Utah school requires girls to say "Yes" to all boys who ask them to dance.


Guest MormonGator
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Serious question:  I thought LDS youth were not to date until they are 16. What's with a school in predominantly LDS Utah forcing 12-year-olds to dance? Also, if a child is being taught to only date within their faith, are they going to force the girl to say yes to the boy her parents/church are telling her to say no to?

Dancing does not necessarily entail dating.  For an extreme not example: I'm hosting a daddy-daughter dance at church for the 8-11 year old gals.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

I know, right?

The more I think about this, if this had happened at my daughters' school, I'd have told the principal that if any teacher or administrator (or the janitor!) told my girls that they had to dance with a boy I would sue them for sexual harrassment? @Just_A_Guy, have you met your pro-bono quota for this year???  :disclaimer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Serious question:  I thought LDS youth were not to date until they are 16. What's with a school in predominantly LDS Utah forcing 12-year-olds to dance?

 

To be honest, I've sort of missed the fact that we're talking about 12 yr olds.  I'm too busy fighting the melodrama and being sucked back into black memories of the horrible past. *

 

 

 

 

* To continue being honest, most of the drama and blackness was due to me catastrophizing plain old normal life.  But it didn't seem like that at the time.  Growing up rocked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Dancing does not necessarily entail dating.  For an extreme not example: I'm hosting a daddy-daughter dance at church for the 8-11 year old gals.  

You've got to remember that my elders were quite certain dancing led to pregnancy. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

So are you against the idea of teaching children consent entirely, or just this approach?

This particular question ought not to be dignified with an answer. And yet...

"Consent" is a given in any human relationship except that of master/slave (or sometimes parent/child, which bears a reciprocal resemblance to a master/slave relationship -- but that's another matter). It is taught almost from infancy by all but the most negligent of parents. In polite society, it is called "respect".

The sexual "consent" that seems to be at the center of this particular discussion is something to be taught to people with the sexual morality of an alley cat. To be blunt: Decent people do not need such sexual instruction. They know enough from how they are raised not to let others touch them sexually, and they have known since their young childhood not to force themselves on others. And, of course, decent people would never force themselves sexually on someone else anyway. They know enough to keep their pants pulled up when they're around people they are not married to, so the situation would literally never arise. Teaching our children the verbal exercises suggested in that immensely stupid article is literally teaching them how to be social pariahs and ninnies.

Frankly, this is fairly typical feminist nonsense: Take the germ of a reasonable idea and then blow it all out of proportion until it is a grotesque parody of the original thought. The idea that Grandma/Grandpa should never hug grandson/granddaughter until given permission is absurd. Not only do I not want to live in such a world, I resent sharing society with people who preach such caustic foolishness. (Or at least I find their inanity trying.)

37 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Perhaps you have an article that is better?

Almost any article on almost any topic stands a fair chance of being better than that one. Ugh.

38 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I'm open to suggestions.

I suggest you don't quote articles by mindless Seattle liberals -- which, believe it or not, is not (quite) a redundancy. There are indeed thoughtful Seattle liberals, rare but not quite unicorns. She's not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
14 minutes ago, Vort said:

I suggest you don't quote articles by mindless Seattle liberals -- which, believe it or not, is not (quite) a redundancy. There are indeed thoughtful Seattle liberals, rare but not quite unicorns. She's not one of them.

I was trying to engage you in a serious conversation about the topic,  a suggestion of an article . . . or some specifics about what you thought was so terrible about the first article besides that it was me that posted it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting observation I thought of.  The School policy actually is misrepresented in this thread, if I understand the policy correctly.  The policy was NOT that girls were required to say yes to all the boys...or rather they were...but the boys were ALSO required to say yes to any of the girls that asked them to dance.  The actual policy appears to be gender neutral and simply says a student must say yes if asked to dance.

Now, it being Utah, most likely it is expected that boys will ask girls to dance instead of vice versa...but in many parts of the US and even the world (well, okay, in Europe, not so much in Asia, Africa and parts of South America) these days, dynamics have changed.  It is GIRLS who are asking the BOYS out, as well as to dance.

