First off, I have no interest in watching the video (I hate pop music), so this isn't necessarily about the video itself. That said, I don't disagree with people teaching children about sex or their sexuality (since even children are sexual creatures), I think it's important, but I hate it when children are taught to objectify themselves for others. My problem isn't the sexuality, my problem lies with the objectification of human beings, especially children who are still forming their thought processes.

Children should be taught about the wonders of animal sexuality and its consequences, not how to become little more then a blow up doll to be used by others for their cheep thrills. Especially when that objectification is sold to them as what "being an adult" is all about. But all this comes from being raised by feminists, I guess...

By the way, if I were the parent of ANY of these girls, the people responsible would likely be up on child pornography charges. 

Totally inappropriate and IRresponsible even in these "liberal" times.

Robb

Are the young girls being exploited?  No.  They have permission from their parents or guardians to perform that way to that number.  They are not being paid for having sex or for dancing.  They are not learning anything they won't learn elsewhere.  Are they too young to learn that?  What - that you can be sexy and cute and if some guy likes it he better offer a long term relationship before anything else?  And the costumes are no skimpier than most swim suits.

The baby - babies do the bounce along to music as soon as they can stand up.  That it was to Beyonce - that was the mom's sense of humor.  The baby didn't know and didn't care, s/he was just responding to the beat.

But then, I let my kids watch the original "Heavy Metal" when they were young.  And you know, they didn't grow up to be sexual predators.

Not really, I don't know that it is actually bad either though. But then again Iv seen a video where 5 year olds are grinding and doing far worse than in your video. I cannot find it on youtube, I suspect it was deleted because of how inapropriate it is. but that is neither here nor there.

Im not much younger than you so I cannot say for sure as I don't remember. But I but I would say yes (if indeed it wasn't like this when I was younger), my friend has a 10 year old sister, all her friends (her included) do this all day. Its rather funny to watch, also kinda weird, not sure I want to see 10 year old girls dancing like that.

Who are you, the preacher from Footloose?

Why publicize it? Just do it like everyone else did.

This is how I think it happened though. Cpt_pineapple was in her apartment sitting in a bucket of ice-water reading the Oxford English Dictionary when she got to the D's so she logged onto the internet to find out what dancing looks like in this century.

Oh, if we could only go back she thought. To a simpler time, a mere twenty years would suffice. Back to when the Foxtrot, the Tango and the Charleston were at the height of their popularity.

It's hard to argue though when I see dancing like that. I myself have wondered at times if a plague of madness hasn't swept over us all. Young girls dancing. Moving their bodies when their bodies should clearly be stationary and covered with some sort of heavy fabric, possibly burlap.

Sexual arousal is, but I suspect you are projecting a bit into your memory.  It depends, of course, on how old you were (puberty can start pretty young).

Of course kids touch their privates all of the time; that doesn't make it a sexual act, so much as a thoughtlessly self-pleasing action.  There are nerve endings there; that doesn't mean that they have sex drives and attraction to the opposite sex at that age.  It doesn't mean that they want sex- saying so really sounds like the rationalizations of a pedophile (I'm not accusing you of being one, but bear in mind how creepy that is).

It's quite likely that I've been around kids just as much as you have.  I had two baby brothers I often had to take care of as a teenager, and I can remember distinctly the strange things they did, and I've taken care of younger girls as well- not to mentioned having been a teacher in various classes of 6 - 12 year-olds off and on, and tutoring children periodically throughout my life.

I've been exposed to children; I've seen nothing to indicate to me that they are by definition "sexual".  Yes, they emulate.  Yes, they usually touch themselves in odd ways.  Yes, some display behavior more strongly than others, and I've known young boys who definitely has sex drives at abnormal ages, but on average, children are not sexual creatures.

I don't know about you, but even as a kid I was attracted to good looking ladies and I can give it no other name but sexual arousal. Even before I hit puberty, my buddy Roy and I would steal his Grandfather's stash of Playboy's. I can remember getting feelings that I didn't understand then, but to say that they were not sexual is a bit of a stretch.

Either you were (are) a prude or I was (am) a randy little kid (man). I don't know, maybe I was the aberrant trying to spend my time with the ladies, but I remember continually hitting on my 3rd grade teacher (man she was a FOX!). She even had to tell me after class one day that she had a husband and that, while my attempts were funny (not her words, but the truth), they had no chance of succeeding. I might not have known all the specifics, but I knew I got butterflies being around her. I got the same feelings around her that I have throughout life when attracted to people. If that's not sexual arousal, I don't know what is.

