A Modest Construct

Apparently, lawmakers in Texas (without reading beyond Texas, you just know this is going to be good…) have decided that cheerleaders are too sexually suggestive, and schools which allow or promote sexually suggestive cheerleading (booty-shaking, &c.) will be in deep trouble.

This raises a number of questions in my mind.

1. Why now? Cheerleading has been sexually suggestive for years. The very nature of cheerleading is sexually suggestive: young, nubile women in short skirts jump up and down and show their underwear to large crowds. Did Texas miss the memo? Who goes to high school football games, anyway? Horny teenage boys and horny adult men: the purpose of cheerleaders is to get their, um, spirits up.
2. “‘People are calling and telling me how disgusting it is to see sexually suggestive routines on the part of marching units or cheerleaders,” said State Rep. Al Edwards, a Houston Democrat who sponsored the bill.” Who? Grandfathers and prudish housewives? Who gives a damn?
3. Why are we allowing old lawmakers to dictate moral policy? This isn’t just in Houston; this is all over. Here’s my libertarian side showing up again, but the government needs to concern itself with things vital to the efficient running of the infrastructure. “‘I think the Texas Education Agency has enough to do making sure our kids are better educated, and we are wasting our time with ‘one two three four, we can’t shake it any more?”” [Democratic state Rep. Senfronia Thompson] told legislators.”
4. “He complained of cheerleaders ’shaking their behinds, breaking it down,’ but the proposal does not define what constitutes suggestive cheering.” How hard must it have been not to laugh when a guy like Al Edwards says that? Also, is this another one of those “I’ll know it when I see it” things that never works?