The video’s been pulled from YouTube, but I can describe it:
Several female dancers wear black and red lingerie-style bikinis with extremely short skirts and black dance shoes with knee socks (with red lace at the top). They are white-skinned with glossy hair, and their bodies are slim. They dance to Beyonce’s “Single Ladies.” Many of the moves are quite sexually suggestive – gyrating, hip shaking, groin-thrusting, straight-leg bends, faux-self-stroking and shimmies. These are difficult moves, and they exercise them with talent and verve.
I’m not sure why this particular video has stirred a controversy. After all, it was fourteen years ago that six-year-old beauty queen JonBenét Ramsey died with the DNA of an unknown man on her underwear – a man who has never been identified, and is believed by police to be her killer. How did Ramsey’s death fail to convince everyone that putting pre-pubescent children on display as sex objects is a bad idea?
And please: I’m not blaming anyone specific. The parents seem to think this is required for dance competitions, so maybe the people behind dance competitions have some responsibility too, or maybe it’s just what I should expect from a culture that teaches young women blow jobs and boob jobs are empowering. Blame doesn’t interest me. I just want to know what I could say that would help people understand: this performance is a reverberating wink-nudge from our allegedly civilized society to all the predators that hide in plain sight within it. Go right ahead, we’re telling them. Just make sure you don’t hurt anyone important, and take care no one finds out, so we won’t have to deal with it.
And what about the rest of us, who aren’t predators? Tell me when you watch the linked video, honestly: don’t you feel like you’re watching women? Women’s slim thighs, women’s hidden breasts, women’s buttocks? After all, women with curves have been out of style for forty years – little girl bodies have long been the ideal for all of us (which may be a whole other topic). If you’re attracted to women, doesn’t this video give you a creepy little hormonal twitch, probably followed by irrational guilt? Sometimes in reviewing media for Hathor, I try to imagine seeing women through white male eyes – it’s so easy, since I grew up in a culture that taught me to look at my own body to see if I had what men wanted or not. I watch this video, and I see what men want. My brain tells me I’m looking at little girls: my eyes tell me I’m looking at grown women.
Isn’t this society confused enough about consensual sex between adults? Must we really drag girls into the muck, too? And if it’ such an okay idea for girls, where are the little eight-year-old Chippendales? Wouldn’t that be cute?
No, people: it would be disturbing. I’m only suggesting it because, like I said, I’m trying to figure out what I could say that would make the people who find this cute shudder and change their minds. This is all disturbing.
{ 41 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
But the child isn’t being taught to titillate. She’s being taught to dance and is dancing, no more, no less.
People (adults) are sexualizing her. That is on them, not her.
sbg(Quote) (Reply)
Re: slut shaming: Not only is the teacher a bad teacher, you’re implying that she’s a bad PERSON, and encouraging kids to be immoral… whatever that even means in this context.
Jenny, are you reading my whole comment(s)? Where I’m highlighting that what dances are considered overly sexual is a historically contingent thing? I’m mentioning that because of the way you’re describing the move with a series of value-laden descriptors (TBH right now, I THINK you’re describing this http://www.spike.com/video/learn-how-to-hip-hop/2943602 but honestly can’t tell) as opposed to giving a breakdown of the body movements associated with it. You’re not describing what they’re doing. You’re describing what you THINK they’re doing, which is going back to Jenn’s original point — we’re cued to sexualize the movements of young girls, particularly when those movements involve moving parts of the body “nice (white, corset wearing) girls” don’t. The move that I THINK you’re describing (and I’ve been racking my brain trying to think of any hip/pelvis related chip/dip moves!) doesn’t necessarily signify having sex. It’s a series of sharper staccato hip thrusts forward, where you’re using your pelvis to (I guess) scoop some dip. Your knees are probably bent, and yeah, your crotch is out. You can see from this clip from Rize http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LRe9wpLKGw that depending on the speed and the attitude of the dancer it can look almost like a war dance, to kinda like swaggering, to, yes, like having sex. A couple of girls (the one at 1:50 and the one at 2:14) will go through all 3 of those while performing.