Maybe I was, and still am, a randy mofo. I guess it's just me...

That's just it; I don't think that was before you hit puberty, I believe those very feelings indicate the earliest stages of the onset.

Maybe we're thinking of 'kid' a bit different here; I use it variably myself.  To me, those who have started on puberty are becoming adolescents, who are very much sexual (or at least in the process of learning to be so).

I said it starts sooner or later in different people; maybe you're an early bloomer.

Probably a bit of both.

Third grade is usually 8 - 9 years old.  That right around the very beginning of puberty for early bloomers (average for boys would be around twelve, but they may feel some vague sexual feelings a bit earlier than that).  I don't know that I would call that a fully conscious sexuality for even the earliest bloomers, but it's possible.

Once a child is randy, I'd tend to say said child has entered into adolescence, and is no longer strictly a child (though still not yet an adult).

That's the other side of the coin. I think there's an instinctual reaction especially among males to control the gene pool. It's reflected throughout history and the rest of the animal kingdom. It's the reason men can be promiscuous but women can't. It's the reason so many fathers are protective and suspicious of the men their daughters get involved with.

F#$K.  I happened to be a "f...g scientist" teaching kids PRECISELY about f....g magnets and f...g rainbows!

So, I take it personal....    

Here are my thoughts:

Currently, kids appear to me to be growing up a bit fast. With the technology available to them, they are always tuned in, up to date on the newest songs, fashion. I believe the younger kids are exposed to what every other teenager is ~ so there are 8-10 y/o's running around trying to be a teenager. Personally, I don't remember wanting to be a teen until I turned 12...then 13 couldn't come quick enough.

Whether the dancing to that song is appropriate, well, I bet the kids dancing love that song. I would bet that they already knew all of the words and could name every song on the album. I don't have kids so I am unsure on how these things work but wouldn't the parents have approved the routine and the music...

Now, for me the dancing was just...dancing ~ if you want to see something that turns my stomach check out toddlers and tiaras:

http://tlc.discovery.com/videos/toddlers-tiaras-lindsays-mom.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRZyzccF02I

I don't think it is instinctual, I think it is inheritance combined with patriarchal societies.  If inheritance is through the male line, father to son, then control of women's sexuality becomes of prime importance to the men.

Mother's brother was the model for matriarchal societies.  That is where your maternal uncle is the one you inherit from.  After all, he didn't know if his wife's kids were his own and he certainly didn't control his wife, but he knew his sister's children were definitely related to him.

Anymore, it is all bull pucky.  If you are twisted, have everyone DNA tested.  You, your spouse, and the children.

My only concern with this is the number of perverts on the internet who might be viewing videos like this and getting off on them.  Yuck.  But I don't have control over them, either.  And if not this, there are other videos - some a lot worse - floating around for their entertainment.  There is a law suit right now where a woman who was featured as a child in a video that is still making the rounds.  She is suing her abuser for damages.  Haven't heard how it is going, but I hope she gets everything he owns plus some.

These girls, I'll bet they have copies made and proudly show them off every chance they get.  They are obviously very proud of their routine.  It has always been my thought that exploitation is in the eye of the exploitee.  If they don't feel exploited, then they aren't.  Goes for all pornography and sex industries as well.

This also needs to be made into a shirt and/or button.

EXACTLY!!! I couldn't have said it better myself!

You seem to be interpreting it as though they must feel exploited in the moment the exploitation is occurring-  I don't think there was a time limit on her statement.

Somebody who passed out drunk, and was raped and videotaped while unconscious obviously didn't feel exploited at that time- but when the person becomes aware of it, he or she may feel exploited.

You were intellectually unconscious while Christian (or whatever you were)- now that you have woken up, you can realize that you were exploited.

These girls are in a cultural zeitgeist that finds this acceptable- unless they become Muslim suddenly one day, it is very likely that they will never feel exploited.  Obviously we can only take into account the most likely future when considering if they will ultimately feel that they were exploited.

I understand your anger.  And I understand people who are angry about other acts after the fact.  Such as Blake's example of one of the girls growing up to become Muslim or some other strict religion.   

You guys make me think. 

So, there are a number of scenarios:

You don't feel exploited then, now or in the future.

You didn't feel exploited then, and you do now, but not in the future.

You didn't feel exploited then, and you don't now, but you do in the future.

