Blues, UCP, Sinful, Sensual... What are they & how do they differ?

[Gadget]

Better as a new thread me thinks...

Here, I am just Joe Punter. Forget that I'm an over-rated Ceroc DJ and that I just dance....

What is an UCP move?
Where does that differ from a sexy move? A sensual move? Blues dancing?

I have never been to a blues, UCP, Sinful stuff, whatever workshop. I don't think I knw any UCP moves but I don't know. I really am not sure: I know some slow comb variations, some slinky music interperetation moves and some leans/dips.

Are these UCP moves? I know they are not all appropriate for dancing with all partners, but that is as much to do with style, experience, taste of dancer as well as track danced to. I guess this all comes from the fear that I've been doing UCP without knowing it, and crossing boundaries I wouldn't have chosen to just by sheer ignorance.

Help. Please.

[David Bailey]

Darned good question :yeah: I'll confess, I'm also confused.

I'm not sure what Blues dancing actually is, although it sounds like fun :)

I think I know UCP moves, but that could be the way I dance them - or maybe UCP isn't in the moves, it's in the style of certain moves...

Sensual / sinful / sexy - who knows, I don't even know what the difference is in real life, couldn't even start to define it in dancing. They're marketing terms, basically.

Arguably, this is where the lack of proper MJ rules and structure starts to get confusing - different people may say the same thing but have different meanings. Maybe we could do with a glossary (http://www.afterfive.co.uk/guide/latest/html/glossary.html) :nice:

[Chicklet]

think I might be about to put this in the wrong thread, if anyone clever can move it somewhere more appropriate, please do Cx



I haven't commented on this subject in recent weeks but have been reading with interest and considering my views....and my conclusion, for ME, is that, it doesn't matter what the move is, close, sexy, rough, drop, etc etc, the important point is whether it feels right and consensual between the two parties dancing, on that particular day, in those particular conditions. there can be no other test than this for me.


So a drop that both parties know HOW to execute safely and have done so before, may not be *right* at a different time (eg busier floor, or with one party carrying an injury)...likewise, an UCP (generic term) move may be fine between two people on one night, but the next night it might not, nor should it be assumed that because it's right between two people it is also right between one of them and AN other (still think Wendy's famous post about being infront of the Judge from a couple of years ago is the best on this).

I have nothing against any moves being taught, but drops (as opposed to wee dips) and UCP IMHO should be taught only if advertised as such in advance so that no-one in the class or workshop has them thrust ( :rofl: ) upon them.

In fact I would go so far as to say I like the idea that they are taught, rather than copied, so that folks get to hear all the safety and ettiquete points for execution.

So the bottom line for me is that want my dance partners to act like adults.
I am confident that I give off enough (quantity) and strong enough signals*
for ANY partner to know exactly where his (or her, Aleks :wink: ) boundaries are, and would feel no qualms about stopping and saying "you're making me uncomfortable, don't do that please" or walking off if things didn't feel right for me, for whatever reason. I think my partners have a duty of care to be reading the signals I am giving THEM (and NOT the signals I do and have given anyone else), and I their's of course, and if they don't I will not put up with it. It's meant to be fun for goodness sake and if it feels dangerous or creepy, IT'S NOT FUN!!

I like to think I do this not too badly as can only report one incident of feeling really creeped out and I told him and he's never so much as spoken to me since! as far as I know I haven't ever made anyone feel uncomfortable but if I have or ever do, I'd rather they found some way of telling me than suffered in silence. :really:

* signals can include

saying "no drops, bad back"
saying "be gentle with me, recovering from injury"
keeping a physical distance
no eye contact
eye contact
leering :eek:
not smiling
smiling
no non hand to hand contact
lots of non hand to hand contact
contact everywhere but hands :innocent:


PS, don't think Aleks and I do have any boundaries left actually :devil:

[Yogi_Bear]

A quick response -
Blues
General style of dancing to slow music. Popularised in this country in recent years by Nigel and Nina, Simon and Taina, among others. Properly executed, is non-sleazy. can be interwoven with MJ according to the music. Popular in the US. See the blues-dedicated web site www.bluesdance.org.uk
UCP
Generic term for close contact moves, possibly with sleazy connotations, and definitely not blues as such.
Sinful and sensual
Generic terms that are featured from time to time in classes taught by various exponents of the genre, eg Mikey
You could add:
Dirty dancing
..which could be a version of sinful, loosely related to the sleazy dance scenes in the eponymous film, or the non-sleazy ballroom scenes from the same film

[Lounge Lizard]

Blues Dancing - When I first went to a N&N blues class the wow factor was amazing, they were the busiest classes at the weekender events and the sleaze factor had not become an issue.
Over the recent years, blues classes, dirty dancing & strictly sinfull have changed certain aspects of our dance (some changes good some bad)

Sinful is a great name, it is so obvious what it is that you attend the class in full knowledge
Blues dancing to me is about expanding the basic MJ dance model to incorporate musicality and style, yes it does involve close holds, but these can be taught in a non invasive way.

Anyone who has been to the blues/swing rooms at the dance weekenders will understand the music that is played and the dance interpretation of the music, for those who have never heard the swing room music check out Count basie - from russia with Love or Diana Krall - peel me a grape, perhaps Colin james Band - satalite or Tom waites Ice Cream man (slow version)

To understand the music we play and imagine trying your basic yo yo, pretzel, neck break moves to these tracks and they just dont work without smoothing them out
That to me is what Blues dancing is about - taking what we already know and smoothing away at the edges

UCP or sensual moves are frequently taught at MJ venues and various workshops
It is for the teacher to teach them in a non invasive way, and for the dancer to not take the moves over acceptable limits - if they are taught in an over sensual way that does not mean you HAVE to dance it that way....it means the teacher was over zealous.

I think nowadays you are just as likley to get UCP & sensual moves from a regular MJ class as you are in a dedicated blues workshop/venue.
Peter

[bigdjiver]

UCP : Up close and personal

[bigdjiver]

I have resorted to www.dictionary.com, and edited the results.

sinful: Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrongThe consensus would be, by definitiuon, that dancers would not accept this. So if a class is described as "sinful", many people would assume that it was marketing hype. There is a danger that it might not be as much hype as they thought, and they could find themselves in an environment where peer pressure makes the stray into places they do not want to be.

sexual: Of, relating to, involving ... the sex organs and their functionsI do think that the major sex organs functioning is not something the vast majority of us want to see on a dancefloor.

sexual: Implying or symbolizing erotic desires or activity.
This fits within my view of MJ as the Swiss army knife of dance, but as a tool to be used with care and caution, and only when appropriate.

sensual : sexually exciting or gratifying. Physical rather than spiritual or intellectual... Lacking in moral or spiritual interests; of the appetites and passions of the body; "animal instincts"; "carnal knowledge"; "fleshly desire"For me this definition of sensual excludes it from class teaching and most dance environments. I must confess to having been confused between sensual and sensuous until I looked them up. and have used sensual where I meant sensuous. Now I understand the looks I got ...

sensuous: Appealing to or gratifying the senses. Sensuous usually applies to the senses involved in aesthetic enjoyment, as of art or music. (aesthetic: Of or concerning the appreciation of beauty or good taste)

sultry : sexually exciting or gratifying. Expressing or arousing desireI think MJ, and especially Blues dance, should be sensuous and can, in appropriate conditions, be sultry (execept for the gratifying bit.)

[Commis Chef]

Blues Dancing -
Anyone who has been to the blues/swing rooms at the dance weekenders will understand the music that is played and the dance interpretation of the music, for those who have never heard the swing room music check out Count basie - from russia with Love or Diana Krall - peel me a grape, perhaps Colin james Band - satalite or Tom waites Ice Cream man (slow version)



:yeah:



To understand the music we play and imagine trying your basic yo yo, pretzel, neck break moves to these tracks and they just dont work without smoothing them out
That to me is what Blues dancing is about - taking what we already know and smoothing away at the edges




The blues lessons from Nina and Simon Selmon at your venue are challenging in technique which is helping my dancing move on to a new dimension. Blues asks for much more sensitivity to every nuance in the music. It also gives the dancers opportunity to use movement in new and interpretive ways. To the dancers who charge at dancing like a bull in china shop it probably appears simplistic from the point of view of moves but to get it smooth, flowing and graceful is an extra challenge.