What’s nuts to me about this conversation is that when girls dance, no matter how, they get sexualized, and that sexualization draws on class, race, and heteronormativity to make itself go. That’s why it’s so important Jenn used “sexualized” instead of sexy or sexual. She’s highlighting the process by which girls’ bodies become sexual commodities. All I’m saying is that there’s a racist component to that. Moreover, it’s fucked up to not acknowledge that particular movements, regardless of whether or not they’re sexual, become sexualized when “nice girls” aren’t seen as moving like that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vprdbH91Oew&feature=related
For example, I don’t see this as being innately sexual. But because she’s a girl, because she’s showing her tummy, because she’s moving her hips, she’s SEXUALIZED.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oy0liWLfUeQ
Much in the same way these girls aren’t being innately sexual. But because they’re girls, because they’re moving in ways women “don’t move,” because their bodies are presumed to be always available for consumption, they’re SEXUALIZED.
I’m not at all defending the video. Please let me be clear on that. What I’m criticizing is the attitude behind a comment that would praise a dance teacher for NOT teaching a dancer to move a part of their body they’re going to have their entire life, as though that body part is contaminated. Hips are hips! Rock them.
Maria(Quote) (Reply)
Because hip-hop was invented by people who were not white and were not economically powerful? What does that have to do with the teacher choosing, as their very first hip-hop move, to teach a bunch of little kids to mimic a sex act?
Nothing. But it has a lot to do with your framing the choice as between Irish dance and hip-hop dance, with the white dance as the obviously less sexual and more appropriate choice. I get why you think it’s so obvious, but it’s not. You think the sex-looking move is more dirty than showing skin. But I have known people who wouldn’t recognize a move that mimics WOMAN ON TOP because that doesn’t happen in their tiny little missionary style world, so they’d be far more upset by skin showing than by the move you’re describing. Which they would utterly fail to get any sexual implications out of. And don’t come back with “I’m sure if they saw *this* they’d get it” because I assure you, they would not.
and no, you do not squat on a horse!
You’ve obviously never watched a horse race. You’ve just missed the Kentucky Derby, but the Belmont’s on June 5th. Check out how the jockeys move their lower bodies in the slow-mo coverage. There’s a reason there’s a sexual position called “Reverse Cowgirl.”
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I saw a brief clip of this video on the news and had to change the channel immediately because it just upset me too much. Can’t believe some people are trying to defend it or claim it’s just innocent good fun.
I find this whole thing disturbing beyond belief. I mean it sickens me that we live in this kind of world where it’s just becoming more and more difficult for children to have a childhood/not grow up too fast, and not have to worry about being exploited/abused.
I can’t find the words, really. I guess the main thing I wanted to say is that I agree that there’s nothing inherently wrong with shaking your hips (or moving whatever other body part) …I mean, little kids roll their hips around when they’re playing with a hula hoop, for instance, and nobody would find that sexual (unless they’re already a sick person with a dirty mind who sees sex in *everything*, I suppose.) Ditto with a child in a swimsuit/leotard, etc.
So yeah, we’ve been taught that certain moves/clothes in certain contexts mean certain things. I agree with the poster who said that when you get to the root of the problem, it’s the fact that adults who *know* that these specific dance moves are understood by most of us nowadays to mean “stripper/sexually available” – are deliberately directing/teaching the little girls to do these moves. These adults (parents and teachers) should be doing their best to protect the children in their care, not exploiting them or making them targets for sexual predators. It’s an incredibly irresponsible betrayal of trust. These very young children *trust* the adults in charge to know what’s best for them and look out for them… god, it’s so depressing.
As was also said above, this sort of thing encourages rapists…lets them know it’s “okay” to see children as sex objects. No it’s not okay…no matter how they may dress or dance. But it still sends that message, and I agree with Jennifer that some would-be rapists would stop if they were more afraid of the consequences…if our culture didn’t seem to condone the sexploitation of girls. I mean, it’s a sad commentary on human nature, but if crimes *aren’t* committed, most of the time it’s only because of the fear of punishment. Not because of some inner moral conscience.
