Weekender DVDs.

[spindr]

I think a lot of classes are in some sense "self-policing" in that the raunchier classes mean that you need to find one (or two, or more) people prepared to dance as a fixed couple (triplet, quad, etc.). Possibly, somewhat naive but I would hope that that's a reasonable barrier to those people who shouldn't be attending them.


Well, there was a DVD just of the weekend, so anyone who wanted to reach an informed opinion can do so without contributing any money to Mikey's wallet (well, directly anyway). Sadly, I'm told it might take as long as eight weeks to arrive.

Actually, (apart from the liability disclaimer) I think weekender DVDs and others (with the possible exception of Peter's drops DVDs) don't really have much warning as to which moves *are* suitable for social dancing -- especially drops, UCP moves, etc.

Maybe this is an area that everyone might agree could be improved.

SpinDr.

[David Bailey]

Actually, (apart from the liability disclaimer) I think weekender DVDs and others (with the possible exception of Peter's drops DVDs) don't really have much warning as to which moves *are* suitable for social dancing -- especially drops, UCP moves, etc.
I've borrowed the Camber 2005 DVD, and the neither the "Sweet & Sassy" nor the "Strictly Sinful" have any caveats attached. I could think of a couple...

At the risk of re-igniting the flames of debate, I can now also understand what both Gus and Andy McGregor have been banging on about (and why they're so insistent about it) in recent "discussions".

Darn it, I really hate having to admit it, but they've got a point.

[Gary]

I've borrowed the Camber 2005 DVD, and the neither the "Sweet & Sassy" nor the "Strictly Sinful" have any caveats attached. I could think of a couple...
...
Are we not allowed to assume a certain amount of common sense from the dancing public?

You look before you cross the road, you don't stick a knife in an electrical socket, you don't grab (or stare at) the boobs or crotch of a lady (unless you have some special understanding with the lady in question). Do we need to remind adults about this stuff?

I'm not sure that the guys saying "but they were teaching this move..." really believe that it actually is acceptable, I think they're just trying to use it as an excuse, and it seems like a pretty weak one.

[David Bailey]

Are we not allowed to assume a certain amount of common sense from the dancing public?
Err, no. Not if it's the same public that includes me :)


You look before you cross the road, you don't stick a knife in an electrical socket, you don't grab (or stare at) the boobs or crotch of a lady (unless you have some special understanding with the lady in question).
Well, except that if you see a class, taught at a Weekender, with no caveats attached, which simply shows this boob-and-crotch-grabbing as a routine, it does IMO provide an excuse to (being charitable) beginners to do these moves in inappropriate situations.

On the same DVD, there were a couple of (really good) "dips and drops" classes by Howard and Nicola (as I recall). And these classes did have some professional caveats at the start, in the middle and at the end.

Neither the "sassy" nor the "sinful" ones did - in fact, they didn't have any explanations or guidance at all, unlike most of the others.

[tsh]

Err, no. Not if it's the same public that includes me :)


Well, except that if you see a class, taught at a Weekender, with no caveats attached, which simply shows this boob-and-crotch-grabbing as a routine, it does IMO provide an excuse to (being charitable) beginners to do these moves in inappropriate situations.

I've see these sort of classes taught at weekenders, and I didn't see anyone who thought that just because a move had been taught in a class made it acceptable to use it in general dancing. People may claim this as an excuse, but I don't believe that they honestly don't realise that they are not doing something wrong.



On the same DVD, there were a couple of (really good) "dips and drops" classes by Howard and Nicola (as I recall). And these classes did have some professional caveats at the start, in the middle and at the end.

The difference is that drops (especially when done well) don't look difficult or dangerous - and there is a serious risk of physical injury. People are much more likely to understand that certain sorts of physical contact are likely to cause offence to a partner!