Blues does have close moves but just as many can be at arm's length. It should never feel sleazy. I have found UCP taught in MJ can be the most unpleasant perhaps specifically because the dancers DO NOT have the skills of a good blues dancer

[Gadget]

For me;
Blues
A generic name given to dancing when the music is slower and partners get closer. The "last track in the disco" slow number where the lady's head rests on the man's shoulder is the sort of concept behind it and most 'moves' return to this sort of 'slow shuffle'.
Since the music is generally slower than 'pop' style modern jive, the moves have to be executed with a bit more precission and there is lots of time to express the music.
In "Blues" dancing, the partners have an attraction that pulls them together and all moves have this 'magnetic' feel to them - In comparison, generic MJ is elastic; coming in and out; soft impact from one direction bouncing back in the other...

UCP
Up Close and Personal refers generally to specific moves that may be added into 'normal' Modern Jive. Some of these moves may be borrowed from 'blues', others are dips & seducers, others baskets & combs.
MJ is danced at a relaxed arm's length. The occasional wrap & basket take the lady closer and in to your side. This maintains 'personal space' for the dancers and very few people can be offended or feel 'invaded' by it. When you take a half-step closer, into your partner's 'personal space', then the move becomes UCP.
Half-front baskets, slow combs, some 'framed' moves,... UCP moves can be sexy, depending on the chemistry between partners - are often too invasive to be performed on beginners.

Sinful
These moves are blatant and overt - groping and fondling using moves as a method of getting to know your partner intemetly Not for use on a social dance floor, or anywhere public for that matter (unless you are into that sort of thing :whistle: - just try not to give anyone ideas or put anyone off... please)

Sensual
These moves are the sexy side of UCP that bridge a gap between MJ and Blues - not a blues style, but definetly UCP. I would like to think that all my UCP moves are in this classification.

[Andy McGregor]

sinful: Something regarded as being shameful, deplorable, or utterly wrong :yeah:

IMHO the 'sinful' classes taught at dance weekenders are taking MJ in completely the wrong direction. We are doing a dance, to mime a sex act on-stage and then teach it to a crowd of willing volunteers is nothing to do with dancing (IMHO). Why pretend you're having sex? :confused: Have sex, then go dancing, or go dancing and then have sex - they're two different things and belong in two different places. If you can't understand the difference then maybe you shouldn't be on the dance floor - or in the bedroom :confused:

And, I saw a very overt example of this at Bognor in January. Late on the last night one couple had simulated sex in the horizontal position on the main dance floor - some people applauded, I wasn't one of them :sick: One of the couple was a teacher at that weekend. I will not go to another weekend where that particular teacher is on the teaching roster - I will not be associated with my hobby being turned into this ridiculous sexual display :angry:

Blues dancing is a different thing altogether. It's a proper dance :clap: It does not involve groping, undoing zips or any move with names like 'spit roast' :angry:

[ChrisA]

IMHO the 'sinful' classes taught at dance weekenders are taking MJ in completely the wrong direction. We are doing a dance, to mime a sex act on-stage and then teach it to a crowd of willing volunteers is nothing to do with dancing (IMHO).
It wasn't all that long ago that all dancing was viewed as sinful by quite a lot of religious people, on the grounds that it would stimulate immoral behaviour.

Even if it does, thankfully we've moved on.

You can't separate dancing and sex. In fact if it wasn't for sex, there would be no dancing as we know it.

If it really was the case that dozens of people, having been spit-roasted in a 'Sinful' class, decided that that was what they wanted to do in freestyle, then you'd have a point. I wouldn't want to dance where that style was the main thing going on.

But in the real world, it isn't the case at all. Those classes are a bit of fun for most, who are then just normal dancers when they return to the freestyle environment. At weekenders, it's an opportunity maybe for the few pervs present to watch, and maybe some of them manage to actually take part as well. Just for the record, one of them a bit over a year ago had a routine that was pretty raunchy, but when I saw it performed as a showcase, it was executed well, and musically, and was certainly dancing, even if in parts it did mime sex acts.

But the participants are consenting adults, and that's the key. If they want to simulate a shag on the dance floor later on for a bit of a laugh, then is it really such a huge deal in the small hours at a weekender?

It's the non-consensual stuff that is the real problem.

Looking back a few years, I used to despise Mary Whitehouse's 'anti sex on TV' campaigning, since it focused, IMO prudishly, almost exclusively on the sex, and hardly at all on the growing amount of violence that was and is available to kids of all ages, and before the 9pm watershed as well.

The violence, IMO, does far more damage than any amount of late-night on-screen shagging, and I feel that it's the same in the dance world...

... what consenting adults get up to is none of my business. If I don't like it, I don't have to do it or watch it, and I wouldn't want it forced on me in a class.

But non-consensual, predatory behaviour by an admittedly small minority, but which nevertheless has a disproportionate effect on the young and inexperienced, is very nasty, and it's that, if anything, that we should campaign against.

[El Salsero Gringo]

You can't separate dancing and sex. In fact if it wasn't for sex, there would be no dancing as we know it.
Read this (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=25378&postcount=157)

[Lynn]

The "last track in the disco" slow number where the lady's head rests on the man's shoulder is the sort of concept behind it and most 'moves' return to this sort of 'slow shuffle'. This 'head on guy's shoulder' is almost as close as you can get (and you can get really close dancing like that), yet I don't find it in any way sleazy (or haven't with anyone I've danced like that with, though if I felt like it was continuing for too long in the song and I wanted to move out of that and the guy wouldn't release me, then I would feel uncomfortable). So its not about proximity as such.

Loved the 'magnetic' imagery Gadget. :clap:

[Andy McGregor]

It wasn't all that long ago that all dancing was viewed as sinful by quite a lot of religious people, on the grounds that it would stimulate immoral behaviour.

~snip~

But non-consensual, predatory behaviour by an admittedly small minority, but which nevertheless has a disproportionate effect on the young and inexperienced, is very nasty, and it's that, if anything, that we should campaign against.
I agree with every word Chris has written. Or to put it in ChrisA-speak, I disagree with none of it :wink:

However, I believe that the problem lies with what some people regard as consent. If you are taught overtly sexy moves in a dance lesson you might regard those moves as part of the dance. With that in mind, if a woman accepts your offer of a dance has she given you permission to do those moves? And, if a woman lets you get so close you're pressed against her, does that mean she's also given you permission to grind? :sick: Some of us guys will push our luck - often that's how we find out where the boundaries are. The problem is that once in a while the first time we're made aware that we've crossed one of those boundaries is when we receive a swift knee in a tender spot :what:

[David Bailey]

:yeah:
Blues dancing is a different thing altogether. It's a proper dance
Having found out a little more (http://www.docker.demon.co.uk/dance/bluesmusic.html), I think I'd agree. Blues dancing is a definite style of dancing. It seems to be a real dance genre, as valid as Lindy, hip-hop, you name it, and so I'd say it's prefectly valid to teach it anywhere.

All the other terms IMO are descriptions of the style or lack thereof of a particular dance(r), or are typical marketing spin, designed to use sex to sell.

I mean, "Strictly Sinful", good grief, that's almost as tacky as trying to sex up MJ, by calling it something like "jivesalsa". Oh, wait a minute... :)

[clevedonboy]

WRT dance being sinful in nature:

"Hot from the hands promiscuously applied,
Round the slight waist, or down the glowing side."

Byron - The Waltz

Times change so does dance. I think the Strictly Sinful stuff may just be a fad - when I've seen people "faking it" it in a freestyle, I just think it looks daft - my friends all seem to agree.

Having said that Mrs Clevedonboy & I are attending a "Latin Passion" workshop in Bristol tomorrow, so come Sunday I may have changed my mind!

