, ANY is a fair amount, even if it's only ONE) of animal fornicators.

But get this: "He was escorted home and later made a "full and frank confession", and received a caution for outraging public decency." Escorted home?! That's IT?! A guy wearing a dress does it with a dog in the moat of a castle and he gets a ride home?! What on earth is going on over there?! You don't lock up or at least arrest your petophiles over there? (I know. Bad pun. But I couldn't resist.) Just drove him home and gave him a stern talking to, eh? Wow. All right then. Anything else we should know?

Just that "A spokesman for English Heritage said: "This was a very rare incident". You think?! Did he feel the need to say that because he was worried that Pendennis Castle was going to get some sort of misappropriated reputation for being the sort of establishment where transvestites do it with dogs all the time?! Was that the fear? A very rare incident. Well, I should certainly hope so! Good Lord....

Malawi Conviction, Colonialism & Other Thoughts

At the end of my post on IDAHO, I linked to Reggie H's post, which mentions the horrific show trial the Malawi government staged to convict Steven Monjeza, 26, and Tiwonge Chimbalanga, 20 (at right, photo: Eldson Chagara/Reuters), for the "crimes" of buggery (sodomy) and gross indecency. Gukira, in commenting on that post, cited the trial's tragic outcome: yesterday, Monjeza and Chimbalanga were convicted and sentenced to the maximum 14 of prison after having held a symbolic wedding ceremony. The magistrate, Chief Resident Magistrate Nyakwawa Usiwa Usiwa, imposed this sentence because, he argued, "the public must be protected....Malawi society is not ready to see its sons marrying other sons, nor daughters marrying daughters. It is immoral in our society."

This conviction, while horrendous in its cruelty and homophobia, was not an isolated incident; in fact, back in February, the Guardian Online reported on the Malawi police's operation against gay and lesbian people, parallelling similar campaigns in other parts of Anglophone East and southern Africa, including Uganda, where the parliament is debating a bill that would impose life imprisonment on anyone convicted of having same-sexual relations, and which had earlier broached the death penalty for gay people; and Kenya, where gay people have been arrested for participating in a wedding ceremony.  Back in Malawi, as the Guardian UK notes

A 21-year-old man was recently sentenced to two months' community service for putting up pro-gay rights posters, and a senior minister expelled a woman from her town even after a court acquitted her on charges of having sex with two girls.

The sentence the two men in Malawi face is horrifying, as is the vitriol directed at them by many members of the public and the people affiliated with various "Christian" churches. In the case of Uganda, in particular, there has been much discussion and criticism of the role of fundamentalist US Christian churches and missionaries, who have been actively fomenting anti-gay rhetoric and legislation in Anglophone Africa. Yet taking a broader historical and geographical view, I've come to see that it's frequently in former British colonies--especially in the Caribbean, Africa, the Middle East, and South and East Asia, where homophobic legislation and rhetoric are strongest.  (On the issue of anti-gay legislation, penalties, and public vehemence against LGBTQ people compare Jamaica to Cuba, the Dominican Republic, or even Haiti, for example; or Nigeria to Niger, Mauretania or Cape Verde; or Egypt to Morocco or Tunisia; or India, until fairly recently, to Indonesia or Thailand.) This is hardly an ironclad rubric, but it does seem to bear out (and I'm certainly not the first to cite it.) What I guess I've not worked out is how European colonialism, and in specific, the British rule, appears to have often led, across the globe, to these extremist Christian-centered anti-gay regimes. In the case of Southern Africa, both colonial and imperial legal approaches and cultural practices, and the religious fundamentalism, have obscured and in some cases prior cultural and social traditions in which same-sexual behavior, performances and practices were accepted (cf. Luiz Mott, Will Roscoe, Stephen O. Murray, James H. Sweet, J. Lorand Matory, et. al.)

What also mystifies me is that it's conversely the presence of Roman Catholicism--I'm thinking for examples of Ireland, Canada, Australia, and the very Catholic parts of the US, which includes most of New England and the Northeast--or, sometimes alongside it, Left-influenced ideologies (cf. South Africa, for example), that seems to mitigate this British influence. And I need not tell anyone how extremely homophobic the Roman Catholic Church has been over the last 5 centuries, and still is today. Its current leader wrote one of the most viciously homophobic documents to be widely distributed (and, thankfully, across much of the Catholic world, ignored). Let me be clear in stating that I don't think other European colonial powers didn't also influence homophobic and heterosexist laws and attitudes--I've written on here, as I have in my creative work, about how the Portuguese, to take one example, were incapable of understanding or dealing with the complexity of south-central and south-western African sexualities in Brazil, let alone those of the indigenous people they encountered.  But in places like Kenya, Uganda, Malawi, Nigeria, Jamaica, etc., where fundamentalism took root alongside the colonial and especially post-colonial governments, this sort of fanaticism appears to be rife, and the continuing influence of US fundamentalist Christians, and mainstream Protestant churches with conservative branches in these countries, only worsens matters.

