Response to Betsy Hart

In the article "School dance steps look like foreplay", an angry parent (who, to my understanding doesn't even have children that are of high school age) is expressing her views of raunchy high school dances. She doesn't feel like the parents are understanding of the attempts made by the administrators to stop sexual dancing at school dances. She says that the parents are supporting their children's "foreplay" by complaining to the school system.

The author believes that the school's should be taking even more action at the dances then they already are, like "turn up the lights at all times, and always be ready to protect them from themselves whether they like it or not."

I do not agree with this author at all. She doesn't know what she's talking about. Has she ever been to a high school dance? (And I don't mean twenty years ago.) She doesn't even have high school kids. How can she speak her peace when she doesn't even know what goes on in the oh-so dramatic world of a teenager? If she were to try and compare high school today to high school when she was there, then she'd be very far out of line. Time after time I hear my parents talk about how things have changed since they were in school, and they're right.

(One example of this, Miss Haupt was talking to us about, is because of the way we dress, there is now four pages of dress code guidelines.)

The dancing styles are influenced by culture and media. Even if kids weren't to watch MTV to get ideas for dance moves, the influence is still all around us. Look at everything from watching the news to little girl's Halloween costumes. Nothing is pure and innocent anymore, it's just the way it is.

The author states, "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."

If the kids are dancing inappropriately, then it's probably not much of a "danger" as it is a desire. If they are dancing sexually, it's not because they are being forced to, it's because they want to. If they were afraid, they wouldn't do it. Most parents aren't stupid, they know what goes on in today's high school dances. If they were really afraid of it, they wouldn't allow their kids to go.

The author asks the question, "Why? Because they are proud of the public foreplay their children are engaging in?

This question is asked to make the parent think about their attitude toward their children's behavior. In the author's opinion, by ignoring the behavior, it is a way of supporting the behavior and encouraging them to participate in their "dangerous" activities. When she says this, it makes the "cool mom" suddenly change into a "bad" mom, one of the moms who sends her daughter off to the dance after she's taken her birth control, "just in case!" Most parents don't want to be that "bad" parent, and then the question makes them think about their views, so that they can rise up with Betty and ruin all the fun.

(PS- Before I get bashed and turned into a disgusting animal, I'm not supporting premarital sex and all that, I just want to have fun - Play better music!!!)

Response to #1 (Lauren Rinkleen)

While at first when I heard about the famous Imus case, I thought that it was completely rude. However, after considering the first amendment along with the examples used in Rinkleen's article, I must say that I agree with her, let the Imus voice be heard.

Rinkleen's excellent use of examples only proves the unjust jurisdiction behind the Imus case even further. The strongest example must be, "Bill O'Rielly was unrepentant and unpunished for suggesting that African-Americans eating peacefully in a resaurant was an extraordinary event." This is possibly one of the most belligerent statements I have ever heard in my life. The audacity that O'Reilly has to claim that Black's can't properly handle themselves in a public restaurant is absurd, I for one have never seen an African-American act any ruder (while eating) then a white person. If O'Reilly can get away with saying this, then why was Imus punished for ripping on whinny basketball girls?

O'Rielly's statement was a pure matter of opinion, but perhaps he has also had personal experience with the subject. Perhaps he was speaking of one specific restaurant that the reoccurring situation was held in. Imus could have been referencing the same thing, an opinion, which he is allowed to in America because we have freedom of speech, or perhaps he was referencing a personal experience he had in the past with a similar event.

Either way, Imus, unlike O'Rielly had the boldness to stand up for himself while apologizing at the same time. I agree with Rikleen, let Imus speak; it is in my opinion that he should have never been silenced in the first place.