[Aleks]

....BIG snip......PS, don't think Aleks and I do have any boundaries left actually :devil:

I agree....(and the boundaries between you and I are pretty non-existent). However, I would not want to dance in that way with many other people (and I think azande would insist I look for somewhere else to live if I did!).

I have only ever felt uncomfortable dancing in too-close contact with two people (both male). One because he felt and smelt wrong and the other because he was grossly sweaty.

I must be an oddity as I am mostly utterly unaware of how close or far away I am from anyone and rarely give it a second thought. I absolutely believe that no-one would ever attempt to do something 'inappropriate' when dancing with me - cos I'm just too scary :what: .

[Lynn]

I have only ever felt uncomfortable dancing in too-close contact with two people (both male). One because he felt and smelt wrong and the other because he was grossly sweaty. Yeah, forgot about those reasons myself. But I suppose I was trying to think of situations where I was uncomfortable being really close because it felt 'sleazy'. I also think the amount of alcohol consumed is a factor. I know in another thread we have discussed the 'danger' aspect of dancing with someone who has had a few too many, they might spin or drop you into someone on the dance floor - but I also think they might be inclined to linger too long in close holds, or push the boundaries more as they maybe think it seems like a good idea at the time!

[DavidY]

WRT dance being sinful in nature:

"Hot from the hands promiscuously applied,
Round the slight waist, or down the glowing side."

Byron - The WaltzYes - but a Waltz is a fair bit more UCP than regular MJ. (Not done much Blues myself so I don't know how it compares.)

In a waltz, as far as I know you're supposed to keep body contact (and I've been to several ballroom lessons where the teacher has told me off for allowing a "gap" to develop between myself and my partner).

[Katie]

IMHO the 'sinful' classes taught at dance weekenders are taking MJ in completely the wrong direction.

I don't think its going in the wrong direction - it's just another direction, IMO.
If, for instance, I regularly saw men on all fours and the women doing whatever (only move I remembered from Mikey's class :blush: ) other than entertainment for the crowd, then my opinion could change. As it stands, 'sinful' classes have not flooded the dance market nor do I see overtly sexual moves that often and the majority of classes out there are good clean fun! Nevertheless, there is a demand for it as Mikey's classes are packed! He has successfully re-invented a style of dance that the punters want. If you don't like it then as Andy said:



I will not go to another weekend where that particular teacher is on the teaching roster - I will not be associated with my hobby being turned into this ridiculous sexual display :angry:

[Lynn]

Yes - but a Waltz is a fair bit more UCP than regular MJ. (Not done much Blues myself so I don't know how it compares.) A lot of other dances have a closer hold than MJ. It isn't really the space or lack of space - its what people do in that space that makes the difference.

[Minnie M]

As said before in both of these threads - it is not WHAT you are doing it is WHO you are doing it with that changes the conception

The confirmed perv must be dancing with joy when blues became popular, he now doesn't need an excuse for a grope and when his hand, knee or something else :whistle: hit the target, a simple sorry will get him out of it.

However I must admit to enjoy dancing to slow R & B music with a partner who appreciates the music and using both our dancing skills get the best interpretation out of it. :worthy: :clap:

[Bill]

A lot of other dances have a closer hold than MJ. It isn't really the space or lack of space - its what people do in that space that makes the difference.


Absolutely ..... :D :rolleyes:

As Minnie says ....... it depends also on who you are dancing with and how the two of you move ( :whistle: ) to the music.

[ChrisA]

However, I believe that the problem lies with what some people regard as consent.

Aha. This might be the key to our disagreement.

My view is that educating people as to what constitutes consent should not be done by censoring the contents of lessons, it should be by ladies telling pervs that they won't dance with them anymore, or indeed, if deemed appropriate, meting out the knee in the nuts treatment for the grossest of offences.

My only objection to having overtly sexual moves taught in ordinary MJ classes is that there is no practical means by which consent can be requested and offered. I know in theory ladies (or guys) could choose to refuse to do a particular move in the routine, but in reality it's not going to happen - the moves flow one into the next, people move round; it would be very disruptive to keep having to establish whether one move in the routine is acceptable to each individual or not.

Whereas in Mikey's SS classes, you know that it will do exactly what it says on the tin, from beginning to end, and you get to do it with a fixed partner.



If you are taught overtly sexy moves in a dance lesson you might regard those moves as part of the dance.

Which they are. Who are you to judge that they are too sexual to be classed as dancing? That's an entirely subjective judgement you are entitled to make only for yourself.



With that in mind, if a woman accepts your offer of a dance has she given you permission to do those moves?

Of course not. In that respect those moves are no different from drops. She might be up for drops with one guy but not another, in one place but not another, even in one mood but not another.


And, if a woman lets you get so close you're pressed against her, does that mean she's also given you permission to grind? :sick:

Again, of course not - see above.

But if someone else is grinding happily away, perfectly consensually, it's none of your business.



Some of us guys will push our luck - often that's how we find out where the boundaries are.

"Pushing one's luck" like this is an intrinsically disrespectful thing to do. If your sensitivity is such that you don't have a damn good idea of what's Ok and what isn't from all the eye contact and body language that's going on, then you should IMHO stick to 100% non-sexual dancing.



The problem is that once in a while the first time we're made aware that we've crossed one of those boundaries is when we receive a swift knee in a tender spot :what:
That is sure as heck NOT the problem.

When the bloke gets the knee in the nuts then there is no hint of a misunderstanding.

And he deserves it, by definition, for being so insensitive as to miss the signals, or to ignore them.

[Winnie]

Chris A, I couldn't agree more. You've certainly pin-pointed my feelings on the subject :clap:

[ChrisA]

Chris A, I couldn't agree more. You've certainly pin-pointed my feelings on the subject :clap:
Thank you :o

And welcome to the forum :flower::flower:

[Minnie M]

Chris A, I couldn't agree more. You've certainly pin-pointed my feelings on the subject :clap:

He talks a lota sense that boy :clap:

Welcome Winnie :hug: :kiss: :hug: :flower:

[Andy McGregor]

You've certainly pin-pointed my feelings on the subject :clap:And nobody would mess with Winnie - her eye contact leaves you in no doubt how she's feeling :innocent:

And welcome to the Forum :hug:

For those of you that haven't met Winne her eyes usually say the friendliest of things :flower:

[MartinHarper]

A lot of other dances have a closer hold than MJ.

The closeness of the MJ "ballroom hold" seems to vary a lot between couples, but it seems like it can get as close as anything I saw on SCD, albeit only briefly.

[Katie]

Welcome Winnie :hug: :kiss: :hug: :flower:

:yeah:

Glad you have joined us :flower:

[Magic Hans]

It wasn't all that long ago that all dancing was viewed as sinful by quite a lot of religious people, on the grounds that it would stimulate immoral behaviour.

Even if it does, thankfully we've moved on.

You can't separate dancing and sex. In fact if it wasn't for sex, there would be no dancing as we know it.
...

With respect, I'd beg to differ.

From my perspective, dancing, like any physical interraction can very from being very intimate (or physically very close) to being very distant (hand-hold only, bodies 6+ inches apart)

However, although by nature, being sexual necessitates being physical, being physical certainly does not necessitate being sexual.

Case in point, massage certainly can be physically very intimate without ever crossing that sexual boundary, eg face massage.

I, for one, have a very defined boundary between what is physical and what is sexual, my suspicion is that many men in particular have a very blurred boundary, and so can feel that they have crossed from being physical to being sexual whilst the girl does not feel that boundary has yet been met.

Without wanting to upset anyone, or cause offence, I would point to some of the posts in this thread as empirical evidence!!

..... please direct any notes of complaints to my personal message box, and reputation scorecard!

Ian

[jivecat]

However, although by nature, being sexual necessitates being physical........
Ian


Not so, 90% of sexuality originates in the mind.

[Andy McGregor]

Aha. This might be the key to our disagreement.

My view is that educating people as to what constitutes consent should not be done by censoring the contents of lessons, it should be by ladies telling pervs that they won't dance with them anymore, or indeed, if deemed appropriate, meting out the knee in the nuts treatment for the grossest of offences.

~snip~

When the bloke gets the knee in the nuts then there is no hint of a misunderstanding.

