All-Star Twerk Ban

[Cheermom1969]

I genuinely can't tell if people are seriously saying twerking isn't sexual :confused: or just arguing to argue. Because really...it's not fierce or cute. It's gross. (And that's coming from someone who grew up trying to justify 2 Live Crew as music :oops:) I can't actually wrap my head around one way of looking at twerking that isn't sexual. I am so creeped out when I see kids doing it.

For the record I also think of a lot things mentioned as "perfectly acceptable" in this thread as overly sexual for kids. Bow and arrow, heel stretch, etc.= ok. Doing them with your goods pointed directly at the camera for a photo = gross. I agree that a lot of people find this acceptable, but I gotta say anyone outside of cheer is looking at these pics like :eek: :eek::eek: . I purposely don't "like" them on Facebook because I don't want the rest of my non-cheer friends to wonder what on earth I'm looking at. As pc as I can make it: girls, you can show how flexible you are without me seeing your spleen. Tell your photo taking friend to move 6 inches to their left.

Parents: If your under 18 kid is "twerking" in a video online and/or wearing a "Twerk Team" t-shirt and you're allowing it...I'm judging you. And so are a lot of other people. If you don't care, cool. Just don't complain when people stereotype your kid.

I bow down to you, JAM, for saying exactly how I feel! :cheering: (we need a nice English bowing emoji!!)

 

[Just-a-Mom]

I bow down to you, JAM, for saying exactly how I feel! :cheering: (we need a nice English bowing emoji!!)

I'm skipping class today, so what better way to spend my hooky day than on Fierce Board gettin' my blood pressure up? :p Oh...that's not good? Ok, I'm also going to get a pedicure and going running. Next 5K is 6 weeks from Friday! :eek::help:

 

[mccracal]

I can tell you that our uniforms are definitely a subject for debate. Would I EVER allow my girls to wear their uni around public places? No way!! But just like track or gymnastics, I do believe the need for tight fitting, smaller clothing is needed for safety purposes. But, the moment you are finished competing, you cover yourself up. Which is another rule we have. So as long as the breast and the booty are covered, I am indifferent on what a uni looks like on the floor. Just cover yourself up when you're done.

We will agree to disagree on the splits and body positions being similar to a dance that mimics having sex standing up.

Anyone who knows our owner, or me, or any of our other coaches knows that we do NOT judge others or look down on others for having opposing opinions just because we are Christians. But, I will say this, if anyone considers their self a Christian, then it is their obligation to read the bible and follow its principles to the best of their ability. Whether they do or not is between them and God. It's not my place to judge that. All I can do is do my best to not sin. But I also will not lie and tell someone what they are doing is ok when the bible clearly says its not ok. But I never give my opinion unless I'm asked for it. I do get tired of Christians getting a bad rap just because we disagree with what's popular in society.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

Huh. I guess I lack creativity, but I genuinely don't understand the mechanics of how a couple would actually be able to maintain the stability needed to do that sort of sexual activity if one or both of the partners were to actually start twerking in any of its forms.

I understand that in certain contexts, twerking can be an activity that's meant to further entice someone sexually But I have yet to see a compelling argument for why twerking in itself is an objectively more sexual activity than shimmying, facials, a chest pop, or splits. In fact, splits in the air (which seems to be viewed as particularly innocuous among the cheer community) is an activity that can actually draw attention towards a part of the body that is both biologically and culturally sexual, unlike the rear end.

I genuinely admire how you treat the purpose of your uniforms, which is why I would understand if the ban had been on pictures of athletes in immodest clothing in general. If modesty is the issue, then the context in which twerking is being performed, not the twerking itself, is once again the problem.

[Also, I wanted to add that not everyone DOES personally know you or your gym--that's the only reason why I recommended being careful about how you worded the religious reasoning for the ban. Certain phrasing can come off the wrong way for people who only know that the gym purports to have a Christian influence.]

 

[cupieqt]

I genuinely can't tell if people are seriously saying twerking isn't sexual :confused: or just arguing to argue. Because really...it's not fierce or cute. It's gross. (And that's coming from someone who grew up trying to justify 2 Live Crew as music :oops:) I can't actually wrap my head around one way of looking at twerking that isn't sexual. I am so creeped out when I see kids doing it.