British Empire (from Wikipedia)

Another irony in relation to colonialism and imperialism is that, as this horrifying case in Malawi exposed, the government homophobes often deploy the rhetoric of anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism--"the West" cannot tell them how to live their lives or "impose" homosexuality on them, and they will refuse Western "money" if they need to--in defense of their persecution of LGBTQ people.  Intervention by Western governments, including the US, does appear to have led the Ugandan government to drop the death penalty provision. Yet, as the Huffington Post article notes, Rev. Levi Nyondo, general secretary of the Church of Central Africa Presbyterian, Livingstonia Synod, praised the vicious sentence, invoking this anti-colonialist rhetoric when he stated that "The [Western] donors can stay with their money, we have our morals to protect....The government should stand firm, we are supporting it. They should not be bullied into submission by donor money."

The practical effects, of course, are devastating to LGBTQ people in these countries, and to these societies in general. The article above notes the difficulties in addressing the HIV/AIDS pandemic, but the fundamentalist Christian perspective on and approach to sexuality and sexual freedom in general and to women's reproductive health have grave psychic, physiological and political effects. 

On a slightly related and very screwed up tip, the Communist government in China convicted and sentenced a former professor, Ma Yaohai, 53, to 3 1/2 years of prison for arranging private, consensual swingers' gatherings, or orgies. The official charge, based on a 1997 law, was "group licentiousness for participating in group sex parties," according  an anonymous official from the Qinhuai District Court in southeastern Nanjing. Ma, now retired, has been living with and caring for his elderly mother, who has Alzheimer's Disease, and used their apartment for his assignations. He was arrested with 21 other people, of whom all but Ma pleaded guilty; 3 were acquitted for turning themselves in, while 18 have been jailed, with sentences up to 2 1/2 years.  Ma who pleaded innocent, is appealing his conviction. The case has sparked debate in China over sexual and other social freedoms. I personally find the very idea that he was charged at all both ridiculous and insane. But then again, same-sexual activity was still illegal in a number of US states until 2003, so....

Abstinence Has A Price

While I'm all for people talking to kids about abstinence, how much should it really cost? I mean, I don't know, I'm sure that there is a price that you can put on it, but I wouldn't say that the price is between $15,000 and $30,000, even if you are Bristol Palin. Wait. What now?

Correct. According to Radar Online Bristol Palin has "...signed with a speakers bureau called Single Source Speakers, charging between $15,000 and $30,000 a speech." Fifteen and thirty grand? EACH time she speaks?! Are you kidding me? All she has done is gotten knocked up and regretted it! Granted, she has stuff to say, but thirty grand worth of stuff to say? I can't possibly imagine. ]

I checked out Single Source Speakers to see what the deal was and because I'd never heard of them before. From what I can tell, they seem to have a theme of God and/or religion infused within each one of their speakers. But also from what I can tell, pretty much anyone can be a "speaker". That doesn't mean that you're going to command the kind of fees that Bristol Palin is getting. They don't come right out and tell you what the speaker's fees are. Instead, they use a system of dollar signs to give you some sort of an idea as to what you are looking at in terms of payment. There seems to be one dollar sign, two dollar signs, three dollar signs and then four question marks. Bristol Palin and two others get the four question marks. Those other two? Alan Keyes and Drew Brees. Wait. Drew Brees? The guy who quarterbacked the New Orleans Saints to their Super Bowl victory? THAT Drew Brees? He's in the same four question mark speaking fee group as Bristol Palin? What the what?

I didn't know who any of the other speakers on their list were. Some of them only had one name. That didn't help me out, either. Seriously, you need to have two names. A first name and a last name. Sure, there's Cher and Madonna and Bono, but none of them are speakers. And really, what did it get them? Bono is just annoying, Madonna just got divorced and Cher's daughter is now officially a man. I'm not saying that a last name would have saved them all from their fates, I'm merely pointing out that they didn't have last names and now look at 'em.

And while I understand her "need" to make money because that dirtbag, Levi Johnston, isn't going to cough up any dough, it's not like her family can't afford to help her out or anything. Her mother is Sarah Freaking Palin, for cryin' out loud. I'm sure they can spare a little spare change for their unwed daughter. But even if they couldn't, is she really worth even fifteen grand to speak for less than an hour? I don't think so.