And he deserves it, by definition, for being so insensitive as to miss the signals, or to ignore them.

I think this argument is like the gun debate in the USA. The pro-gun lobby say that it's not guns that kill, it's the people that fire the guns. The anti-gun lobby point out that in the USA 10,000 people a year are killed by guns and in the UK that number is 15*.

What ChrisA is saying is that it's the sleazy guys that shouldn't be using the sleazy moves. That it's down to the way the moves are used and who is using them rather than the fact that they are taught. I'm saying that those moves are much more likely to be used and used wrongly if they are taught in a lesson.

I'm also saying is that we shouldn't be teaching those moves in a formal way as it puts pressure on ladies to accept those moves as part of the dance - this increases the chances that those ladies will stop dancing because they find some moves too close and intimate.

I am not saying those moves shouldn't be done. What I'm saying is that those moves should not be taught to mass classes.

There are plenty of moves other than the very close ones that will put nobody off MJ - can't we teach them instead?

*The numbers were something like this - I don't remember the actual numbers.

[Andy McGregor]

Not so, 90% of sexuality originates in the mind.And as you get older, more and more of it gets no further :innocent:

[Katie]

What I'm saying is that those moves should not be taught to mass classes.


I disagree, sorry Andy :blush: . Like I have already said :rolleyes: , there is demand for these classes. Freedom of choice should only be restricted if by having that choice, it causes 'harm' - IMO, these classes have not.

You have chosen to not be associated with such classes, which is fine..... but there are dancers out there who enjoy the classes, so respect their choice (you don't have to agree)...... but both parties are happy that way... :nice:

[Winnie]

I'm also saying is that we shouldn't be teaching those moves in a formal way as it puts pressure on ladies to accept those moves as part of the dance - this increases the chances that those ladies will stop dancing because they find some moves too close and intimate.
[/I]

I rarely turn people down for a dance but if a man makes me feel uncomfortable by being too UCP :eek: , I do end up avoiding to dance with them.

However, if I'm comfortable with a man, you'll find me coming back for more. :innocent:

[Andy McGregor]

I disagree, sorry Andy :blush: . Like I have already said :rolleyes: , there is demand for these classes. Freedom of choice should only be restricted if by having that choice, it causes 'harm' - IMO, these classes have not.In my opinion it is likely that these classes have already caused harm. The lady (mentioned here (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4894&page=1&pp=20)) who believed she was groped must have felt harmed - and the guy on the receiving end of her knee was definitely harmed :sick:

The only unknown* is whether or not the guy who it is alleged groped this lady did so because he'd been to a sexually overt moves lesson at that particular weekender :confused:


*and the identity of either person, and I suppose if the event ever really happened and if it happened, the way it happened, etc, etc. In fact we don't know very much at all** :confused:

** BUT, what I'm convinced of is that these classes where sex acts are mimed are not needed for MJ to progress as an enjoyable dance. The argument that they sould continue because they are popular is not a sound one - smoking is popular, but it isn't healthy, etc, etc.

[Andy McGregor]

I rarely turn people down for a dance but if a man makes me feel uncomfortable by being too UCP :eek: , I do end up avoiding to dance with them.

However, if I'm comfortable with a man, you'll find me coming back for more. :innocent:But then Winnie is a strong minded woman.

There are other women out there who will simply give up. As I said, over and over :yawn: we don't need these mimed sex acts as part of our MJ toolbox. I can imagine no situation where dancers continue to dance because they've been taught these moves - but I have no difficulty understanding why a proportion of women give up MJ because of an encounter with this kind of activity :mad:

[Dance Demon]

I am not saying those moves shouldn't be done. What I'm saying is that those moves should not be taught to mass classes.
[/I]

There is a place in MJ for these moves, and for classes to teach them. However I think that classes or workshops should be restricted to fixed partners, so that you are dancing with someone that you choose to be UCP with. I also think that some of the more risque moves should only be danced in freestyle with someone you know, and who is comfortable with them. I would never dance these moves with someone I've never met before. I think to do so would show a total lack of respect for that person.

[Winnie]

I have no difficulty understanding why a proportion of women give up MJ because of an encounter with this kind of activity :mad:

This is a valued point :yeah:

[Chicklet]

In my opinion it is likely that these classes have already caused harm.
In my opinion the classes have not caused the harm, the people MISS-USING what they have learned in the classes have caused the harm.

[Andy McGregor]

In my opinion the classes have not caused the harm, the people MIS-USING what they have learned in the classes have caused the harm.This is EXACTLY my point. And the chances of mis-use are greater the more these moves are taught (just like the huge number of people owning of guns is the USA increases the chances of being shot!). I've got not problem with close moves, blues, etc - even sensual moves are OK as far as I'm concerned as most of the sensuality is in the mind :flower: What troubles me is the teaching of moves that mime sex acts - and that is what I think we don't need in MJ.

[Winnie]

I would never dance these moves with someone I've never met before. I think to do so would show a total lack of respect for that person.

Unfortunately, there are some people out there that have very little respect for other people's feelings. :( It'll be wonderful if they all think the same as you. :)

[Katie]

The only unknown* is whether or not the guy who it is alleged groped this lady did so because he'd been to a sexually overt moves lesson at that particular weekender :confused:

That is exactly the point. Please don't think i'm saying that this particular lady wasn't harmed (she was) it's just difficult to argue it was due to the classes. Incidents like this have probably occurred before these classes started......do we have evidence to say it has increased because of them?? I don't know :confused:



The argument that they sould continue because they are popular is not a sound one....
But inhibiting people's freedom of choice/enjoyment on the basis of correlation/speculation is......(IMO) Enough said from me.

[Katie]

One last thing, actually, just for the record, I personally don't enjoy the classes but i'm trying to see it from another's point of view (must be the lawyer in me :wink: )

[El Salsero Gringo]

Once Andy has succeeded in having smoking banned from all MJ venues (because he's worried about our health), all UCP moves (our morals), and everyone he thinks of as a perv (our virtue) - what's he going to move on to next?

[spindr]

Just a reminder -- accidents do happen! (Accidents could even happen after a UCP move, that's why they're called accidents)

Most of mine are shrouded in embarassment -- but I remember dancing a half nelson (http://www.afterfive.co.uk/guide/latest/html/half_nelson.html) when my head collided with my partner's breasts -- and most recently managed to offer my hand only to discover my thumb was pressed dead centre on the young lady's nipple (and no I'm not going to explain any further).

I guess there can be a problem simply due to the design of MJ -- and the reiteration that it's a male led dance. E.g., if the guy has a strong hold on the lady's hip/waist the lady can't control the movement of her pelvis -- which might make some moves feel more claustrophic for her.

SpinDr.

P.S. It's not always the guys fault -- if the lady steps forwards in a half nelson (http://www.afterfive.co.uk/guide/latest/html/half_nelson.html) there won't be enough space -- if the lady drops her right arm and pulls the guys hand down and off of a ballroom hold on her shoulder there's only a few places it can go, etc., etc.

[philsmove]

........

Most of mine are shrouded in embarassment -- but I remember dancing a half nelson.... (http://www.afterfive.co.uk/guide/latest/html/half_nelson.html) c.


Yup - done the same thing. The half nelson is probably more dangerous than any drop :blush:

[ChrisA]

What ChrisA is saying is that it's the sleazy guys that shouldn't be using the sleazy moves.
Nope, that's not what I'm saying.

I'm making two basic points:

1.The sexual stuff shouldn't be included in normal classes because there would be too many people that didn't want to do that kind of thing with random people in the the line. Not because the moves encourage the pervs.

2. Pervs need no encouragement - a perv will take even a first move as an opportunity to slide his hand a little lower, and a basket as an opportunity for a bit of crotch to bum action. :sick:

Come on Andy, you know who the London pervs are... just as lots of us do... they don't need any encouragement. To use your analogy, they already have a gun, they like using it.. they don't need to watch 'Natural born killers' to get their juices flowing.

I'm going to have to start calling you Mrs Whitehouse soon, if you carry on with this line of argument. There's plenty of evidence that your knickers are big enough...

