Pretend sex is OK. Except when it is not.

Before today, I never heard the term “twerking.” I had seen videos of (almost always) women doing what seemed to be fornication without a partner, what my wife calls soft porn.

The term now will be or is all over everything since 33 high school seniors near San Diego took part in a video with girls pretty much (see above) fornicating without a partner.

The thing is, fornicating without a partner (FWOP) has been OK until the San Diego video “went viral.”

But, see, I’m an old dude … an old white dude … so it is meaningless, my certainty that FWOPping degrades women.

Or: "Now, to return to the 'why is twerking seen as vulgar' question, the answer is two fold: in a sense, whiteness has positioned black women's bodies as objects of consumption, both sexually and materially, which means that any aesthetic form connected to the black body has a thorough sexual connotation through the gaze of whiteness. Second, black culture has internalized the 'white gaze' which hypersexualizes black women and their bodily practices by extension. However, the hypersexualization has become self-sustaining and is thus out of the hands of whiteness: this changes the cultural context of twerking and presents it as something intrinsically sexual even within the African-American community."

http://www.policymic.com/articles/39229/twerking-youtube-san-diego-high-school-students-suspended-for-twerking-video

Whoever wrote that stuff … It is funny. It is 1970s Richard Pryor over-explaining-everything funny. Read it again and imagine Pryor, with gestures and all.

Defenders of the students and of FWOPping in general say there is nothing wrong with girls rotating their hips in a fornicating manner. OK. Whatever.

As I said, I’m just another old white dude.