In dances with the 14 year olds I have also noticed a slight dynamic at times.  All the girls get in a group and dance in a circle, and a few of the boys stand around in a circle, but most of them just sit or stand against the wall.  You also have a few girls sitting on the stage.  Invariably this is the common stance for them all to be in during the faster songs.  When a slower song pops up...about half the boys might ask a girl to dance...the other boys...I think might just be there because they were forced to be from their parents or think that's what is expected of them because they don't move.  However, I've seen quite a number of Young Women go and ask the boys to dance.

In that light, we are approaching it as if it is just a requirement of the girls...but when I read the articles it appears that it goes both ways...that a boy has to dance with a girl that asks him to dance as well.

In any place other than Utah...with 12 year olds, I expect that might be more weighted to help the girls out than the boys.  I expect the problems we see with the 14-18 year olds at church dances are only exacerbated at these kids dances...and as such it may be that in other states the girls do more asking to dance than the boys do.

I'm not certain if that changes perceptions of how people see it, but it is interesting that most of the discussion has centered around girls not being able to say no to a boy asking them, but (and this is if I understand the policy, which states a student  [not specific to boy or girl] cannot refuse a dance) ignores that it can equally apply to a boy being asked to dance by a girl.

If it centered on the equally applicable other side of the equation, and in many states, the more likely scenario of girls asking boys to dance, and the boys have to say yes...how then is the application to this as it is no longer about girls saying no, but girls asking to dance and boys being able to tell them no.

Is this the same terrible message being sent then?  Or does it change the dynamic?

Not that it matters, it appears that the school has changed it's policy.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Clarifications
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

Serious question:  I thought LDS youth were not to date until they are 16. What's with a school in predominantly LDS Utah forcing 12-year-olds to dance? Also, if a child is being taught to only date within their faith, are they going to force the girl to say yes to the boy her parents/church are telling her to say no to?  Biggest question of all:  Why is this school sticking to this absurd policy now that it's been outed???

A dance at school is not equivalent to dating. And it seems the school has changed this rule now due to all the parental complaining; which is good.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Then whence this brouhaha about “consent”?  Kids in school are compelled to do lots of stuff they’d rather not do, and no one ever says “boo” about it.

Dancing is not a subject you take in school, it is a social activity for fun - or at least it should be for fun.

M.

Edited by Maureen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Dancing is not a subject you take in school, it is a social activity for fun - or at least it should be for fun.

M.

Sure; and in this case the kids were free not to go.  But, having chosen to go, they chose to subject themselves to the rules and traditions governing the event.  There are some longstanding etiquette forms that have traditionally applied to dancing (example); and while I can’t vouch for the way this school was trying to go about it (I don’t know enough details, and I still say sixth grade is too young)—if a school’s going to host a dance, I don’t think it’s necessarily out-of-line for the school to train participants in the traditional rules of the game that apply to males as well as females.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, eVa said:

I have been to many a dance, in church and out, where these rules of etiquette did not exist by any means.  

And yet, folks still know in their guts that declining an offer to dance is by nature something of an insult; just as folks also know in their guts that asking the same person to dance over and over again when that person isn’t interested is by nature kind of creepy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

You realize WHY there are participation ribbons and not keeping score in sports?  Right?

It was to encourage people to PLAY sports instead of stay inside, and to show that sports in and of themselves can be fun, that there was no need for competition.

Participation ribbons actually were regularly given out in my day and later with my kids...it's only been in the past 20 years that I've seen people start complaining about them and several organizations stop passing them out.

Not surprisingly, America's obesity rate has skyrocketed during that time period...

Might not be a cause and effect, but I don't think it's merely coincidence.  Stop making sports about simply being fun, and make it more about competition, and those who don't do well in sports or are not competitive suddenly are not going to enjoy or like sports anymore.