[philsmove]

Once Andy has succeeded in having smoking banned from all MJ venues (because he's worried about our health), all UCP moves (our morals), and everyone he thinks of as a perv (our virtue) - what's he going to move on to next?


"Call On Me" Eric Prydz

[Daniel Sandars]

A quick response -
Blues
General style of dancing to slow music. Popularised in this country in recent years by Nigel and Nina, Simon and Taina, among others. Properly executed, is non-sleazy. can be interwoven with MJ according to the music. Popular in the US. See the blues-dedicated web site www.bluesdance.org.uk

Don't the US guys and girls really know their Blues and don't they party hard! We having a great time with them richetting ideas around our new discussion board. Blues has discipline, history and culture. Blues draws all the emotions and musicality into expression on the dance floor as you stomp those Blues out of your life - for a while!! It looks sensual, but the follow is creating her own space and setting the boundaries both in terms of closeness and body language.

UCP
Generic term for close contact moves, possibly with sleazy connotations, and definitely not blues as such.
Sinful and sensual
Generic terms that are featured from time to time in classes taught by various exponents of the genre, eg Mikey
You could add:
Dirty dancing
..which could be a version of sinful, loosely related to the sleazy dance scenes in the eponymous film, or the non-sleazy ballroom scenes from the same film
The remaining styles strike me as being much more as titilating fads of the moment and in the wrong hands as an initiation for greasy guys to hook up close for a grope. Great for a cheap thrill at a weekender, but probably NOT adding a great deal to the evolving culture of social partner dancing. I think there is a strong argument against these later styles because to the untrained eye they can look vulgar and indelicate making it much harder to introduce any form of dynamic expressive dancing to begineers. IMHO

[Daniel Sandars]

I'll take another thought on here. Sleazy girls do more damage to the reputation and perception of a dance than a sleazy guy.

A sleazy girl instantly alienates every other woman at the dance and gives every perv in the room a green light.

So said an American girl on my board. I see her point!

[Andy McGregor]

Once Andy has succeeded in having smoking banned from all MJ venues (because he's worried about our health), all UCP moves (our morals), and everyone he thinks of as a perv (our virtue) - what's he going to move on to next?
My motivation on this front is not moral, it's more to do with putting women off dancing. IMHO there are many women who will be put off modern jive by witnessing classes where the moves simulate porn :mad:

[bigdjiver]

A quick response -
Blues
General style of dancing to slow music... Properly executed, is non-sleazy. can be interwoven with MJ according to the music... See the blues-dedicated web site www.bluesdance.org.uk

Don't the US guys and girls really know their Blues and don't they party hard! We having a great time with them richetting ideas around our new discussion board. Blues has discipline, history and culture... I have had a great educational and entertaining time following blues related links around the web. There are hundreds of posts in various forums on this subject. There is the same diversity of opinion as there is diversity in dance. There is no doubt there is a danger of misuse of the art.

There has to be boundaries, and there are, they are the ones laid down by law. I do not think that there is any place in MJ for anyone that appears to be deliberately, or repeatedly carelessly, crossing those boundaries. Even if no legal action is taken organisers can act upon their own opinion in such a manner. They can prohibit entrance to their events without giving a reason.

One of the reasons I love MJ and Blues is the diversity within it, and just the hint of danger, the bungee rope that never actually breaks. I have walked out of a few classes when we got to a "tell it to the judge" move, well aware that I was making it easier for others (I don't want to be first ...) to do the same. I have regretted a couple of times earlier in my experience when I did not. On other occasions I have told my partners that I am doing the move differently from the way the teacher is doing it to avoid the danger of a mistake.

I believe that comes down to adults making decisions, and being responsible. If we have concerns about moves or people we should make them known to the teacher and venue manager. Nothing will change if we keep quiet. (mea culpa)

[El Salsero Gringo]

My motivation on this front is not moral, it's more to do with putting women off dancing. IMHO there are many women who will be put off modern jive by witnessing classes where the moves simulate porn :mad:
Andy,

That's quite a change in your position.

Previously you've been arguing that what put women off was sleazy moves by sleazy men. Now it's the mere witnessing of UCP classes that's going to put women off?

Given that nobody's going to witness a whole 'sinful' class without knowing what the deal is, do you really think that there are lots of women whose constitution is so weak that they can't even see a UCP move being done without a debilitating attack of the vapours? ("Bring me the sal volatile, Nancy - I've just seen Clive Long trying to get his leg over.")

I'm all for protecting men and women from unwelcome groping, but given that the 'sinful' style of classes are popular with both men and women, where's your evidence that "many women who will be put off modern jive by witnessing classes where the moves simulate porn"?

[bigdjiver]

...I'm all for protecting men and women from unwelcome groping, but given that the 'sinful' style of classes are popular with both men and women, where's your evidence that "many women who will be put off modern jive by witnessing classes where the moves simulate porn"? The word used was "Many". I too am sure that "many" people would be put off MJ after seeing a "sinful" class, and that is without doing a survey, or seeing a sinful class.

I am equally sure that "many" people would want to join after seeing one. I would guess that the "many" against exceeded in number the "many" attracted. Within the agreed constraints of the law I believe that the factions should tolerate each other, and the promotion of the event should try to make sure that nobody finds themselves in an uncomfortable place. It boils down to responsible adult choice, and the tolerance of diversity within the law.

I am curious about the facts. What is the M-F ratio at the "Strictly Sisnful" classes, and, if they do not have partner rotation, how does the class form up?

I would appreciate it if the forum members that have attended, perhaps just from curiosity or in the line of business would enlighten us. (or just me by PM if they do not want to "come out".)

[clevedonboy]

Latin Passion WS Bristol 19/03/05 with Mikey

Had a really good time - Mikey is everything he is billed as, but fundamentally he's a good teacher who is fully aware of the issues that his style raises. On several occasions he reminded us that permission should be sought for antything that is even slightly racy.

What I can recall at the mo of the class (I'm not claiming that I got on with all of this by the way and i have missed some details because I've forgotten them)

Ice breaking dance rotating partners - this was the only time that partners were separated at this calss.

Adding styling to Combs by "caressing" your partners face - not stroking or smearing. Left hand on hip leading into next move rather than pulling away. Leading first move with right hand only.
Nothing wrong with this - see it all the time but for the really uptight partner it would be invading their body space so even that may be too much.

First move with two hip rotations (or wiggles)
You'd have to know your partner but it's not going to cause raised eyebrows.

Steering your partner with your right knee between her thighs - three slow rotations followed by three fast.
Well I wouldn't do this with anyone other than my partner & I'm not sure that I'd do it with her either! Having said that it certainly increased my knowledge of leading.

"Styling" for women when invited to "strut her stuff"
Very little to do with UCP (apart from "ringing the bell") but something very useful for all concerned - for the ladies there were some good tips on moves and "deportment" & for the gents a suitable reminder that just because you give her the space, it doesn't mean that she'll take it!

Two Seducer style moves but with the woman supported so well that the gent could show off by running hands / face along his partner - NOT touch
Worth the price of admission on it's own, two stunning looking moves which (once I had learned them properly) are rock steady and give scope for styling - which can be as smutty as you (and your partner) want.

(and as an aside which applies to all that he taught, Mikey never made you feel that you had to take the naughtiest option when "caressing" your partner - use your nose if you want to, use a finger if you're more comfortable, don't do it at all if you'd rather not).

Extinguishing the flame
A smutty move that involves the man putting his hand on the ladies tummy from behind between her legs - I'll not say anymore except that Mrs Clevedonboy thought it would have been better if I had a sooty glove puppet to hand. Not a move to add to my repertoire.

full body carress (not touching) tracing outlines from head to waist or head to toe using own hands or guiding partners.
Lots of humour here, nice moves strictly for consenting partners (not particularly smutty but invading your partner's body space)

That's all I can remember - I'd recommend this to anyone. You can have a laugh at he saucy stuff but learn a lot from the sexy stuff.

NB this is Lattin Passion NOT Stricly Sinful

[Magic Hans]

Not so, 90% of sexuality originates in the mind.