I’ve never felt like I belong in this era – I mean, even as a kid, I wanted to live in the past and preferred older books/movies, etc. I realize I’m old-fashioned in many ways and maybe naive. But I still wish I could go back to a “more innocent time”, even though I know the world was never perfect, and there’s always been sexism, racism, people hurting other people… But things are getting worse, right? Or is it just me? I can’t help but feel like our society’s become more selfish, with this “don’t judge me no matter what horrible thing I do” mentality. (Don’t judge these parents for letting their kids be exploited!) Anything goes. Nothing is “wrong” by a generally accepted moral standard. Morals are silly and outdated! I’m not saying people should be shamed for things that society used to frown on, like, I dunno, having a child out of wedlock or whatever (yeah I’m using that old expression because we all find it ridiculous now). But isn’t this extreme reaction the opposite way, just as bad? If people aren’t ashamed of *anything* or afraid of negative repercussions… well, goes back to that whole preventing-crimes-through-fear-of-punishment-thing.
And (to get back on-topic) it seems like fewer people are able to recognize, or willing to speak out against, the inappropiate sexualization of little girls. If our society won’t say it’s wrong…won’t admit it’s even happening… that’s really scary. And things will never improve.
Christine(Quote) (Reply)
Christine, while I think some things in society have improved, I agree that we’re getting more selfish. And there’s always been a troubling conflation of consensual adult sex and rape. Because of that conflation, the very sensible lifting of social bans against healthy, consensual, adult sex has somehow enhanced the rape culture atmosphere, which it shouldn’t have. Because rape is like sex in the same way that being thrown into a river with concrete bricks to weigh you down is like swimming. Two very, very different things that might possibly look similar at a glance out of context.
Additionally, Susan Faludi talks in her intro to a new edition of Backlash about how, since her book first came out, the conservative right-wing very smartly dropped the backlash and instead co-opted third wave feminism. They’re where the “boob enhancement and blow jobs gives you ‘pussy power’, ladies” voice of alleged “feminism” in the 90s came from. That attitude treats sex as a commodity women should trade to get what they want from men, and celebrate it as power, when it’s in fact a very dangerous myth for women (all men have to do, and they are 100% capable of it, is decide the “bitch” is taking them for a ride they don’t want to go on, and they can get sex somewhere else, and boom, she’s without any power at all).
By encouraging the view that women should trade sex for stuff from men instead of trading work or cleverness for resources directly, we encourage the idea that every human experience is a commodities trade, and men who want women or kids or animals or whatever to “pay” them in sex are just behaving naturally.
But I do think things can improve when more and more people speak out. Even a small minority can get people listening, can influence the way things go.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
Heh, welcome to neoliberalism.
Maria(Quote) (Reply)
I’ve been mulling over this discussion for the past few days. In the meanwhile, Christine at #34 said pretty much everything I wanted to say, only in a much more articulate and better organized way, and then Jennifer Kesler at #35 filled in the rest.
The point I want to reiterate, probably because it’s at the heart of why this kind of thing squicks me out, is that childhood is powerless. A line of children who are rocking their hips on a stage will probably set off some perv no matter what they are wearing; that can’t be changed. But what the kids are saying, in their powerlessness, can be changed. It isn’t the hip motion I object to. It’s the difference between rocking your hips in a crocodile costume to make your tail swing (which was the awww-inspiring show-stealer for the 4-year-old Rhythm and Movement class at my daughter’s recital–they were portraying the Clock-Eating Crocodile’s little croclets) and dancing in a combination of Catholic schoolgirl socks and lingerie to “Single Ladies.” It’s the difference between “Aren’t I cute (and a child, who is understood to be powerless)” and “Aren’t I sexy (and a child, who is understood to be powerless).”
My daughter already has boundaries and a sense of bodily integrity. She flat-out refused to go without panties for the recital because she felt naked under her costume, so my husband and I made sure that she had panties that wouldn’t show and praised her for letting us know how she felt instead of trying to stuff it down. But she’s six years old. It’s our responsibility to protect her from the boundary transgressions she hasn’t yet learned to recognize as long as she does not have the power to protect herself. All adults should do this for children who are under their care, even for an hour a week in a dance class.