And so on.  Some are more probable than others.

For the young woman who gets drunk, gang raped, and wakes up feeling exploited - as well as sore - I can only tell her, "gee honey, next time don't get wasted."  That doesn't make the gang rape okay and I have no problem with the rapers being prosecuted.  But chickie really should take better care of herself.

That is not the same as being exploited emotionally or intellectually or exploited as a child.  (Teens are still children for this discussion.  Studies have shown their brains are not fully developed, particularly in the decision making process.)  And there are degrees of exploitation.  It is not the same if you are made to kiss auntie's cheek or if you are made to attend church every Sunday or if you are made to participate in a pornographic video as a child.

Socially, some exploitation of children is acceptable.  Kissing auntie and going to Sunday school is generally considered things a child should do.  I don't think so, but generally, most people do.  Other exploitations are considered - rightfully - illegal.  I can't fix society for you today.  I am afraid we will all have to live with it for now. 

When the child grows up, she may realize she was being exploited.  Her response will depend on the nature of the exploitation.  For the girls in the video, the dancing was legal, her parents consented, and it looked like all the girls were having fun.  If one of them decides later participating was wrong, she will just have to ensure she doesn't participate in those types of activities again.  She may also decide not to let her children participate.  She would most likely not have a leg to stand on if she decides to sue her parents, the dance troupe or the organization who sponsored the dance.  If it had been an illegal activity, I'm sure we would all support her right to prosecute as an adult.

For adults, all I can go with is consensual is consensual is consensual.  If you consent, you are not being exploited.  If you decide later you were lied to, emotionally blackmailed, exploited, then that doesn't change the fact that it was consensual at the time.  It is okay to be angry about it, okay to vow never to let it happen to you again, okay to take care of yourself after the fact.  It is not okay to sue or prosecute someone for something you agreed to at the time.

When you were christian, would you have welcomed someone coming to you and attempting to "deprogram" you?  Probably not.  Release it, let it go.  "All suffering is caused by clinging."

???  I guess, we can ask girls... but something (perhaps something completely irrational ) tells me that if I were a raped girl, I would find it out quite soon after waking up.... no clothes, sperm everywhere, unwanted pregnancy ... well maybe if I were a fanatically believing girl, I would possibly think that a god or a jesus has done this to me.

Exploitation has two meanings.

1. Use of any kind.

-This is a less common, and more outdated usage

2. Selfish use; e.g. that which hurts another and benefits oneself

-Under this definition, if it doesn't hurt the other person, it's not exploitation.

In a hypothetical situation where a girl is raped while unconscious without being harmed, and doesn't catch any diseases or get pregnant, has she really been hurt?

That's a philosophical question of whether it's true that "what you don't know can't hurt you"- we could have that argument if you want.

Harm is a very subjective qualification, and the most important opinion of that harm is the one upon whom the harm may be falling.

Have you ever heard the expression "You can't rape the willing?" It's going to turn some stomachs here, but the metaphor applies to kids as well. Questions of broadly-differing-age  sexual relationships  aside, minors require no more protection from the consequences of their own conscious choices than many college students supposedly require. I became atheist at age 10. I think the overprotective individuals of our society to tend to think kids must be constantly kept under one's wing in order to live well.

They don't!

(And many adults are often caught off guard when they finally start coming to terms with this)

*snort*

 Thank you Anderson!

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/05/14/mcgraw-girls-dancing-to-beyonce-inappropriate/

Im not sure that you were explioted....

Im not sure you can compare being in a fundie church to being raped either....

You believed in it didn't you?

were there other options?

In my opinion if you chose something and there are other options it is not expliotation.

the only time i guess it may be called expliotation is when you were to young to think properly. and then its not just the church that did it... but your parents  as well.   so depending when you joined that church depends weather you were explioted. Even here it depends if there was any actual harm. only you can answer that, but being brought up to believe in god in my books is not a harm. (obviously depends on methods)

wow Kapkao, fuck you. If you look at the post 31 you will notice that Blake was the first person to bring rape into the equation. I only used rape because it was his example. It is people like you who are so set in their own beliefs that they are willing to bend the facts to fit their personal views that need to be ignored. If you were interested in "a mutual exchange of ideas" you wouldn't be making such bs unfounded personal attacks. Do your fucking research.

Are not all human relationships some form of exploitation? Why have children, spouses, girlfriends, employees, employers, friends, relatives, etc... unless you can exploit them in some way?