Look, I think that her message is a good one. She had unprotected sex and got knocked up. Now she's raising a baby without a father because she picked a loser to fornicate freely with. And she has obviously realized that she made some poor choices. I am all for someone standing up and saying, "Hey, I screwed up and here's why you don't want to do what I did." That's a great message. Should it be so expensive? I don't think it should. On top of that, how long is she really going to have any clout or whatever attached to her name for those who really need to hear her message the most? Sure, adults who were adults during the 2008 election will remember who she is. Her mom is in the news for reasons I still don't understand every other freaking day, so it will be hard to forget who she is. But I don't know that the name Bristol Palin is going to have a whole lot of sway five or eight or ten years down the road. I actually question how much pull it has right now.

Can't she just write a book like everyone else and go away? It's not so much that I have anything against her, I'm just really tired of seeing and hearing from her mom all the time.

Single Children Put Some Clothes On It

The video below disturbs me in more ways than one. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against showing a little skin. It's not like I'm a member of the FLDS or anything like that. Skin is good. Let me rephrase that. Adult skin is good. Why must people insist on letting their children parade around like hooker-ific pole dancers? It's not attractive. It's disgusting and disturbing. Seriously, folks. When allowing your small children to re-enact Beyonce's "Single Ladies (Put A Ring On It)" (a fabulous little ditty, by the way), I think that the rule of thumb should be that they have to be wearing at least as much clothes as Beyonce was wearing. Would that be so bad?

Actually, now that I think about it, I have a couple of rules I'd like to implement. We've already gone over the first one, you must be covering the same ratio of your body as Beyonce is covering hers. Rule number two: Do not dress your children (especially those whose ages appear to still be in single digits) in something that a horny boyfriend would buy for his girlfriend after stopping by a 7-11 on his way home on Valentine's Day. What in the world are those girls wearing? I didn't know that you could get five dollar hooker outfits that small. If I can't see Beyonce's midriff, I don't want to see your seven-year old girl's midriff, either. Got it? For God's sake, I hope so.

Rule number three: If you do not have anything to shake, please don't try to shake it anyway. Clearly, these girls are not quite at the breasticle stage yet. There's nothing to shake. And that's FINE!! Yet, there they are, shaking their money makers when they don't even have change, let alone real money.

Rule number four: This one pertains mainly to this example only. The song basically talks about if some dude likes what he sees, perhaps he should "put a ring on it" if it's that important to him. Marry the chick, for cryin' out loud, is the message here. I don't know that you can have that message be spewed by little girls dressed in cheap lingerie who look as if they're all missing a brass pole or two. Seriously. Who are you people who are letting your kid do this and who are you people who are cheering these girls on?

Listen, the girls are talented. They have great dance moves. But why are they darn near naked? These are little girls! Where are their fathers? (Or their mothers, for that matter. But I'm really surprised that Dads would let their little girls prance around like that.) My Dad sure as hell would never have let me wear anything like that in public when I was eight OR when I was thirty, for that matter. I'd be a little afraid to wear anything like that now, lest he come back from beyond the grave and haunt me and my scantily clad booty for dressing like a ho. My brother (who is 3 years younger than me) is raising his step-daughter by himself (don't ask) and he's told her she's not dating until she's eighty. (He tells her that as he's cleaning his gun.) She certainly isn't walking out of his house looking like those girls do. She's kind of lucky he lets her walk out of the house at all (she's gonna be hot).

Seriously, why couldn't they have had on leotards or one piece swim suits or something? (After viewing that, I'm kind of leaning toward parkas, but they seem like they'd be rather bulky to dance in. See? I'm not unreasonable about the whole thing, nor impractical!) Why do they have to look like there is a midget hooker and pole dancer convention in town? Cover up your children when they're in public. Please. There's enough sexual exposure out there in all forms of media that they're going to be saturated with beginning at birth. Hypersexualizing the kids themselves by allowing them to parade their bodies in public when they are SEVEN years old can't lead to anything that's going to be great, I'll tell you that.

Again, I think that they're fabulous dancers. They're all very talented. However, the outfits that they are wearing are inappropriate and disturbing. And do you know what would have happened if they had wore outfits that were just a touch more modest (ie, I'm not looking at a 7-year old's belly button)? The ONLY thing that everyone would be talking about was how awesome the dance was. And that's how it should have been. Instead, the obvious talent that is there is lost and under-appreciated because all you can focus on is all of the sex that is there. It's sad, really. I can only hope that it won't be sadder for them as they get older.