Sorry, not sure that I ever mentioned anything about the mental side, and it was nothing to do with the point that I was making, which was about the boundary between the physical and the sexual. Please feel free to disagree if you feel that there is none.

All I am saying is that being sexual necessitates being physical. Physical actions can cause physical response as well as mental ones. The sexual parts of our brains are (effectively) hard-wired to the physical ones .... usualy via hormones, and hormonal responses, as far as I know.

[But check it out with a human biologist]

[spindr]

...if they do not have partner rotation, how does the class form up?
Umm, both men/ladies choose their partner carefully (beforehand)???

I believe the usual phrasing goes: "Will you do this class with me, because you're safe..." -- damned with faint praise :)

SpinDr.

[El Salsero Gringo]

The word used was "Many". I too am sure that "many" people would be put off MJ after seeing a "sinful" class, and that is without doing a survey, or seeing a sinful class. (my emphasis)In other words, you haven't a clue?

I think this particular subthread - about women deserting MJ in their droves simply from watching 'sinful' classes - is a host of speculative assumption put up to promote a particularly tendentious conclusion.

Or, in less florid language, utter b*ll*cks.




.

[Andreas]

In other words, you haven't a clue?

I think this particular subthread - about women deserting MJ in their droves simply from watching 'sinful' classes - is a host of speculative assumption put up to promote a particularly tendentious conclusion.

Or, in less florid language, utter b*ll*cks.[

I agree. Surely you can certainly bring at lesat as many examples for women joining or staying with MJ BECAUSE OF moves like that. After all, it is not only the guys that enjoy them, some guys in fact hate them. :what:

[Andy McGregor]

I agree. Surely you can certainly bring at lesat as many examples for women joining or staying with MJ BECAUSE OF moves like that. After all, it is not only the guys that enjoy them, some guys in fact hate them. :what:In fact, it's likely that you can ONLY offer examples of people who stayed dancing - those that no longer dance are simply not there to ask :tears:

From my own observations, I know of no dancers who've expressed the opinion that they continue to dance because of moves that simulate sex acts. And, if there were any dancers who expressed that opinion, would you want to dance with them? Or would you want your wife or daughter to dance with them?

Of course, El SG is correct that I have no data to support my claim that many women quit MJ because of the sleazy moves being taught/done. But equally, he has no evidence to the contrary. What we do know is that many women quit MJ - we can only guess at their reasons. What I have observed is a large number of women telling me that they feel uncomfortable when some guys to get too close or do those overtly sexual moves that mimic porn. It is therefore logical to expect that some women will find something else to do that doesn't make them feel that discomfort. I don't know if it's the 'many' I said so I concede to El S G's logic :flower: Come on El S G - how many do you think it is?*

* and when did you stop beating your wife? :devil:

[Andy McGregor]

tendentious Is El S G trying to take the role of ChrisA?


b*ll*cks... or Ceroc Jock? :devil:

[ChrisA]

Is El S G trying to take the role of ChrisA?

.. or Ceroc Jock? :devil:
Is either possible? :innocent:

Hmm. Something I have in common with CJ. Now there's a thing. :D

[El Salsero Gringo]

Is El S G trying to take the role of ChrisA?

.. or Ceroc Jock? :devil:
As long as you warn me before I start to sound like Gadget.
(sorry, below the belt, humble apologies, yada yada yada.)


What we do know is that many women quit MJ - we can only guess at their reasons. What I have observed is a large number of women telling me that they feel uncomfortable when some guys to get too close or do those overtly sexual moves that mimic porn. It is therefore logical to expect that some women will find something else to do that doesn't make them feel that discomfort. I don't know if it's the 'many' I said so I concede to El S G's logic Come on El S G - how many do you think it is?*

I agree that people are likely to be put off by having moves done on them, sleazily. But I don't agree that watching a UCP move being taught, in a class dedicated to UCP is, of itself, going to be a major source of discouragement. You'd need to give me a lot more evidence to convince me of that.

At some point, Andy, you have to accept that MJ is not, and cannot be 100% attractive to absolutely everyone. Other people have pointed out to you that UCP moves *are* a part of Modern Jive, and there *is* a distinction between that and the kind of sleazy guy who puts people off, and by discouraging the development, teaching and appropriate practice of a sizable direction of growth of this dance form you're not necessarily acting in the best interests of the MJ community as *they* see it.

Still I'm happy to have the academic debate with you. I say academic because I don't think you'll have the slightest effect on what moves are taught, and where. For the same reasons, as he was at pains to demonstrate to his craven group advisers, that Canute couldn't hold back the tide.

[Andy McGregor]

I agree that people are likely to be put off by having moves done on them, sleazily. But I don't agree that watching a UCP move being taught, in a class dedicated to UCP is, of itself, going to be a major source of discouragement. You'd need to give me a lot more evidence to convince me of that. Of course I've got no evidence. It's very difficult to work out how someone else thinks - but I'm guessing that there are a number of women who would worry that moves the've seen taught in a lesson will be done to them in freestlye.


At some point, Andy, you have to accept that MJ is not, and cannot be 100% attractive to absolutely everyone. Other people have pointed out to you that UCP moves *are* a part of Modern Jive, and there *is* a distinction between that and the kind of sleazy guy who puts people off, and by discouraging the development, teaching and appropriate practice of a sizable direction of growth of this dance form you're not necessarily acting in the best interests of the MJ community as *they* see it.
Nigel Anderson* tells me that the best take-up rate you can expect from people trying MJ is 10% - I feel that the doing and teaching of moves that mimic porn are more likely to reduce this figure and increase it.


Still I'm happy to have the academic debate with you. I say academic because I don't think you'll have the slightest effect on what moves are taught, and where.As an organiser I can influence what moves are taught at my lessons - and who attends them. At the moment I've banned only one person - and that was due to his history of violence rather than sleaze.


For the same reasons, as he was at pains to demonstrate to his craven group advisers, that Canute couldn't hold back the tide.Canute demonstrated that his word alone could not hold back the tide. The Thames Barrier and the Dutch have demonstrated that holding back the tide is possible - it's just very difficult. I'm not one of those who gives up on something I believe is right because it's difficult or because some people disagree with me :wink:


*Nigel is also with me in his belief that MJ is lessened by the teaching of moves from porn - or, to be more accurate, I'm with him as it was his logic that got me thinking the way I do :worthy:

[El Salsero Gringo]

Canute demonstrated that his word alone could not hold back the tide. The Thames Barrier and the Dutch have demonstrated that holding back the tide is possible - it's just very difficult. I'm not one of those who gives up on something I believe is right because it's difficult or because some people disagree with me :wink:It's boring perhaps to quibble with your quibble about my simile, but I feel obliged to point out that the Thames Barrier and the Dutch dykes aren't going to hold the sea out for very long. You can build all the sea defences, walls, groynes, and barriers that you like, but no coastal engineer will pretend that in the long run, nature will do anything but have it's own way with the landscape.


As an organiser I can influence what moves are taught at my lessons - and who attends themAnd I wish you every commercial success in proving that the lack of UCP moves in your classes and at your venues attracts more and more new dancers. Until it does though....

[Andy McGregor]

And I wish you every commercial success in proving that the lack of UCP moves in your classes and at your venues attracts more and more new dancers. Until it does though....It's not UCP moves that I think are taking MJ in the wrong direction it's the moves that simulate acts from porn.

Funnily enough, I have already proved that people prefer to learn to dance - rather than look like porn stars. Within a few months my starting classes on a Thursday a well known teacher started classes about 8 miles down the road on a Monday. We don't teach 'sinful' moves, the other teacher is well know for it! Guess which classes are still running and getting decent numbers - often over 100? :innocent:

On the other hand, I don't think a lesson from Andy McGregor at Camber would get the numbers that the Sinful lessons get on a cold Sunday morning.

[bigdjiver]

The word used was "Many". I too am sure that "many" people would be put off MJ after seeing a "sinful" class, and that is without doing a survey, or seeing a sinful class. (my emphasis)


In other words, you haven't a clue?

