(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .



Community standards, family friendly rec centers, and women dancing in public! Oh My! [1]

['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.']

Date: 2025-07-30

The Deseret News (owned by the Mormon Church) recently featured an article by Amanda Freebairn in support of the Provo City Council’s decision to discontinue the Dirtylicious dance class at the city’s recreation center. The issue, in short, arose when the city received complaints, and cancelled the class, which had been offered at the city rec center for three years. Freebairn described this action as a reaffirmation of community standards and a necessary step towards preserving a family-friendly environment. She encouraged the public to define clear moral boundaries in shared spaces, with particular attention to expressions of sexuality.

However, her arguments rest on unspoken assumptions that invite and require clear-eyed discussion. This discussion does not dismiss the legitimacy of public concern; rather, it asks: What are the broader implications when discomfort is equated with danger and bodies become suspect?

Policy that protects without policing

Meaningful policy should prioritize protection, not mere policing. Therefore, we must consider issues such as:

What happens when we treat uncomfortable topics as dangerous?

It is important to differentiate between feelings of discomfort and actual situations of danger. Children frequently pose frank questions such as, “Why is she dancing like that?”, to which adults respond awkwardly or with silence. An alternative approach would be to provide honest, developmentally appropriate answers that respect the child’s capacity for understanding; “Dancing like that makes her feel strong.”

Young people rarely interpret silence as positive or respectful. Instead, they learn not to ask adults about important issues and instead turn to other sources, or, most often, they simply stop asking. This outcome may relieve adult discomfort, but it does not serve the developmental needs of young persons. Resorting to silence inadvertently teaches that difference equates risk, whereas engaging thoughtfully can model interpretive skills and relational discipline.

Policy founded on avoidance obscures critical issues rather than offering genuine protection. Openly naming and addressing differences fosters resilience, while disengagement inhibits growth.

How can children learn talk about important issues if adults do not model healthy behavior?

Adults’ interpretations do not always align with children’s experiences. Children understand their environment primarily through relationships, not ideological frameworks. Even young children are able to understand complex issues when they are explained in age and developmentally appropriate ways by caring and engaged adults. Children are inexperienced, not stupid. When adults project vulnerability onto children’s curiosity, children learn to be fearful, not inquisitive. Children’s inquiries present opportunities for clarity, not causes for censorship.

Naming the Source of Discomfort

Many adults are uncomfortable discussing complex issues, such as human sexuality, because they feel they do not have appropriate knowledge or experience discussing these issues, or they fear the responses. The adults who taught us frequently resorted to silence or shame; we who are adults now must do better for the young people in our communities.

When we make decisions, it is crucial to distinguish between actions taken to safeguard children and those that protect adult unease. Censorship often mirrors discomfort among adults rather than confusion among children. Restricting language does not eliminate reality but instead renders it less accessible. Letting discomfort dictate responses can lead to misjudgment and a misplaced elevation of silence over constructive dialogue.

Expression and Community Standards: More Complex Than a Binary

Ms. Freebairn framed this issue as a binary conflict between individual expression and community standards. This approach oversimplifies its complexity. Ideally, community standards should emerge from robust collective engagement and discernment, not solely from the perspectives of the most vocal participants. Expression is not inherently problematic; challenges arise when unfamiliarity is misconstrued as dangerous and harmful. Standards acquire significance through understanding, not avoidance. The essential question is “How can communities address diversity of expression constructively, without resorting to suppression?”

Facilitating Shared Interpretation

These considerations call for interpretive discussion grounded in relational skills, respectful public dialogue, and personal testimony. Such practices enhance transparency and demonstrate that both adults and children can engage with reality when it is communicated thoughtfully. They replace reactivity with accountable action and encourage open communication over silence.

Amanda Freebairn’s use of the terms community standards and family-friendly obscures the nuanced and messy realities of lived experience. These terms are often used as if there is agreement about what they mean and how they should be applied but they are rhetorical placeholders which can end rather begin meaningful public discussion. Appeals to the majority who may all share membership in a single faith or cultural identity ignore the fact that the majority is not a monolith. These terms frequently risk excluding diverse perspectives and ideas. If the dance class continues to attract participation elsewhere, as Ms. Freebairn asserts, it is reasonable to question how it could violate broadly held community values.

This observation is intended to foster dialogue, not to dismiss concerns. Civic decisions based on ambiguous language or unexamined premises fail to represent the full breadth of the community they intend to serve. These questions arise precisely because there are not broadly agreed upon community standards or ideas about what is and is not family friendly. Our lack of consensus makes it even more crucial that we engage in thoughtful public discourse, grounded in the principles of positive inquiry, mutual respect, and openness to multiple perspectives and lived realities.

What kind of environment are adults creating for the children they seek to protect? Will inquiry and dialogue be encouraged, or will discomfort steer communities toward withdrawal and silence?

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2025/7/30/2335786/-Community-standards-family-friendly-rec-centers-and-women-dancing-in-public-Oh-My?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=more_community&pm_medium=web

Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/

You are viewing proxied material from magical.fish. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.