As a typical high school teen, I understand the need for self-expression. I, like so many others, am still defining myself, experimenting with new styles, hobbies, and ideas.
My generation, has, however, gravitated toward some common, arguably distasteful, cultural ideals. Thanks to MTV, VH1, and the rest of Hollywood, American teens are accustomed to cursing in public, refusing belts when they are desperately needed, and singing along with overtly sexual lyrics.
An especially defining staple of twenty-first century teen-dome is the ever-controversial style of dance: “grinding.”
Grinding has invaded Middletown High School dances to the point where there are very few options left for those who choose not to participate. Dancing for the current generation involves mainly facing the same direction, bumping and swaying to thunderous bass music.
Parents are, not surprisingly, taken aback by such a dance style. It contrasts dramatically with what was considered “in” when they were young, and such a jarring difference is unnerving for any parent.
As strikingly different as the dance style may be, more disconcerting to parents are the values the cultural phenomenon promotes, or, rather, lack thereof.
Parents are fully aware of our need to define our generation; they suffered the same battles with their parents decades ago. They are not, however, simply enforcing rules for the sake of enforcing rules; they have perfectly sound, if controversial, reasoning for their actions.
They argue that such dancing is sexually suggestive, and it is difficult to deny such a claim. Even those in favor of students dancing as they choose cannot argue that grinding has no sexual implications.
In fact, such dancing focuses less on connecting with one’s partner through music as it does simply being as provocative as possible while still within limits.
Limits are being lowered, and within reason.
Grinding is, for many, an inappropriate form of dance. Even for students who argue that it is within their basic rights to express themselves however they wish, they are missing a crucial point: parents are still in charge.
MHS students are still grounded when it comes to parental guidelines. Even for those who have passed the eighteen-year mark, they must abide by school policies, unfair or not.
In this case, parents are simply looking to protect their loved ones from negative influences. It is one of their final opportunities to set a good example for their children before they are sent off on their own.
If restricting our means of self expression at prom will make our parents feel more comfortable, it is a sacrifice high schoolers need to be mature enough to make.
MHS students need to stop looking at the new set of guidelines as tyrannical restrictions; it is an opportunity to prove their maturity and self-control to the adult crowd. If students can accept such policies, and not purposefully violate them for the sake of violating them, the rules very well become more relaxed.
At the moment, however, students’ previous dance behaviors have hardly convinced parents and teachers of our trustworthiness.
They have taken steps to compromise theirs needs and the students’ needs. It is the students’ turn to take action and prove they are mature enough to handle such responsibility.
Perhaps, instead of considering such policies a restriction, they should look at it as what it is being promoted as: regulation.
Ed • Jun 7, 2009 at 12:52 am
“Stop that! Really the whole quoting what the person said before you is really immature and mean, it’s like mocking the person, please just adress the issues to avoid jerkism.”
I was actually just doing that so you would know what part of your argument I was addressing.
“As a quick side-note, the notion that the majority of 16 to 18-year-olds are expressing their “spiritual views” of sexuality through grinding is absolutely ridiculous.”
I never even hinted that the majority of students were doing it for spiritual reasons. The purpose of that statement was to show that the sexuality-is-bad basis for opposing grinding is quite silly.
“I think if anyone could have made a competent argument for grinding other than “it’s our right to do what we want,” or the shallow “Well, uh, it’s an expression of our generation” (which translates to adults as “it’s cool”) then, although I doubt any administrative progress would have been made, it would have at least had a firmer leg to stand on in the argument.”
Why is it the students’ burden to justify an action that is not harmful? It’s the parents’ job to justify why they think restricting it is a good idea; as of yet, they have not adequately done so without talking in vague terms of “morality.” Not one person has given me a tangible negative effect of allowing students to grind.