A twittish comment.

.1% of the worlds population adds up to many in my book. I have seen enough new ladies that do not like the Baskets or the First Move because it is too personal, and do not reappear, to make a valid extrapolation. They seem to have had a vision of jive as being just hand-to-hand contact, or of just dancing with their ideal man. I have seen enough ladies duck out of UCP moves in class to extrapolate, or leave Blues workshops very early on, to extrapolate to "Sinful" classes.


I think this particular subthread - about women deserting MJ in their droves simply from watching 'sinful' classes ... I am sure many do. Many others are attracted by that excitement, certainly some to participate, probably some as voyeurs. I tend to the view, but open to proof otherwise, that Ceroc has the balance about right, and it is evident that there is a demand for more extreme versions.



Or, in less florid language, utter b*ll*cks.and (general comment) why the *'s ?

Will people leave the forum in droves if posters wrote the whole word?

Can't posters find words they can spell out?




.

[ChrisA]

*Nigel is also with me in his belief that MJ is lessened by the teaching of moves from porn
I bet he is.

Actually teaching people to do it would seem a dreadful idea to me, too, if I were him.

:innocent:

[clevedonboy]

Whilst I don't want to defend the "well known teacher 8 miles down the road", I think your claim is not really telling the whole story. Location of a class is part of the key to it's success, as well as the quality of venue, day & time, music (of which I am sure yours is of an excellent standard) and teachers.

The class I attend most is thriving. I put this down mostly to its location and venue. To say that they get higher numbers than another class I attend with more interesting music (IMHO) and a "better" (IMHO) teacher because people prefer the teaching style would just be daft.

If you have anecdotal evidence that people didn't like the "well known teacher's" classes then that's a different matter.

[El Salsero Gringo]

A twittish comment..... and this one isn't?


.1% of the worlds population adds up to many in my book. I have seen enough new ladies that do not like the Baskets or the First Move because it is too personal, and do not reappear, to make a valid extrapolation. They seem to have had a vision of jive as being just hand-to-hand contact, or of just dancing with their ideal man.That argument holds about as much water as saying that anyone who thinks that Modern Jive is actually about French cuisine is entitled to see on stage a demonstration of how to prepare Duck a l'Orange, lest they decide that MJ is not for them. Since when do we allow the prejudices of the ludicrously ill-informed to set the syllabus for classes?


I tend to the view, but open to proof otherwise, that Ceroc has the balance about right, and it is evident that there is a demand for more extreme versions.We agree on that.


and (general comment) why the *'s ?Fair point. Next time I think an argument is a complete load of *******s, I shall say so.




(edited to add: *'s this time added courtesy of the Forum software. Although it did make me laugh to read it back.)

[ChrisA]

On the other hand, I don't think a lesson from Andy McGregor at Camber would get the numbers that the Sinful lessons get on a cold Sunday morning.
This is the point.

It doesn't happen anywhere else, AFAIK. Well, maybe other similar weekends.

For mainstream dancing, nice lessons and nice music are what the vast majority of people prefer. On special occasions, some of them like to branch out a bit.

And why shouldn't they?

Andy, I said this before, half in jest, but your insistence on campaigning against this rather than against other things, really does remind me of Mary Whitehouse's prudishness.

There simply is no mainstream rush to have crotch-grinding, boob-groping moves taught in ordinary MJ classes. This is a non-issue.

Even the incident that brought up this whole rambling debate was over and done with on the dancefloor, by the sound of it.

There is, however, a small yet disproportionate problem with the pervs. Why don't you dedicate your awesome energies towards that?

[Andy McGregor]

There is, however, a small yet disproportionate problem with the pervs. Why don't you dedicate your awesome energies towards that?I do my bit in my own way. I think the strategy of 'if you see it do something about it' is all I can offer. Besides, my energy is not 'awesome', I wish it was :tears:

But, I do think the teaching of porn moves gives a licence to grope to those 'pervs' ChrisA mentions. And that is one the reasons I believe the teaching of such moves shouldn't be done.

[clevedonboy]

So if no moves were taught at MJ venues (regular or otherwise) would the pervs have no source material to point to?

Dirty Dancing 2 (the DVD) is advertised on the cerocscotland home page
How about the videos on MTV? - seen some saucy stuff there.
Singing in the rain? Gene and Cyd were sizzling (thanks Mrs Clevedonboy for that one)

We can't ban those things as UCP in those contexts is accepted by society, giving more than enough excuse for anyone who gets off on that sort of thing. So I say teach it to those who want it in the right context & keep watching for the pervs - 'cos they will always be there anyway

[spindr]

I'm getting more and more of a distasteful impression that this thread is being used as a less than subtle one-sided spat by a commercial operator against one of his nearby rivals. Using the well known lets all act against perverts and their causes -- could have been child molestors, or illegal immigrants, or some equally hard to argue in favour of group -- to garner support.

I really hope that I'm just getting way too cynical in my old age.

SpinDr.

[ChrisA]

But, I do think the teaching of porn moves gives a licence to grope to those 'pervs' ChrisA mentions. And that is one the reasons I believe the teaching of such moves shouldn't be done.
Well what evidence do you have for this? Have you ever seen any actual repetition of these moves outside the classes other than in a completely consensual context?

And exactly how is it that the teaching gives the licence?

AFAIR, those present in the Strictly Sinful classes are admonished quite unambiguously that it's fixed partners, consent only, not a licence for random groping, etc, etc.

How is this interpretable as 'giving' a licence?

Whereas there is lots and lots of evidence that pervs subvert perfectly innocuous moves such as first moves and baskets, in order to cop a feel or a rub during ordinary MJ nights.

I still think you should solve the real problems, not the imaginary ones.

[Andy McGregor]

I really hope that I'm just getting way too cynical in my old age.

SpinDr.I think you're just getting cynical, but I'm pleased you've raised the issue as it gives me the opportunity to address it. The Monday operator I mentioned is no longer a rival - if he ever was. He has no classes at all to compete with mine or anybody else's.

And I do not compete with him for teaching bookings at Weekenders as I don't teach at them and currently have no plans to do so.

My interest is that as a person who is in the MJ business in a small way it concerns me when I see the dance being taken in a direction that I think is detrimental to the market place.

I have no problem with the moves from Dirty Dancing, Blues, etc. What I do have a problem with a moves derived from the seedy World of Troilism with names like 'Spitroast'* :angry:

*I did a Google search to provide a link but I'm not going to post it here as it's so vile :sick: :eek:

[Andy McGregor]

I still think you should solve the real problems, not the imaginary ones.I refer the gentleman to my previous answer.

I believe that it is better to recognise and solve a problem when it is a small one or an impending one rather than wait until it has grown.

[El Salsero Gringo]

World of TroilismIsn't that the new exhibit at Thorpe Park? Who's up for a Forum outing?

[bigdjiver]

Well what evidence do you have for this? Have you ever seen any actual repetition of these moves outside the classes other than in a completely consensual context?...I saw a guy who had just come back from one of these classes demonstrate, without prior informed consent, one of these moves on the teacher, sticking his hand into her bum crack to spin her. From the expression on her face I guessed that it was entirely unwelcome. She let it ride, but her boyfriend seemed to be seething, and I know I was.

I still do not know if this was a finely judged perv, or just a reckless lack of sensibility. My guess was perv. I have not seen this guy since. I suspect he may have been dealt with later.

[ChrisA]

I believe that it is better to recognise and solve a problem when it is a small one or an impending one rather than wait until it has grown.

Hmm. So this teaching of so-called 'porn moves'.

- It takes place only at specific workshops and weekenders.
- Lots of people like it - at the weekenders.
- It appears that no one actually repeats any of the material in general freestyle
- You can offer no actual evidence that it's responsible for any harm at all
- You concede that the problem is small, or even impending

... and yet you want to ban it. :confused:

Admittedly, if you move to calling it an impending problem rather than an actual one, it will be much harder to argue against you, but if you want to get something banned, it is for you to provide evidence that it's harmful, not for the rest of us to provide evidence that it isn't just because you think it is.