This is the same problem with the "can't say no to dances".  Missing the mark.  You don't encourage kids to go out and play sports by getting rid of competitive sports.  If kids don't want to join competitive sports, then they can go on rec sports or go play baseball/soccer/whatever in the backlot.  In any case - backlot or high level sports, learning how to be a sportsman -  learning how to handle losing  as well as learning how to win is an important aspect of human development.  Backlot sports is not about the sport so much as it is about the camaraderie.  The problem, therefore, is not the sports.  The problem is the parents or society as a whole that has been so terrorized that they feel they can't possibly send the kids off to play in the backlot by themselves without supervision or treating their children's feelings like fragile glass such that it's such a tragedy if their feelings get hurt.

But, that's just me.

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I was trying to engage you in a serious conversation about the topic,  a suggestion of an article . . . or some specifics about what you thought was so terrible about the first article besides that it was me that posted it.  

Not at all, LP. My disgust with the article had nothing to do with you. You are a sister whose views don't always align with my own. The author of the article appears to be someone who wishes to violate the most basic building blocks of human relations.

I have no other article about "boundaries" to suggest because I think the current pop culture mania surrounding "consent" is paranoid and decidedly unhealthy. I think "boundaries" and "consent" are reasonable enough topics to consider, but they are areas that most children master by the time they get out of kindergarten. Those who have not mastered them consist largely of people with social delays or deficiencies. Such people should be carefully instructed by parents and other concerned adults (and children) how to express themselves in a physically appropriate manner.

If we drop the pretense, it becomes immediately apparent that the whole discussion in the article in question is a feminist proxy for maligning sex. Certain feminists have long claimed that sex itself is a violation of the female body, and that men (and boys) are by their very nature -- and by the nature of the heterosexual act -- attackers, aggressors, rapists, doing violence to women. THAT is the true palimpsest of this discussion. It disgusts me almost beyond expression that the author of the article to would so happily bring her pet obsession into a discussion about how children interface with their loved ones. Maybe the author is truly so messed up that she really thinks Grandma should ask permission before hugging her granddaughter. If the woman really is that batty, then perhaps she deserves pity and compassion -- but she most certainly deserves to be studiously ignored and not given even a moment of serious consideration.

It seems to me that physical touch is basic to the human experience, more basic even than speech. To teach a four-year-old that no one gets to touch him for any reason unless he gives explicit permission is absurd, messed up, paranoid, abusive to the child, and lots of other nasty terms that I don't care to think up right now.

I understand bad things happen to people. I understand that we try to make rules to minimize those bad things. I understand that when bad things happen, we have to be patient and kind to the victims. I also understand that we don't let the victims make the rules. Rape victims are routinely dismissed from the jury pool in trials for rape -- and for very good reason. We cannot expect a rape victim to be reasonable and rational about someone else's claim of rape.

Grandma and Grandpa get to hug their grandchildren. The grandchildren can hug them back, or they can grit their teeth and wait patiently until it's over. But to expect that grandparents should never touch their grandchildren in affection without the grandchildren's explicit permission is a symptom of a sick or even depraved mind, one that always assumes the worst and that guards against that worst-case scenario at the cost of family.

The OP is not about evil boys being allowed to prey on innocent, victimized girls. It's about a hamfisted attempt by a public school administration to accomplish an arguably good end by stupid means. It would be nice if we could keep the feminist subtexts out of the discussion -- a silly notion in 21st-century America, to be sure, but still my desire.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, zil said:

This seems like the perfect opportunity to teach your child when it's OK to defy institutional rules (like this one) and when it's not.

Not that it matters now, but this would also be a good opportunity to teach your child how to obey and defy institutional rules at the same time:

Robert: "Hi, Mary.  I'm not asking you to dance, but I would like to know if you'd be interested in dancing with me if I were to ask."

Mary: "Thank you for asking, Robert, but no, I don't think I would."

Robert: "Thanks, Mary.  I hope you enjoy the dance."

Mary: "Thanks, you too."

...OR...

Robert: "Hi, Mary.  I'm not asking you to dance, but I would like to know if you'd be interested in dancing with me if I were to ask."

Mary: "Thank you for asking, Robert, yes, that would be nice."

Robert: "Thanks, Mary.  Will you dance with me?"

Mary: "Yes."