Jenny Islander(Quote) (Reply)
I am not so sure that the fake tan is meant to be a racial reference (to whom, incidentally?). I recall a friend who did jazz dance having to put on fake tan for her performance. If you think fake tan today is orange, you should have seen it back in 1980. She looked like nothing on earth. Bodybuilders also slather themselves in the stuff for their competitions. It could just be an expression of the general belief that any tan looks better than lily-white skin.
I’ve read some similar articles like this and often they will quote the parents (usually the mother) as being uneasy but not to the point where they will withdraw the daughter from the class, explaining why. They’re afraid of making a scene, or appearing to be prudish, or disappointing their daughter. I was reflecting earlier today on how much harder it is to hang onto your moral standards when everybody around you is ‘doing it’ (whatever it may be). We can see that operating here, I think, where the parents are so bamboozled by the zeitgeist’s unending ‘be hot, be sexy’ messages that they falter, uncertain whether they even have the right to be upset by such dance moves. After all, isn’t it supposed to be cute when children imitate their elders? Nobody else is complaining. Maybe it’s just me. And so the rationalisation begins. But I do wonder what is going through the dance teachers’ minds. Are they just so used to teaching these moves, with concomitant dress and makeup, to adults they fail to switch off when it comes to children? Or are they also uneasy but thinking this is what the judges want?
photondancer(Quote) (Reply)
I am not so sure that the fake tan is meant to be a racial reference (to whom, incidentally?).
It’s not a reference, no – it’s just something that only applies to lighter-skinned people, and thereby excludes darker-skinned individuals, or at least lets them know it’s never crossed the mind of the white folks behind the dance troupe that someone who’s naturally darker than a white person with a fake tan could show up, and therefore, who knows how that person will be received?
They’re afraid of making a scene, or appearing to be prudish, or disappointing their daughter.
Interestingly, those are all classic traps for women. We’re conditioned to worry so much about causing a scene that we often submit to abuse to avoid it; worry so much about seeming prudish that we deny ourselves the right to stand up for what we believe; worry so much about disappointing people that we let situations deteriorate to the point of real damage and difficulty.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I just want to say I really appreciate the kind response to my comment. I love reading this website and have been in awe of your enlightening debates and the wisdom expressed here. I was a bit nervous about participating, (but this issue upset me so much I had to say something) so thanks for making me feel welcome.
Jenny Islander – I think *you* said everything *I* wanted to say in a more articulate and concise way.
When talking about a betrayal of trust, I was missing something (which seems so obvious now) – It’s the fact that children are powerless and adults shouldn’t be abusing their power over them. You’re right, power is at the heart of this. It’s nice to hear that some parents, like you, know how to balance protecting their children, and allowing them some power to make decisions too. 
(Personally I think most people aren’t qualified to be parents and there should be some sort of training course you have to pass before entrusted with the awesome responsibility of raising another human being – I’m only half-serious, since I know it would be hell to enforce or even decide on the Good Parenting criteria – and like all systems, ripe for abuse and corruption.)
Jennifer, that “sex as a commodity” so-called feminism has been upsetting me for awhile. I sensed that it was a manipulative tactic to trick women into believing we have power, while really maintaining the status quo/patriarchy, but you really helped me put my uneasy feeling about it into words – and it’s reassuring to know that I’m not alone/imagining it (this website often has that reassuring effect!)
I wish more women could see through it, but it’s no wonder… we all feel pressure to conform to gender role expectations, plus that whole afraid-to-be-seen-as-prudish-or-”difficult” factor, which photondancer mentioned. Now I almost feel sorry for the parents and dance teachers who let little girls be sexualized! Jennifer and photodancer’s posts remind me of possible reasons for their decisions. If they’ve been pressured and brainwashed, I guess I should feel sorry for them too… but I still feel sorrier for the kids because they’re powerless and don’t have the benefit of experience/ability to analyze the situation, which the adults *should* have!
Christine(Quote) (Reply)
My issue with “dippin’ the chip” as the name of a dance move to be taught to little girls is that it is actually a slang term for woman-on-top sexual intercourse. Not crazy about equating “vulva” with “chip” so much either in the context of a children’s dance class.
The move itself wouldn’t squick me as much as the name.
JMS(Quote) (Reply)
← Previous Comments