Britney Spears has competition!

I think this girl really kick arse!! What a performance :bravo:
http://c146.it.cse.nsysu.edu.tw/fm/fun/fun010/FM219_korea_girl.asf

[quote=“igorveni”]I think this girl really kick arse!! What a performance :bravo:
http://c146.it.cse.nsysu.edu.tw/fm/fun/fun010/FM219_korea_girl.asf[/quote]
Cute but vaguely troubling… :s

Vaguely cute but very troubling.

Especially the audience’s reaction to anything overtly… well, you know.
:wink:
Makes one wonder. :s

I wonder if she’s taking any students…I could use a few lessons. :blush:

Anyway, a very precocious little girl although the crowd wooing whenever she did that one move was pretty creepy. Rather than saying she’s the next Britney, I’d think comparing her to JonBenet Ramsey would be more accurate…American beauty pageants do have a special place in their hearts for 6-year-olds who dress and move like grown women and I’m sure that dance thing would go over well with the judges.

I’d do her!!!

Oh come on, I was just kidding. I agree with the above posters who call it vaguely troubling, except that I don’t feel it’s so vague. A young girl is taught to dance in a sexually provocative manner like an adult. Some of her moves look like those of a provocative cheerleader, some like those of a stripper. The belly showing and tearing off her headdress so she can shake her hair at the end are sexual too. Perhaps the parents are preparing her for a showbiz career, but they’re also exciting pedophiles and putting their daughter at risk. Imani’s right to mention JBR. Was it any wonder that sexy little girl met her demise?

I find it troubling that you would call her a sexy young girl in the first place…I’m not accusing you of anything, but you might want to think before posting something like that.

Your sure your kidding, right?

I find it troubling that you find it troubling that I referred to JBR as a sexy little girl. Her parents and “handlers” dressed her in provocative clothing, makeup, lipstick and hairstyles, taught her to walk, talk and act sexy and it was common public opinion was that she was transformed from a little girl into a sexy girl, for whatever reasons motivated her parents. I’m hardly the first to point that out.

Hmmm, I wasn’t expecting this thread to go this way. When I watched this clip, I thought that girl was VERY talented. Period.

She is talented, no doubt. But it’s troubling to me that her parents would let her act and dress in sexually provocative ways. Why can’t we let kids be kids, without messing them up with adult conceptions of sexuality? They’re not really equipped to deal with it - kids at that age aren’t sexually aware, and imposing artificial sexual behaviour on them, even in the fairly innocent guise of dance isn’t doing them any favours.

But what do I know? I’m not a parent, and I sometimes feel that my standards regarding kids and child-rearing are hopelessly old-fashioned. :blush:

Yes, she is very talented. But talented at what? That’s not just dancing: it’s sexually provocative dancing. Some of her moves are routinely performed by strippers in order to arouse customers. There’s nothing prudish or subjective about what I’ve just said; just stating the facts. The subjectivity arises when one decides whether it’s appropriate or inappropriate for adults to teach young children to act like sexually provocative adults. Some get off on it, but many feel it’s inappropriate.

[quote]The U.S.'s reaction to sexual exploitation of children is a classic case of ambivalence. . . On the one hand, they support tougher punishment. . .

On the other hand, Americans support multi-million-dollar, multi-media activities that actually promote the seduction of children and the incitement of pedophiles. The nation must face the disturbing implications of the fact that parents – the very people who should be the most outraged by the sexual exploitation of youngsters – have been the principal supporters of hundreds of media-hyped children’s “beauty pageants.” These pageants commercially flaunt kids’ bodies, often converting preteen and preschool girls into sex puppets adorned with lipstick, mascara, false eyelashes, bleached hair, high heels, and satin-and-rhinestone gowns and professionally coached in showgirl postures and movements.

Only after the Christmas, 1996, sexual molestation and strangulation of one of these pathetically painted “beauty queens,” six-year-old “Little Royal Miss” JonBenet Ramsey of Boulder. Colo., did the press bother to seek moral guidance on this issue. For example, The New York Times of Jan. 12, 1997, quoted Camille Paglia, a “feminist critic” and professor of humanities at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia: “These pageants mark a deep sexual disturbance in the society, a cannibalizing of youth by these vampiric adults.”

The next day, the Newhouse News Service quoted Deborah Tolman, a senior research scientist at the Center for Research on Women at Wellesley College in Massachusetts, as observing that any beauty pageant “by its very nature is a sexually objectifying events.”

As New York Times columnist Frank Rich dared to observe in his column of Jan. 18, 1997, the flesh-peddling of children in beauty pageants is not a subculture" (as the media began calling the activity after the Ramsey murder), “it’s our culture.” Rich added: “Today the merchandising of children as sexual commodities is ubiquitous and big business … from the increased garishness of Barbie displays at the local mall to the use of [photographerl Sally Mann-esque child models in home-furnishing magazines.”