Yes. People are actually arguing that twerking isn't sexual. I know, I know--the IQ (idiot quotient) on fb is on the rise.



The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

 

[Just-a-Mom]

Huh. I guess I lack creativity, but I genuinely don't understand the mechanics of how a couple would actually be able to maintain the stability needed to do that sort of sexual activity if one or both of the partners were to actually start twerking in any of its forms.

I understand that in certain contexts, twerking can be an activity that's meant to further entice someone sexually But I have yet to see a compelling argument for why twerking in itself is an objectively more sexual activity than shimmying, facials, a chest pop, or splits. In fact, splits in the air (which seems to be viewed as particularly innocuous among the cheer community) is an activity that can actually draw attention towards a part of the body that is both biologically and culturally sexual, unlike the rear end.

I genuinely admire how you treat the purpose of your uniforms, which is why I would understand if the ban had been on pictures of athletes in immodest clothing in general. If modesty is the issue, then the context in which twerking is being performed, not the twerking itself, is once again the problem.

[Also, I wanted to add that not everyone DOES personally know you or your gym--that's the only reason why I recommended being careful about how you worded the religious reasoning for the ban. Certain phrasing can come off the wrong way for people who only know that the gym purports to have a Christian influence.]

Well, one, yes you do apparently lack creativity. ;)

Two, just for the sake of argument, I googled twerking and shimmying to see how the internet world would define them for someone who wasn't familiar with either. I found about 25 definitions for each.

One definition of shimmying even remotely implied that it was meant to entice or use the breasts in any way. And that was about the 5th one down on urban dictionary.
Every single definition of twerking I could find had the word sexual, stripper, arousal, slutty, or lascivious in it. Not particularly words I'm looking for when describing young teenage girls that I know (or worse, gave birth to).

But to each their own. If you think it's cute and artistic then have at it. Just don't sign up to cheer at T&S and you should be good to go.

 

[mccracal]

Yes. People are actually arguing that twerking isn't sexual. I know, I know--the IQ (idiot quotient) on fb is on the rise.



The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

As the main poster defending twerking, I'd like to point out I never said twerking can't be, or isn't sexual. All I've said is that the context of the dance carries considerably more importance than the dance itself, as is the situation with a score of other cheer-related activities.

But sure, feel free to ignore my actual argument and resort to name-calling instead.

 

[cupieqt]

As the main poster defending twerking, I'd like to point out I never said twerking can't be, or isn't sexual. All I've said is that the context of the dance carries considerably more importance than the dance itself, as is the situation with a score of other cheer-related activities.

But sure, feel free to ignore my actual argument and resort to name-calling instead.

Hey if the shoe fits....

Deep thoughts on twerking to be continued.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

 

[JayySoFierce]

...So we shouldn't drop that thun thun thun anymore?

 

[ACEDAD]

There is no sexual activity/position/act I can think of involves the use of one's feet.

You need to get out more:

http://forum.spiritcompany.com/threads/dear-cheerlover88.30714/

 

[mccracal]

Well, one, yes you do apparently lack creativity. ;)

Two, just for the sake of argument, I googled twerking and shimmying to see how the internet world would define them for someone who wasn't familiar with either. I found about 25 definitions for each.

One definition of shimmying even remotely implied that it was meant to entice or use the breasts in any way. And that was about the 5th one down on urban dictionary.
Every single definition of twerking I could find had the word sexual, stripper, arousal, slutty, or lascivious in it. Not particularly words I'm looking for when describing young teenage girls that I know (or worse, gave birth to).

But to each their own. If you think it's cute and artistic then have at it. Just don't sign up to cheer at T&S and you should be good to go.

First off, I genuinely want to thank you for taking the time to find some actual evidence against my argument. It's a breath of a fresh air.

Part of the problem with relying on Internet definitions is that you don't know who they're being written by, or the motivations for why the author phrased things in a particular manner. I would argue that the internet definitions aren't particularly well thought out, and fail to take into consideration that there are plenty of different styles of twerking. Since twerking is still relatively new to the pop culture scene, people are eager to define it by its controversy; they probably don't feel the need to look at the movements objectively. If the Internet were around in the 50s, I'm sure you would find that the majority of people would define "The Twist" in the same way as people nowadays seem to be defining "The Twerk".

