Community Chat

[RainCityWoman]

I understand the school's intent to make sure kids all have a positive self image, but perhaps it's the activity they chose that is the problem If it has to be a dance, how about line dancing? You don't have to be anybody's partner, but fun can be had. Personally, I don't think a lot of elementary students are very comfortable asking someone else to dance in the first place. That's why group dances are more advisable.

[CrazyDaisy]

---

I cannot imagine many boys at that age wanting to ask many girls to dance.  

Would think the chaperones would be encouraging them to ask various girls to get things going and including everyone,  knowing that the girls would not say no would be helpful.  Standing up against the walls on opposites sides of the room is what people want.   

Don't know what all these comments about touching are coming from, slow dancing in middle school is awkward enough, don't think that would even be an option in elementary school.

Guess a fun dance were everyone is comfortable  just doesn't exist anymore

[Rockycoast]

---

@Isobel Archerwrote:

---

@Trinity11wrote:

---

@Isobel Archerwrote:

Dancing is not sex - or it shouldn't be.  Having done ballroom dancing for years, I would never refuse to dance with anyone who asked me - even men who had no sense of rhythm whatsoever.

This is elementary school - it should be properly chaperoned.  If there is sexual touching, adults should stop it - whether it is "consensual" or not.  It is absolutely inappropriate.

Social dancing is a way to learn to approrpiate behavior - in lots of ways.  And politely dancing with someone you do not particularly like as a potential boyfriend is part of that.

Adults need to stop sexualizing children.

---

---

So are you saying a handshake should be refused if you think the person is someone "offensive."    What do you do if someone you find "offensive" touches you in giving change?  OMG - Run!

Social dancing in elementary school should be no more sexualized that the above types of contact.  

If you - and others - really care about protecting girls - you would be much more concerned about the messages they are continually given that sex is just another natural and healthy activity and participating is really no big deal - which is why condoms have been given as young as elementary school and parents are not notified if a girl wants an abortion.

You want to tell girls they can refuse "touch" but what do you tell them if they want to have sex - get the herpes shot, take the pill, here's the number for Planned Parenthood if you get "caught."  And they are told that before they even understand what sex involves.   Oh yes that's MUCH healthier than social dancing.  Wow.

---

Eeeggaddd! Someone has gone off the deep end.  Try and rein it in. Go back and read what this discussion is about. And it isn't about ball room dancing and having sex as has been said before.

[NYC Susan]

---

@Cumbercookie13wrote:

I don't agree with the rule. It's a bit disturbing that an elementary school is mandating young children dance with each other and they can't say no. If the school wants to have a teachable moment about tolerance and acceptance, forcing it on students at a dance is not the way to do it. And I'm far from a prude, but elementary school dances shouldn't even have slow dances, if this is what's happening. Why not do it as a line dance, or just do group dances with fast songs? Kids could still be with each other, but in groups or dancing next to each other and they still get a chance for social interaction. Just because they're kids doesn't mean they have no body autonomy or the right to make their own choices. 

---

Even if the dances are not "slow dances", I don't think girls should be required to say yes to boys.  It's a terrible message no matter what the boy is requesting.

And I agree with those who are saying this is not about s*x.  It's about teaching our girls - and our boys - that women do not have to do what men say simply because they're men.  Ever.

[Isobel Archer]

OK my mistake.  I thought those concerned with girls being able to "say no to boys" had to do with protecting them from unwanted sexual advances.

Sorry.  So instead it's really about being able to say no to offensive people - and possibly also to touch (totally unrelated to sex).

So then should girls be able to say no to sports in gym - could be plenty of unwanted touching there.  How about saying no to being on a particular team - where there might be an "offensive person" 

If it's not just about touch - how about saying no to being paired with an "offensive person" in a lab or on a study project team.

And why just girls (again I has mistakenly thought this was about their potential for sexual victimizing but since it clearly is not) - what about boys being able to say no to associating with "offensive people?"

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@Isobel Archerwrote:

OK my mistake.  I thought those concerned with girls being able to "say no to boys" had to do with protecting them from unwanted sexual advances.

Sorry.  So instead it's really about being able to say no to offensive people - and possibly also to touch (totally unrelated to sex).

So then should girls be able to say no to sports in gym - could be plenty of unwanted touching there.  How about saying no to being on a particular team - where there might be an "offensive person" 

If it's not just about touch - how about saying no to being paired with an "offensive person" in a lab or on a study project team.

And why just girls (again I has mistakenly thought this was about their potential for sexual victimizing but since it clearly is not) - what about boys being able to say no to associating with "offensive people?"

---

Sometimes things to taken to whole new levels on these boards instead of just seeing things reasonably

[Rockycoast]

---

@CrazyDaisywrote:

---

@Isobel Archerwrote:

OK my mistake.  I thought those concerned with girls being able to "say no to boys" had to do with protecting them from unwanted sexual advances.

Sorry.  So instead it's really about being able to say no to offensive people - and possibly also to touch (totally unrelated to sex).

So then should girls be able to say no to sports in gym - could be plenty of unwanted touching there.  How about saying no to being on a particular team - where there might be an "offensive person" 

If it's not just about touch - how about saying no to being paired with an "offensive person" in a lab or on a study project team.

And why just girls (again I has mistakenly thought this was about their potential for sexual victimizing but since it clearly is not) - what about boys being able to say no to associating with "offensive people?"

---

Sometimes things to taken to whole new levels on these boards instead of just seeing things reasonably

---

@CrazyDaisy- ITA with you. She still does not get it.  I wonder if she is being purposefully obtuse.

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@Rockycoastwrote:

---

---

@CrazyDaisy- ITA with you. She still does not get it.  I wonder if she is being purposefully obtuse.

---

I think most of the things being said in this discussion are out there in left field.  This is an elementary school dance.  The kids were to have fun dancing and possibly learn a lesson in kindness.  Seems everyone wants to turn it into some big social issue and anyone who sees things differently must be proven wrong.  Guess that lesson in kindness was lost.

[FuzzyFace]

What if a girl asks a boy to dance? Is he obligated to do so even if he doesn't want to? 

This is a very stupid policy, but not surprising in an LDS-dominated state.

ETA: school dances for ELEMENTARY school children????? This is both stupid and crazy! Why sexualize such young CHILDREN?

I went to a Catholic schools grades 1-12 and ONLY high school students had school-sponsored dances.

[KingstonsMom]

---

@Isobel Archerwrote:

OK my mistake.  I thought those concerned with girls being able to "say no to boys" had to do with protecting them from unwanted sexual advances.

Sorry.  So instead it's really about being able to say no to offensive people - and possibly also to touch (totally unrelated to sex).

So then should girls be able to say no to sports in gym - could be plenty of unwanted touching there.  How about saying no to being on a particular team - where there might be an "offensive person" 

If it's not just about touch - how about saying no to being paired with an "offensive person" in a lab or on a study project team.

And why just girls (again I has mistakenly thought this was about their potential for sexual victimizing but since it clearly is not) - what about boys being able to say no to associating with "offensive people?"

---

@Isobel Archer

That's the whole point of this thread, only the girls were 'required' to say yes to any boy that asked.

The boys were not included in that 'requirement'.