Sean

[David Bailey]

I've see these sort of classes taught at weekenders, and I didn't see anyone who thought that just because a move had been taught in a class made it acceptable to use it in general dancing. People may claim this as an excuse, but I don't believe that they honestly don't realise that they are not doing something wrong.
Oh sure, totally agree. Pervs are pervs; they're not stupid, they just take any excuse they're given.

My argument, simply is this: Don't give them any excuse.

I'd be happy (well, less unhappy) with a disclaimer - something like "Obviously, these moves are only to be done with someone you know well" - hell, you could even make the disclaimer saucy if you wanted, "consenting adults" etc., as long as you got the point across.


The difference is that drops (especially when done well) don't look difficult or dangerous - and there is a serious risk of physical injury. People are much more likely to understand that certain sorts of physical contact are likely to cause offence to a partner!
Of course - but they also taught seducers, with similar caveats I believe.

The point is, I believe caveats should be part of any routine which may involve danger or misinterpretation.

[stewart38]

I've borrowed the Camber 2005 DVD, and the neither the "Sweet & Sassy" nor the "Strictly Sinful" have any caveats attached. I could think of a couple...

At the risk of re-igniting the flames of debate, I can now also understand what both Gus and Andy McGregor have been banging on about (and why they're so insistent about it) in recent "discussions".

Darn it, I really hate having to admit it, but they've got a point.


There in there in the class which is when it matters.

Hey maybe let have caveats everywhere , ie dont learn like this if you have a wooden leg etc :sick:

[stewart38]

Hey maybe let have caveats everywhere , ie dont learn like this if you have a wooden leg etc :sick:


lean !!

[ducasi]

My argument, simply is this: Don't give them any excuse. DangerousCurves wrote an excellent response to this argument, so good that I'm not going to repeat it, just point any and all reading to it here. (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=127113&postcount=185)

[David Bailey]

DangerousCurves wrote an excellent response to this argument, so good that I'm not going to repeat it, just point any and all reading to it here. (http://www.cerocscotland.com/forum/showpost.php?p=127113&postcount=185)
Indeed, an excellent and well-argued response.

And, part of that very response was:
"(and I am pleased to have seen several contributers to this thread confirm the clear and continous cautions given during classes at Southport)"

So, DangerousCurves clearly states that this type of class has a need for "clear and continuous" cautions, and that such cautions are a Good Thing, and that such cautions were given in the weekender classes.

So, my question is, why are there no equivalent cautions given for that class routine on the DVD? :confused:

In fact, I'd argue there's more need for cautions in a DVD (which anyone can see) than in a weekender (where "mistakes" can be spotted and rectified, and where a certain minimal level of dance ability can be assumed).

P.S. I manfully resisted correcting "contributers", I also must be going soft in my old age... :tears:

[Jon L]

Common sense should tell most people that certain classes at weekends are not suitable for freestyle dancing. Moves that are choreographed mean that you can't easily lead it in free style dancing.

I was watching the camber 2003 DVD again for nostalgic reasons! and I remember John Sweeney saying in the advanced double trouble workshop - you can't lead some of these moves in freestyle - you have to work thwm with regular partners (I have deliberately left strictly sinful alone).

I think due to 'economy' on time on a DVD this point often innocently gets missed. These DVD's just bring back memories often from when I did the workshop.

[David Bailey]

Common sense should tell most people that certain classes at weekends are not suitable for freestyle dancing.
Hmmm, I suspect that my opinion of the average level of common sense in the populace is lower than yours.

My point is, if caveats are given in a routine, in a class in a weekender, the same caveats should be given on the DVD - otherwise, what's the point of the caveats in the first place.


I think due to 'economy' on time on a DVD this point often innocently gets missed. These DVD's just bring back memories often from when I did the workshop.
Sure, they're supposed to be just aide-memoires - I think one of the guys on one of the DVD routines even says as much. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't cover your bases.

To me, the lack of clear caveats in controversial routines (and they are clearly controversial) is a significant problem in the Fight Against Perv-dom. Clear and consistent caveats destroy the "but we did it in the routine" excuse; the lack of such caveats permits it.