“It’s a little unfair and immature to pin all the responsibility on, and assume, that the administration is EVIL and CONTROLLING and is ONLY OUT TO OPPRESS US (I also wager that this is the “maturity” that the author was referring to – making peace with the establishment is not accepting it, and it’s pretty ironic that you use Martin Luther King as an example of the opposite, since what he is famous for is peaceful and passive resistance)”
I did do a bad job of making distinctions between parents and administrators. Truthfully, my sympathies lie with the school system, since they have little choice in not accepting the rules imposed from the outside by conservative parents. Still, though, you can fault them for not being able to resist these pushes. You’re right, though: the people who should be held responsible are the people who do not give the public schools enough money to be impartial and outsiders who try to force their beliefs upon schools.
The author made it quite clear that she inherently respects authority: “Even for students who argue that it is within their basic rights to express themselves however they wish, they are missing a crucial point: parents are still in charge.”
Dr. King, however, had no such inherent respect for authority; just because he defied it peacefully does not mean he did not defy it. The author is not saying students should try to defy the rules in a mature, legitimate fashion, she’s saying that it’s a good rule that we should embrace.
“As a result, the administration, as it so often does, was working in response to the cries of *OUR* parents acting through the administration of the entire county, which is why our school administrations fail to bend to our arguments and protests. It is this combined with no administration’s ability to oppose a “lack of sexual contact,” which, based on its variable and potentially volatile nature, is a reasonable request in a public school.”
I know the intricacies of what caused the restrictions to be imposed. Despite what you may believe, I actually feel bad that the school administration is not allowed more flexibility in deciding what’s good for students without being constrained by conservative parents. I pity the teachers and administrators, but I don’t actually dislike them; I dislike the parents who had their puritan morality offended.
Some Jerk • Jun 5, 2009 at 3:12 pm
As a quick side-note, the notion that the majority of 16 to 18-year-olds are expressing their “spiritual views” of sexuality through grinding is absolutely ridiculous. I think if anyone could have made a competent argument for grinding other than “it’s our right to do what we want,” or the shallow “Well, uh, it’s an expression of our generation” (which translates to adults as “it’s cool”) then, although I doubt any administrative progress would have been made, it would have at least had a firmer leg to stand on in the argument.
It’s a little unfair and immature to pin all the responsibility on, and assume, that the administration is EVIL and CONTROLLING and is ONLY OUT TO OPPRESS US (I also wager that this is the “maturity” that the author was referring to – making peace with the establishment is not accepting it, and it’s pretty ironic that you use Martin Luther King as an example of the opposite, since what he is famous for is peaceful and passive resistance). These regulations were put in place with such gusto NOT at the sole discretion of the teachers, but of parents. For you see, we have a little budget problem in Frederick County, and one of the ways Teachers’ Union sought to protest the Board’s action was to abstain from participating in any unpaid work – that is, many would leave as early as possible, come in as late as possible, and refrain from volunteering as chaperons to extracurricular events. That includes school dances.
So when no teachers show up, who you gonna call? The PTSA. The PTSA is full of the blissfully unaware and morally-upright parents of the student body, and boy were they thrown for a loop when they saw the same children they send their babies to school with humping and gyrating on the school dance floor.
Unsurprisingly, a slew of phone calls from every school in Frederick County where this happened quickly flooded administrative offices. That’s why it wasn’t just a school, but a county-wide contract, that we were mandated to sign.
As a result, the administration, as it so often does, was working in response to the cries of *OUR* parents acting through the administration of the entire county, which is why our school administrations fail to bend to our arguments and protests. It is this combined with no administration’s ability to oppose a “lack of sexual contact,” which, based on its variable and potentially volatile nature, is a reasonable request in a public school.
If that’s what you’re against (like it appears), a school dance (that the school is hosting basically as a favor to the student body) is not the venue with which to effectively take out your disagreements.
Someone Else • Jun 4, 2009 at 11:40 am
Ed: Stop that! Really the whole quoting what the person said before you is really immature and mean, it’s like mocking the person, please just adress the issues to avoid jerkism. And, Ed, I think you need to take a look at your morals.
Don’t Ask: I like you.
Ed • Jun 4, 2009 at 8:41 am
“It is not a matter of any of us feeling uncomfortable. Rather, we feel dancing should be expressive without offending others. After high school, people should have the right to dance in any form they like; for now, however, they are under the supervision of the school system, whose job it is to include all students, not just those who enjoy grinding.”