...Institutional stupidity defied, and civility in action!  (Not sure if this is beyond 6th graders or not, but it's another good lesson.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s interesting how differently we approach this; because I was thinking just the opposite.  IIRC the Church discourages (or, in my day, discouraged) kids under 14 participating in dances in the first place (certainly that was the minimum age for stake dances).  I figured that the fact an elementary school was holding a Valentine’s Day dance at all, was probably an indicator of growing non-LDS influence.  

I have a sixth-grader going to school in Utah County.  I’ve never heard of her school sponsoring such an event; and even if it did—I wouldn’t let her go.  

I thought the same thing.  Stake Dances are still 14-years-old and above today.  My kids - the youngest being 14 - don't go to dances.  They say it's 3 hours of ear cancer (they do not like pop music and they don't like the new-fangled techno dance music even less!).  But last weekend, they went for the first time because one o  f their good friends invited them to the dance as part of her birthday celebration.  So they went and my oldest son spent about 15 minutes dancing with the birthday girl and spent the rest of the time playing piano for random audiences in one of the rooms.  My 14-year-old spent the time dancing every slow dance with any girl who he sees sitting in the sidelines without a partner or any friends around her.  He spends the fast dances chatting it up with other young men.  Interestingly, there were a whole bunch of young men that spent all 3 hours just chatting and guffawing among themselves while the girls go on the dance floor dancing among themselves.

Both my kids don't attend their school dances either.  Both of them have gotten invites to Homecoming and the Prom (girls these days do the inviting!) and both have declined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
2 hours ago, Vort said:

If we drop the pretense, it becomes immediately apparent that the whole discussion in the article in question is a feminist proxy for maligning sex. Certain feminists have long claimed that sex itself is a violation of the female body, and that men (and boys) are by their very nature -- and by the nature of the heterosexual act -- attackers, aggressors, rapists, doing violence to women. THAT is the true palimpsest of this discussion. It disgusts me almost beyond expression that the author of the article to would so happily bring her pet obsession into a discussion about how children interface with their loved ones.

Thanks Vort, I understand your feelings on this much better now.  The part I quoted here really helped me understand your strong response.  I admit that if that was how I interpreted the article, I would have dismissed it as trash as well.  

For me the conversation about consent is about protecting children.  Unfortunately, most abuse vicitms are assaulted by someone they know, often a family member.  So when we tell them that they have to hug Uncle Joe, it makes it more confusing for them to tell Uncle Joe "no" later when he crosses what is obviously a line for adults, but to a child it is less clear.  They didn't like the hug, and they really don't like what is happening now. But they don't know there is a clear line, unless they have been taught. . Even think that if the child wants to tell someone what Uncle Joe did, they may fear that the other person will...same as the hug...tell them they have to do it.  To us as adults that makes no sense, one is innocent, and the other is not.  But this line is not as clear for children who live in a world of authority figures.  

I agree that a rape victim should not be on a jury pool, however, for me, that does not then follow that survivors of sexual assault cannot/should not give suggestions about how to keep children safe from predators, some of whom are relatives.  

ETA:  Potential compromise....how would you feel about instead of teaching children consent, to teach them "good touch, bad touch".  Maybe that could work, if you are very clear about what bad touch is, and that your child should tell you if ANYONE touches them in a bad way.   Honestly, I still prefer consent, but trying to find a compromise here. :)  

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, zil said:

That's a gentleman.

Not necessarily.  A gentleman according to Blast from the Past is someone who always tries to make sure the people around him are as comfortable as possible.  He doesn't have to seek out people who are not around him to be a gentleman.  What my son was doing, I think... is taking responsibility.  It's a Jordan Peterson thing.  :D

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Maureen said:

Dancing is not a subject you take in school, it is a social activity for fun - or at least it should be for fun.

M.

It's not necessarily for fun.  Dancing, traditionally, is an activity provided for males and females (before the LGBTQ+ movement made it too confusing) to safely socially interact with each other in a positive manner.  Male and male dancing or Female and Female dancing (unless you're a homosexual) kinda defeats that entire concept in the same manner that Wonder Woman being enjoyed by a segregated group of women viewers ruins the entire concept of a female hero.  Make sense?

.

.

.

.

And that's why we say Elementary School Dance doesn't make sense.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share