Consider the technically legal child-porn advertising campaigns of Calvin Klein. Consider The New Yorker (Oct. 9, 1995) prominently displaying a sexually suggestive, full-frontal nude photograph of a young girl taken by Alice in Wonderland author Lewis Carroll, with the magazine writer playfully observing that, nowadays, someone who takes such pictures would be in jail, or else doing a Calvin Klein campaign." . . .

In a larger mass market, some of the most successful TV talk shows periodically pander to pedophiles by displaying entire panels of “schoolgirl sluts.” Meanwhile, decade after decade, Hollywood engages in massive pimping for child temptresses, such as the young Brooke Shields in her first major role in “Pretty Baby” and the young Jodie Foster as a child prostitute in Martin Scorsese’s “Taxi Driver.” The trend continues, with “Fatal Attraction” director Adrian Lyne having remade Stanley Kubrick’s controversial 1962 film of Vladimir Nabokov’s 1955 novel Lolita. In the 1997 version, the internationally acclaimed actor Jeremy Irons plays the 40-year-old pedophile Humbert Humbert, who has a sexual relationship with a 12-year-old girl. The title character is portrayed by a 14-year-old Malibu (Calif.) High School student, with breasts and belly for the nude scenes supplied by a 19-year-old body double. . .

To what extent do the pedophile messages of mass media encourage pedophile behavior? In what types of people might pedophile fantasies trigger pedophilia behavior? Can psychological studies of childporn collectors provide clues to the causes and control of pedophilia? Such questions should be pursued at least as vigorously by behavioral scientists as law enforcement agencies now pursue known child molesters . . .[/quote]

findarticles.com/p/articles/ … i_19782197

I think her mother should have given her a good hit of the crack pipe before going on stage. It would have given her a lot more energy.

But really, to me it’s no more provocative than a kid playing dress-up with her mum’s stilettoes on and her face smeared with makeup. It just looks cute but stupid and suggests that her mother really needs to get a life.

She is talented, no doubt. But it’s troubling to me that her parents would let her act and dress in sexually provocative ways. Why can’t we let kids be kids, without messing them up with adult conceptions of sexuality? They’re not really equipped to deal with it - kids at that age aren’t sexually aware, and imposing artificial sexual behaviour on them, even in the fairly innocent guise of dance isn’t doing them any favours.

But what do I know? I’m not a parent, and I sometimes feel that my standards regarding kids and child-rearing are hopelessly old-fashioned. :blush:[/quote]

Yeah Maoman, I can see your point and you’re absolutely right, we should let kids be kids, that is not old-fashioned at all.:wink:
Maybe I am just too naive, I wasn’t paying attention to anything else but this little girl feeling and dancing with the music.

She is talented, but for all the cool things she did (I could feel envy growing in me just watching what she did with her hands as she danced), did they really need to include her caressing her body or having a bare midriff? And why did the crowd find these very adult moves more exciting than the entire routine?

Little kids show their tummies all the time without it being sexually provocative and there are plenty of clothes which are appropriate for hip-hop dancing that don’t imply sexuality. I’m wondering why her guardians chose to display her like that.

Because they’re ignorant no-class buffoons?

Poor Igorveni… finding out the hard way that Forumosa discussions, kinda like a fight, can take unexpected turns… even when there are rules. Not what you wanted, not what you expected, but WHAM! there you have it. :s

Not your fault, Igorveni… you came here for a discussion and found yourself in the middle of an argument.

Apparently my standards are hopelessly old-fashioned, too:

I don’t think kids should be accompanying their parents to restaurants at midnight or bars at anytime.

I also think its crazy to pile three or four kids onto a scooter. :unamused:

I’m also one of those crazy foreigners that thinks kids should be wearing helmets when on a scooter and should be wearing seatbelts when in a car.

Oh, and I don’t think little girls should be encouraged to dance in a way that is, as I said earlier, “vaguely cute but very troubling.”

Hey, but what do I know? I’m not a parent either.

Helmets and seatbelts?
Everyone knows there’s no need for those. :unamused:

That is one of the most disturbing…little girls that age should not be allowed to act that way in public. Period. 'Nuff said.

Now you can academically discuss the theoretical amplifications all you like, but if that was your daughter?..

'Nuff said.

Its wrong of the parents to encourage that. The girl has talent and should be guided to learn some other form of dance.

There’s nothing wrong with dancing hip-hop. There’s a problem with little girls dancing hip-hop style with suggestive motions. How many 6-year-olds know what swaying their hips implies?

Reminds me of that disturbingly sexual cheerleader scene in Donnie Darko. I’ve always found the American tradition of cheerleading kind of creepy - the whole idea of training 14 year old girls to wear ass-revealing mini-skirts and shake their bodies sexually, in order to arouse the hormones of the teenage boys on the sports team. I never saw the connection between blue balls and performing better at sports myself. Girls are sexualized far too early in our society. There are few sights sadder to witness than 12 year olds walking around the mall dolled up like hookers.