The students who are grinding are not forcing non-grinders to grind. Nobody is excluding anyone. Also, something that offends you makes you feel uncomfortable…that’s why it offends you; I don’t see a distinction.
“High schoolers are not adults, and do not have the freedom that adults do.”
Yes, they are just animals who need to be controlled. The 18-year-old cutoff for what our society considers “adulthood” is very arbitrary. There are plenty of societies in the world where one is considered an adult around 14 or 15. There have been psychological studies into this sort of thing, with the conclusion that the more freedoms you give young people, the more they act like adults.
Don't Ask • Jun 3, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Well, it’s been a while since I commented, so I feel I should contribute.
Ed: It is not a matter of any of us feeling uncomfortable. Rather, we feel dancing should be expressive without offending others. Aftter high school, people should have the right to dance in any form they like; for now, however, they are under the supervision of the school system, whose job it is to include all students, not just those who enjoy grinding. Also, you mentioned being “mature adults.” High schoolers are not adults, and do not have the freedom that adults do.
But here’s my real problem: Ed, there are mature, professional ways of debating that do not involve being such a JERK.
Nice grammatical improvements, though.
Ed • Jun 1, 2009 at 8:53 pm
“I see where your coming from, but I really think you need to think about what exactly it is you are talking about. Think of photography, for example: there is artistic nudity and there is porn. Artistic nudity shows thought about what is being shown and it actually gives the viewer something to think about, while porn blatantly displays sex. Grinding is the porn of the dance world.”
You’re drawing firm lines and distinctions that don’t exist. Our court system has wrestled with the porn vs. art debate for years with no avail. It’s easy to see that some shady internet website is not art, but you can’t make the distinction without looking at the extremes; the distinction is only clear if you juxtapose a Renaissance sculpture to a porn magazine. Otherwise, the distinction is very, very flimsy, and it’s always best to censor too little than become oppressive.
“It is possible for a dance to be sexual without immitating sex. And sex is not bad, its just something that should happen between two people, not displayed to the whole world.”
Some people think religious expression should be private, but we don’t censor Christians for wearing crucifixes to school and work. Once again, what bothers somebody is relative, and part of being a mature adult is learning to deal with things that make you uncomfortable.
Someone Else • May 29, 2009 at 12:16 pm
Ok, Ed, that’s not fair considering I never said anything about your grammar. I just found it funny that all of the comments seemed to center around gramatical errors rather than the article itself.
I see where your coming from, but I really think you need to think about what exactly it is you are talking about. Think of photography, for example: there is artistic nudity and there is porn. Artistic nudity shows thought about what is being shown and it actually gives the viewer something to think about, while porn blatantly displays sex. Grinding is the porn of the dance world.
It is possible for a dance to be sexual without immitating sex. And sex is not bad, its just something that should happen between two people, not displayed to the whole world.
Ed • May 29, 2009 at 9:39 am
“While the gramatical errors were quite entertaining… I’d like to comment on the actual issue at hand.”
Kind of hypocritical seeing as how your post was full of spelling mistakes:
– Grammatical, not “gramatical”
– Fueled, not “feuled”
– Interest, not “intrest”
In any case, I think criticizing grammar and spelling is the telltale sign of pseudo-intellectualism. When someone can’t actually address one’s argument, they nitpick at grammar; i’ll let you off easy.
“This form of dancing can hardly be considered dancing at all. It is not artistic in any way. Grinding is not feuled by creativity, it is feuled by sexual desires. Grinding is not dancing, but a clothed immitation of sex.”
I guess Michelangelo’s David shouldn’t be considered art, then, since it celebrates the male figure and is very sexually-inspired. Seriously, your whole argument is based on what the definition of art is. A lot of art is very sexual, and many people see their sexuality as more than just fulfilling their canal desires. A person who makes sexually-themed art because they see sex as a spiritual activity with someone they love should be censored. Art and morality are subjective; censorship, unfortunately, is not.
In order for your argument to be taken as meaningful, you first have to establish how sex is bad, and what tangible effect comes from grinding; don’t use vague terms like “morality.” I want a specific, concrete thing that would happen if grinding were allowed.
“Rules put in place by the school, unlike laws of that time, are for the students’ best intrest.”
The people of that time thought those laws were in the best interest of country. They thought controlling African-Americans would protect their pure, homogeneous, white, Christian America. Anyway, I know I was being a bit hyperbolic with this one, but I was trying to demonstrate a point. Perhaps a better example would be the Taliban, who used the argument that “if women weren’t forced to wear a burqa, the sexual temptation would lead them into immoral behavior.” Calls for “morality” have always been the disguise for oppression; historical examples abound.
Why do you assume the school always knows what’s better for the student? The school system is highly bureaucratic, stultified, and often seeks to enhance its own power at the expense of students and, ironically enough, teachers.
Someone Else • May 27, 2009 at 12:15 pm
While the gramatical errors were quite entertaining… I’d like to comment on the actual issue at hand.
I agree with the origional article. I don’t believe everything we, as students, do should be censored and self expression of a student should not be limmited. However, the rule in the article is indeed a good one.
This form of dancing can hardly be considered dancing at all. It is not artistic in any way. Grinding is not feuled by creativity, it is feuled by sexual desires. Grinding is not dancing, but a clothed immitation of sex.
I think that if one’s idea of “self expression” is immitating sex, then he or she should do it outside of schooll functions.
And, Ed. Comparring following the rules to Martin Luther King accepting the opressive laws of the U.S. is not a fair argument. Rules put in place by the school, unlike laws of that time, are for the students’ best intrest. The school is not trying to make us miserable, it is simply trying to protect the students and attempting to give some fragments of morality to students who haven’t gotten it on their own.
Thanks.
Ed • May 25, 2009 at 10:08 am
Not very major mistakes considering I didn’t even read over my post. What’s the point of nitpicking at grammar when such an issue leaves much room for debate? An in-depth discussion of the issue at hand actually necessitates analytical abilities, whereas grammar is something someone can largely memorize. I guess I just don’t really understand why you even brought up my grammar.
I wasn’t addressing the writer at all; I know nothing about her personal life or her character, and wouldn’t be in a position to make a judgment of any kind of her. I was, however, making a judgment of her argument, which I feel is full of logical fallacies; if she (or anyone else, for that matter) takes offense at my harsh criticism, I don’t see it as my problem.
Don't Ask • May 24, 2009 at 7:04 pm
I have NO PROBLEMS with most of your arguments. Seriously. Your grammar is driving me nuts. For example:
– “Someone’s use of cuss words gives absolutely no indication of their work ethic”
“Someone” should be “he or she.”
– “My belief that a restriction on certain dancing styles is immoral is, as I mentioned before, based in the fact that what one finds offensive is extremely subjective, and while being able to “grind” doesn’t necessarily enhance the self, it contributes to aura of liberalism that helps people discover themselves and realize that neither the school’s dictatorial power nor the rebellious counter-culture of youth has control over them.” You have two independent clauses here. A semicolon, perhaps?
“I do realize that the school has the power to enforce whatever restrictions they want to.” A school is an IT, not a THEY. It’s singular, not plural.
Anyways, my point is this: Your arguments are fine. Actually, as one who is pretty neutral on the argument, I think you made some very compelling points. My original comment had nothing to do with your arguments themselves, but with how they were presented. I simply find that a solid presentation adds wonders to an opinion piece. For the record, I think both the above column and your original comment made for a very debatable, interesting concept; I think it would have been more appropriate if you were less personal in your argument, and stopped blaming the writer for her ideas. It was too accusatory, and made it seem as though you were attacking her as opposed to the issue at hand. That aspect of your column made it seem more immature and informal. It’s not your arguments that I have problems with; it’s how you addressed them. I apologize if I offended, but I do hope my comments have given you some insight into how you should handle such situations in the future. Thank you.
Ed • May 22, 2009 at 5:59 pm
There was the blatantly obvious “Their are” mistake. I found a few typos, but that’s not exactly the same as a grammar mistake, seeing as how they’re due to erroneous key strokes. I imagine your definition of “shallow” is anything that seems too arrogant; it’s not really my responsibility to make sure you are open-minded enough to confront viewpoints diametrically opposed to your own. If you fail to do so, it’s not a reflection upon me, but you.
Anyways, I’m really getting nothing out of talking about my argument in general terms. Let’s debate what I said specifically. What do you disagree with, and why?
Don't ask • May 22, 2009 at 11:18 am
Actually, there were multiple grammatical mistakes. I think you made some sound arguments, although some were on the shallow side. Overall, you made for a strong debate. I think if you want to be taken more seriously, however, you should work on your presentation.
Ed • May 20, 2009 at 8:23 pm
I made one grammatical mistake, which I realized right after I posted. In any case, why don’t you actually address my argument?
Don't ask • May 18, 2009 at 11:45 am
Ed:
If you’re going to make an argument that you want to be taken seriously, please at least ATTEMPT to be gramatically correct.
Thank you.
Ed • May 13, 2009 at 3:13 pm
The entire premise of your argument is the idea that divergent dancing styles constitute an “invasion” and corruption of our “culture,” rather than individual expression, which some people may or may not find acceptable. We live in a free society (the United States) where individual expression is more important than someone not being offended. Seeing as how what someone finds offensive is extremely subjective, we should be avoid using censorship at all costs.
As the prom is a school dance, I do realize that the school has the power to enforce whatever restrictions they want to. And if a classmate came up to me complaining about how they were punished for violating the codes, I would inform them that they knew of such codes beforehand. Restrictions are the reason I have never attended a dance my entire high school career; I don’t like the school having power over me before 7:30 am or after 2:15 pm, and I don’t understand why students would put themselves in a position to allow the school to exercise its authority as it does at dances.
My problem with your argument is not so much the fact that you advocate kids follow the rules so much as it is that you insinuate the rule is a good one and that making peace with the establishment is a powerful sign of maturity. This is, quite frankly, naïve, and immorally pacifistic. Their are objective truths of what is right and wrong outside of what the rules say (even you would agree I imagine, unless you think Martin Luther King should have accepted the blatantly oppressive laws of the U.S. to show his “maturity”).
I imagine you’re saying, “That’s begging the question; you’re comparing apples to oranges.” I think we can both agree that the racist laws of the U.S. government during King’s time were immoral and useless. We can, then use this as our criterion for evaluating other rules.
My belief that a restriction on certain dancing styles is immoral is, as I mentioned before, based in the fact that what one finds offensive is extremely subjective, and while being able to “grind” doesn’t necessarily enhance the self, it contributes to aura of liberalism that helps people discover themselves and realize that neither the school’s dictatorial power nor the rebellious counter-culture of youth has control over them. What you do by enforcing restrictions of kids is make them into robots, forcing them to choose either “the school’s side” or “the kids’ side.” If you give kids freedom, they will find peace with the establishment; the fact that you’re willing to sacrifice that to temporarily spare yourself from offense is reprehensible.
A prohibition against grinding does absolutely nothing other than throw a symbolic bone to the social conservatives who believe anything that does not fit their view of the world is wrong. I was kind of offended when I read your second paragraph, that our generation has become “accustomed to cursing in public, refusing belts when they are desperately needed, and singing along with overtly sexual lyrics.” Unlike some, though, I won’t try to censor you 😉 . Your characterization of cursing, wearing baggy pants, and enjoying songs with sexual themes as cultural vices is nothing more than alarmist. Someone’s use of cuss words gives absolutely no indication of their work ethic, altruism, belief system, or dedication. That is the sort of mentality that causes people to make sweeping generalizations of others based on irrelevant characteristics. And, in the case where there actually is a problem, it only helps contribute to the problem; people who blame the African-American community’s desperation on rap music, for instance, when poverty is to blame, only contribute to the problem.
Thanks for listening to my argument. I look forward to your feedback.