I think it's about time you stopped trying to be the moral guardian for the MJ world. I don't doubt that you mean well, but I don't want your guardianship, thanks all the same :flower:

[ChrisA]

She let it ride, but her boyfriend seemed to be seething, and I know I was.

So the victim, and her boyfriend just let it ride?

And some people are suggesting that it's the teaching of this stuff that gives pervs licence to act?

[Gadget]

As long as you warn me before I start to sound like Gadget.No chance of that - don't worry.
<hr>
This thread seems to have degraded into what's wrong with teaching some moves and not where the line is drawn between UCP, Blues, Sensual and Sinfull.

The person performing the moves has as much an impact as the moves themselves; an arm jive can be made to be steamy with one partner and with another it could give you the creeps.
If we take these extremes out of the equation and look at the moves, "Simulated Foreplay" is the sensual side of the dancing. "Simulated Sex" is the sleasy/sinful side.

Is there a place for the 'sinful' in MJ? In social modern jive, no; I don't think so. However I have seen little/no evidence that there is any willingness for it to move to the social floor.
Socially, holding hands is considered normal in public; your normal dance is no more 'volatile' than that. Kissing equates to the sensual side; again socially acceptable in public. It is not unknown to see people getting a bit steamier in public; old ladies may tut, but there is no moral outrage. Until we see/accept people stripping and groping each other in public as socially acceptable, we won't see it on the dance floor. The dance floor is still a morally 'public' place where we expect the social rules of our society to be upheld. Yes, it can be personal. Yes, it can be close. But it should always be consensual and never be invasive.

These are general social skills that apply to life in general, it's not just limited to the dance floor - Or do they? Are you a different person on the dance floor than off it? Would you accept breaches of social etiquette here where you would not off the floor?


As an aside, {IMHO} blues dancing is generally done to slower music; smoother music - actions are deliberate and lingering. Any "simulated sex" within blues is almost "making looorve" - I could see it being a performance piece in the Fringe. I think that this is so far removed from what we see taught and know of as MJ that it would not have any detrimental effect on the general dancing populous.

[Andy McGregor]

I think it's about time you stopped trying to be the moral guardian for the MJ world. I don't doubt that you mean well, but I don't want your guardianship, thanks all the same :flower:Just about any Forumite except ChrisA should have been the one to make this statement. Anybody who's been on the forum and read ChrisA's posts will have recognised a campaigner for decency and the identifcation and banning of pervs. I think he's right in the campaign :flower: But doesn't it sound like hypocrisy when he asks someone else to stop trying to be a moral guardian - maybe he'd like to be the only one :whistle:

.. or maybe there are variations of moral guardian and I'm the wrong variant :confused:

[El Salsero Gringo]

My motivation on this front is not moral, it's more to do with putting women off dancing.
{snip}
But doesn't it sound like hypocrisy when he asks someone else to stop trying to be a moral guardian - maybe he'd like to be the only one :whistle:
.. or maybe there are variations of moral guardian and I'm the wrong variant :confused:
I'm confused Andy. Is this a morals issue, or a putting-women-off-dancing issue?

[Andy McGregor]

I'm confused Andy. Is this a morals issue, or a putting-women-off-dancing issue?Can't it be both :confused:

Besides, ChrisA has accused me of trying to be the moral guardian of the forum - I haven't asked for or accepted that particular chalice :whistle:

And, El S G makes it sound like the two are mutually exclusive. Can't he envisage that something immoral would put some women (and men) off dancing?

[CJ]

As long as you warn me before I start to sound like Gadget.


Too late, mate.

[ChrisA]

But doesn't it sound like hypocrisy when he asks someone else to stop trying to be a moral guardian - maybe he'd like to be the only one :whistle:

Let me explain the difference between my position and yours (as I perceive it):

You have defined a set of moves, which you believe should not be taught anywhere, to anyone, whether perv or not. This is what I mean by moral guardianship - making up other people's minds for them as to what constitutes the 'right direction' in which MJ should be taken.

My position on this is that you have no right to do this, since it is for other people, not you, to decide what they may do with other consenting adults.

Now I hope you're not intentionally misrepresenting my position when you refer to me as:


a campaigner for decency and the identifcation and banning of pervs.
I have no particular interest in decency per se. I'm quite happy to dance indecently, with people that I know are comfortable with that, and with me, and I don't care if other people do too if both partners are up for it. My objection is to people that abuse the vulnerability of people on the dance floor, by inflicting on them unwanted behaviour of any kind.

Now I certainly don't support any kind of public identification of these people, for all the reasons that we've heard endlessly about. And nor would I support banning them if the victims of their behaviour felt able to just not dance with them... the problem would rapidly become self-limiting since there wouldn't be the supply of fresh meat available, and the pervs would go elsewhere.

My objection to pervs has nothing at all to do with the morality or otherwise of certain activities on the dance floor - it's exactly the same as my objection to people that insist on doing unwanted drops, and has to do with forcing people to do something they don't want to do, which I object to in most guises.

My opinion is that it would be nice if the culture was different so that ladies found it easier to decline dances with pervs. I also think organisers that fail to act against pervs both lack courage, consequently lose business (since the few pervs that hang around almost certainly lose the venue more money than they contribute) and spoil the atmosphere for the rest of us.

But this is nothing to do with saying what consenting adults can and can't do together, as I say. So I see no hypocrisy :flower:

[CJ]

So I see no hypocrisy :flower:


Blinkers, anyone??

:whistle:

[Andy McGregor]

But this is nothing to do with saying what consenting adults can and can't do together, As I've said, 'consenting' is the key. And as bigdjiver has reported. In at least one instance a man who'd been to one of these porn moves lessons performed them without the consent of his partner - maybe he thought he had consent or didn't need it.

[El Salsero Gringo]

Can't it be both :confused:

Besides, ChrisA has accused me of trying to be the moral guardian of the forum - I haven't asked for or accepted that particular chalice :whistle: I'm sure El S G has accused you of that in the past, too. Or at least, trying to be moral guardian of Modern Jive in general, if not just the Forum.


And, El S G makes it sound like the two are mutually exclusive. Can't he envisage that something immoral would put some women (and men) off dancing?Certainly he can. I wonder though if Andy McGregor can't envisage that something immoral might actually attract some women (and men) to dancing?

[Andy McGregor]

Certainly he can. I wonder though if Andy McGregor can't envisage that something immoral might actually attract some women (and men) to dancing?That's the thing that scares me most :sick:

[ChrisA]

As I've said, 'consenting' is the key. And as bigdjiver has reported. In at least one instance a man who'd been to one of these porn moves lessons performed them without the consent of his partner - maybe he thought he had consent or didn't need it.
Ok, maybe occasionally it happens.

But you could argue for the first move and basket to be banned on the same grounds.

I just don't see how you can go to a lesson where not doing the content with anyone you don't know and have obtained consent from is part of the introduction, and come away with the impression that it's Ok to do them with random people, without already being a perv.

And since the pervs make first moves and baskets sleazy, it's clearly nothing to do with the moves.

Why isn't this a no-brainer? :confused:

[ChrisA]

where not doing the content with anyone you don't know and have obtained consent from is part of the introduction
In fact, anyone who doesn't know that you don't do this sort of stuff without consent even without such an introduction is ****ing stupid, IMO.

The pervs know all too well, and do it anyway...

[El Salsero Gringo]

Why isn't this a no-brainer? :confused:
It is, Chris. Mr McGregor's only doing it to wind you up.

[CJ]

It is, Chris. Mr McGregor's only doing it to wind you up.

ESG,

I'm sure ChrisA appreciated your thoughfulness, but there's NO WAY that Chris would EVER let himself be wound up by such a post.
:D

[Andy McGregor]

ESG,

I'm sure ChrisA appreciated your thoughfulness, but there's NO WAY that Chris would EVER let himself be wound up by such a post.
:D :innocent:

I don't know what you mean :whistle:

[Gadget]

But you could argue for the first move and basket to be banned on the same grounds.
Well, they have already changed the comb so it's "less invasive" {one of the few bad things the collective have done IMHO}