I honestly couldn't care less if Twist and Shout were to ban their athletes from wearing Mickey Mouse socks; how they control their athletes is their prerogative. What does concern me are the arguments that people are using to defend the ban--I felt (and continue to feel) it necessary to point out that it's a problem when arguments are rooted in pure emotion and illegitimate biases rather than objectivity and critical thinking.

 

[platinum1999]

what I can't stand the most is when there are these big groups of 9 and 10 year olds at competitions having what they called their "twerk party"


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android || Upgrade Your Account!

 

[MyGirlCheers]

Your limited imagination in this department doesn't really mean anything; the unwanted pop-ups and the oodles of graphic comments that I've seen prove my point.

Please read what I wrote: biologically speaking, the rear end is not sexual. Yes, it can be sexual in a cultural context, but so are someone's lips, and we have no problem with flyers making "fierce" facials. We have no problem with the shimmying that brings attention to someone's breasts. We have no problem with flyers in skimpy skirts who pull splits in the air, which exposes the entirety of their legs and can draw attention towards an area that actually IS biologically sexual. Twerking doesn't inherently mirror sexual activity any more than those activities do, but cheerleading gives us a bias to ignore those activities and only focus on the "sexual nature" of anything involving one's rear end, which is why I've said that it's a meaningless distinction.

Responding to the above highlight.

Actually, you're wrong. It's believed by biologists/anthropologists/psychologists that rounded buttocks evolved into a desirable trait because they provide a visual indication of the woman's youth and fertility. They signal the presence of estrogen and the presence of sufficient fat stores for pregnancy and lactation. Additionally, the buttocks give an indication of the shape and size of the pelvis, which impacts reproductive capability. In other primates, females display their buttocks when ready for mating. It's theorized that human women's breasts and cleavage are sexual because they developed to mimic the shape of the buttock since human's walk upright.

So basically twerking is the primal way of saying "I'm ready to mate" biologically speaking.

 

[mccracal]

Responding to the above highlight.

Actually, you're wrong. It's believed by biologists/anthropologists/psychologists that rounded buttocks evolved into a desirable trait because they provide a visual indication of the woman's youth and fertility. They signal the presence of estrogen and the presence of sufficient fat stores for pregnancy and lactation. Additionally, the buttocks give an indication of the shape and size of the pelvis, which impacts reproductive capability. In other primates, females display their buttocks when ready for mating. It's theorized that human women's breasts and cleavage are sexual because they developed to mimic the shape of the buttock since human's walk upright.

So basically twerking is the primal way of saying "I'm ready to mate" biologically speaking.

Speaking as someone who's actually taken several college courses on evolutionary biology and psychology, while there are lots of hypotheses for the evolutionary benefit for women's curves (whether it be rear ends, hips, legs, breasts, etc.), there isn't much actual scientific evidence that supports much of any of the claims. A large problem with evolutionary psychology is that it focuses more on looking back and creating plausible-sounding stories to fill in the gaps than on finding actual scientific evidence to support those ideas.

 

[MyGirlCheers]

Speaking as someone who's actually taken several college courses on evolutionary biology and psychology, while there are lots of hypotheses for the evolutionary benefit for women's curves (whether it be rear ends, hips, legs, breasts, etc.), there isn't much actual scientific evidence that supports much of any of the claims. A large problem with evolutionary psychology is that it focuses more on looking back and creating plausible-sounding stories to fill in the gaps than on finding actual scientific evidence to support those ideas.

Are you suggesting I haven't?

I'm betting there's more scientific evidence to support the claim that the buttocks is sexual than there is to support your argument that it isn't. I'd be happy to read any links you can provide to scholarly articles supporting your position.

 

[Cheermom1969]

Speaking as someone who's actually taken several college courses on evolutionary biology and psychology, while there are lots of hypotheses for the evolutionary benefit for women's curves (whether it be rear ends, hips, legs, breasts, etc.), there isn't much actual scientific evidence that supports much of any of the claims. A large problem with evolutionary psychology is that it focuses more on looking back and creating plausible-sounding stories to fill in the gaps than on finding actual scientific evidence to support those ideas.

:cow: