Sorry Gadget. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one...Originally Posted by Gadget
While personally, I try not to turn people down to dance (though, regretably, it seems to happen these days, mostly due to the inability of my body to keep up with the rest of me), and do look to dance with new people, I still feel that it is wrong to try to tell other people how to behave (outwith of areas that satisfy legal and moral reasons).
Hence, if someone wants to come along, and only dance when it suits them, and who it suits them with, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. It's their decision, and I have to respect that. I guess that it may impinge on the enjoyment of other people who ask them to dance, but that's life. When I ask people to give me £50, and they say no, that impinges on my enjoyment too. But it's still their right to say no. (I'll try this one on you on Tuesday, and see how far it gets me!).
Hence, yes, it is theoretically wrong to be shocked and stunned when turned down for a dance. However, it is natural to feel slightly upset (I think that shocked and stunned might be taking it a little too far). I know it's happened to me in the past, and I've felt that way. I've managed to get over it reasonably quickly though. And (as said before), once someone has turned me down twice in a row (without a reason), I'll get the picture, and wait for them to ask me to dance in future.
I wouldn't say that it's a bad thing to do, but I would say that it's not a good thing to do. Is that a meaningful distinction?
Kinda like charity. If someone with a disposable income wants to give no money to charity, then ok, I can accept that decision. It doesn't necessarilly make them a bad person. On the other hand, they're missing out on the opportunity to do a good thing.
TAXI for LMC please.....
Make that a BIG taxi
Awaits the -ve rep
I'm not sure about this, I can see both sides.
From one point of view, it's very important to promote on of the unique features of Ceroc / MJ, which is the "everyone can and does dance with everyone else" mentality - this is first introduced in the rapid partner-swapping during classes, and is then reinforced by taxi dancers, teachers (usually) dancing with beginners, etc etc.
And it could be argued that to get a message across, you have to put it simply. Like a lot of other Ceroc "Laws" ("you too can be dancing after 1 lesson", "There's no footwork", etc. etc.), you find out after a while that these are really more like guidelines than rules.
But they're useful approximations, and serve very well up until a certain point. Of course, they then turn into hindrances (for some reason, I'm thinking of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics as analogies, my mind is often strange).
So the teacher saying "We recommend you dance with a lot of different people, as this promotes the uniquely-friendly nature of Ceroc dances. But not if you don't want to, or if you're too tired, or if they're yankers or pervs or...." wouldn't exactly be the strongest recommendation to make.
So it's easier to say simply "Dance with everyone"...
I could probably live with this.
However, I've heard (from the stage) things like, "We never, ever turn anyone down in Ceroc if they ask us to dance", (pretty much a quote).
And then, your new person gets asked to dance immediately by 3 people - the yanker, lecher and stinker. Feels that they absolutely can't say no. Then walks out, never to return. Maybe an unlikely case. But something similar could happen.
Or the person who comes along, and really doesn't like dancing with someone (for whatever reason), but that person asks them three times a week every week, and again they don't feel that they can say no, since that's not the Ceroc way. So again, they decide it's easier to leave and never come back. And I know that this sort of situation happens.
Have to say, that I'm all for the general mentality of not turning people down. I just hate the 'You must never, ever turn anyone down mentality'.
Absolutely. I also have no problem with people who don't spend their entire time doing good things though. Nothing wrong with that!
I do not say this. I'm completely sexist when I give this little speech. I tell everyone that the're at a dance class and they should be surprised if people they don't know ask them to dance. And, because the're at a dance class the person asking you knows you're there to dance so any refusal to dance might be taken personallyHowever, I qualify this by saying that the girls do not have to say 'yes' to every guy that asks them - but it would be nice if they left the guy with his dignity by giving them a reason (read "excuse") why they won't dance with them - I give examples like taking a break, feeling dizzy, opened an artery, etc. For the guys I tell them it takes a lot of guts for a girl to ask them to dance, some of the time it could be the first time a girl's ever asked a guy - so the guys are not allowed to say "no". And why would they want to?
I advise the guys to hide outside if they need a break so they don't ever need to turn a woman down.
The other side of the coin is the women that stand around with their arms folded looking grumpy and not being asked to dance. These women complain to me that they've not danced all night because nobody asked them (usually while I'm dancing with them
There is only one rigid 'law' of dancing: don't cause harm. However there are several moral/ethical codes that exist where (MJ) dancers congregate. It is these that make the social 'togetherness' of a venue/night/class/event:
- don't stand on the dance floor unless you are dancing.
- don't carry drinks accross a floor.
- don't walk through a floor with dancers on it.
- etc.
amoung these are the codes of
- Accept every dance offer.
- Dance with new faces and new dancers.
Whether you agree or disagree with these codes does not matter - they are there. It is part of the social dance scene. If you disregard them and can dance well, then it can be assumed that you know these rules and are snubbing them.
There may be a pefectly sound and acceptable reason - again, it does not matter - it is the action (or lack thereof) that goes against the dancer. Not the reasoning behind it.
Correct: their decision. And if they are an experienced dancer, then they will know the social expectations of them by turning up at a class. By refusing to live up to these, by refusing to follow the social guidelines, they run the risk of branding themselves outside of acceptable social guidelines. And since they have placed themselves there, self-centred and elitist.Hence, if someone wants to come along, and only dance when it suits them, and who it suits them with, then I see absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. It's their decision, and I have to respect that.
Beginners don't yet know the social expectations and guidelines, so are therefore granted amnesty until they do.
So this is the problem related to not saying "no" rather than problems related to getting yankers to stop yanking, letches to stop letching and stinkers to stop stinking?{from a further post}...And then, your new person gets asked to dance immediately by 3 people - the yanker, lecher and stinker. Feels that they absolutely can't say no. Then walks out, never to return.
If this is the concern about refusal, then I would suggest that it is not the ethos of accepting every dance that needs to be softened, but the non-acceptance of other anti-social behaviours that needs strengthening. If you are standing up for the rights of one form of anti-social behaviour (ie refusal) then what does that imply about other forms like those mentioned above?
And this is a problem with the social situation of "Must not refuse" and not one of "Confrontation"? If the dancer in question is unwilling to broach the subject to the problem partner, Taxis and Teachers are approachable about nuisance dancers. As are most experienced dancers.Or the person who comes along, and really doesn't like dancing with someone (for whatever reason), but that person asks them three times a week every week, and again they don't feel that they can say no, since that's not the Ceroc way. So again, they decide it's easier to leave and never come back.
With the 'must dance' ethos, there is also more likleyhood of people like this being found and rehabilitated.
There is no such thing as an unbreakable rule - even the "No harm" {I would inflict a small pain on my partner to avoid a larger pain} However I just hate the "It's OK to do what you want" and "I've paid; my money - I don't have to follow your rules."...I just hate the 'You must never, ever turn anyone down mentality'.
Everyone is following these 'rules'. Then someone says "I know that rule, but I'm going to step over it." Combine this with the fact that they are a good dancer and you get the summary: "I am too good for these rules to apply to me." or even worse; "I have paid good money so that these rules don't apply to me." This is where the perspecitve of "Elitist" or "Hotshot" dancers comes from.
At the risk of being labelled.. I was just wondering why people seem to consider it a good dancer's duty to dance with all the beginners?
Its your duty as anyone not to refuse a dance with someone else unless you have a good reason (ie. not because of their level), thats just manners.. But I think it is a bit rough to expect, nay, insist that teachers and advanced dancers (not taxi's) of a professional or "very good" level MUST dance with everyone.
Why do they have to dance with everyone? Why can't they just dance with their favourite dancers?
They're people too.. we all have favourite dance partners. As annoying as it is to the rest of us who aren't at their level and would KILL to dance with these people.. put yourself in their shoes for a minute.. how would you feel if every time you went out to a danceparty, club or freestyle you were automatically expected to dance with all the beginners? Where's the time for dancing with your dancepartner? Or with some of your friends? Or with anyone YOU want to dance with?
Let's say CerocBob is a dance teacher and he teaches a class every monday with a freestyle afterwards..
I agree, it IS his responsibility to be on call during the freestyle after that class.
However, if you go out on Friday night to an independant dance Club and you see CerocBob there, it is no longer his obligation to dance with you or to teach you anything. It doesn't mean that dance etiquette is no longer appropriate, he still shouldn't be rude, but there is actually no rule that says he has to dance with anyone. He could sit there on his orange CerocBob backside all night if he wanted to and there is nothing you can do about it to make him do anything.
And that's even more true with Advanced dancers who don't teach and aren't Taxi's. Those people do not "owe" the "masses" ANYTHING. And no, they don't have to dance with people of a lower level than them. I'm not saying they don't want to it's just that we all have the right to choose. A beginner doesn't get told who they have to dance with and I don't think anyone else should be either.
Apologies for the almost rant but the expectations that people seem to have for Teachers and Advanced is a little disconcerting and scary
Sorry, but I think you're arguing by assertion - the whole reason the debate is continuing is that many people do not agree that those are part of the social code. In fact, I'm sure the majority would disagree with "Everyone should always accept every dance offer".
Suppose that everyone tries to just dance with their favourite dancers. Turns out that most people's favourite dancers are the same: advanced dancers. If that atmosphere takes hold, then advanced dancers get stalked, and are continually pounced on with requests for dances. This is not in the interests of anyone, and certainly not in the interests of the advanced dancers.
Sorry Gadget, but now you're starting to sound very dictorial. I've said that I prefer the mentality of dancing with everyone. But I can see that other people may not want to do that. And it's their choice. And there is no social stigma attached. They don't become lepers.
It's your choice not to do that. Which is also fine. I accept that. And I'm sorry, but you really need to chill out a bit. You're entitled to your view. Other people are entitled to theirs. They are no less valid.
And it isn't morally, or ethically wrong to turn down the request for a dance. It's morally and ethically wrong to kill someone. There are certainly no 'rules' that you have to accept every dance. Turning down a dance does not mean that you are breaking a rule.
PS. I'm sure that you'll all be pleased to know that this is my final post on this subject. I think that I've said all that there is to say as far as I'm concerned, and I'll probably just end up going round in circles now. Please feel free to carry on without me though!
Last edited by TheTramp; 4th-December-2005 at 03:28 AM.
I went to Gloucester last night. It's not my favourite venue, as I really need to be more pro-active than usual in asking for dances. Previously, I'd put it down to not being a regular there, and that there are always quite a few more ladies than men. However, I think I found out another reason when I was chatting with a friend at the end...
He's been dancing for about a year. I'd say he's of a reasonably good, early intermediate standard. He knows the basics, a couple of nice moves, dances on the beat, and certainly doesn't yank, perve or stink. As far as musicality goes, he's still learning. For instance, he hasn't yet got the confidence to hit the breaks himself - however, he's aware of the follower's position, and will let her do her thing. I really like dancing with him.
But he told me that earlier in the evening, he'd asked a lady to dance and she'd just replied, "No, I've been watching you, and you're not good enough!"
It would seem that this lady certainly saw herself as "elite", and in the very worse sense of the word.
I think that on this thread (and on the many other similar ones), most of us agree that everyone has the night to say "no". However, should any of us choose to exercise that right, I'd hope we'd do it for better reasons, and with more grace, than this lady in question. Fortunately, as he's one of the kindest, nicest people I know, it's not in his nature to be bitter about these things, but I could see that her words had hurt him.
And is it any wonder that the men are more reluctant to ask unfamiliar ladies to dance at this venue, if this is the type of response that they get?
Funny you should say that. I met up with another friend in the car park last night. I told him that I was surprised to see him there, as I'd not seen him in the venue.
He's been learning Ceroc™ for about 6 months. However, he's one of those lucky people who has a natural aptitude for dance, and is already a very good leader. He's also a regular at Chelt & Glos, so is a familiar face in the area.
He told me that he'd hardly gotten off the dancefloor, and when he did, he'd spent the rest of it hiding, trying to avoid been pounced on, to try to catch his breath.
Again, he's a lovely chap, so he won't ever say no. But the preditory ladies of Gloucester just take advantage of his good nature.
I can't help thinking that if they danced with perfectly reasonable dancers, like my friend in the post above, in the long term they'd gain a bigger pool of experienced dancers. That way, my other friend might get a moment's peace!
Hmmm... I wouldn't go that far; "duty" is a bit too proscriptive for my tastes. There's a difference between "actively seeking out beginner dancers to help" and "not refusing to dance with beginner dancers".At the risk of being labelled
The former is laudable, but certainly not compulsory. But as Lou's "No, you're not good enough" story illustrates, the latter is hurtful - and it leads to No-Rows and auditions, both of which are heinous crimes against humanity.
See the 2,000 threads marked "clique", "hotshot", etc for details...
I don't disagree with your CerocBob analogy; but the fact is, everyone learns a lot from better dancers, and if you aren't prepared to dance with less experienced dancers than you, why should you expect better dancers to dance with you? Obey the Golden Rule, in other words, simply out of enlightened self-interest, to help promote a culture of mutual development.
Don't worry about it, this is the Ranting Thread after allApologies for the almost rant but the expectations that people seem to have for Teachers and Advanced is a little disconcerting and scary
And:
Gloucester sounds a very scary place...
There's a world of difference between 'Not saying no' and 'Intermediates must ask beginners'.
With 'not saying no' there are two pressures, the pressure of the organisation who want to keep bodies coming thru the door, and social pressure which can otherwise be described in this case as 'just good manners'.
With 'Intermediates must ask beginners', there is, of course, pressure from the organisation again, but there is no social pressure whatsoever. I know of no social pressure that says you *must* ask complete strangers to dance whatever their standard.
Since it is only the organisation creating this pressure, this is why the 'arrangement' the organisation has between itself and it's customers becomes important. The current 'arrangement' is we pay XXX to get in and nothing in this arrangement requires anyone to dance with someone they do not wish to dance with.
Before somebody chimes in with 'theres nothing in that arrangement about not doing aerials in the middle of a crowded dance floor'.... your missing the point. There is something, social pressure again, lots of social pressure not to break other peoples legs.
The organisations know this, that's why they don't *force* (in the strongest sense of the word) intermediates to dance with beginners.... that's also part of the reason they have taxi dancers. If anyone thinks the current setup is not working, they'd be better off asking the organisations to recruit more taxi dancers rather than pressuring intermediates. (Since the whole rational behind this is presumably to help keep beginners, what's the point if the result is possibly losing intermediates by pressuring them to do something they do not wish to do? Likewise, if the reasoning is to make beginners 'happy', what's the point if it makes intermediates 'unhappy'?)
I completely refute this idea that somehow 'intermediates must ask beginners' is an unwritten social rule at MJ. Sure, you get intermediates who enjoy dancing with beginners for whatever reason, and maybe some of them do feel under pressure from the organisation to do this, and I am fully prepared for someone to pop up and say 'that rule works at so and so venue', but truthfully, in no venue I have ever attended have I ever seen that rule being generally observed by all, or even the majority of intermediates. To believe that rule is being observed throughout MJ. That's just fantasy, or if your completely cynical, propaganda from the organisations for the usual monetary gain purposes
Speaking generally, lessons are where you are forced (in the mildest sense of the word) to dance with whoever, freestyles are where you have freedom regarding who you dance with. That is the basic setup and it's served us well so far, I see no reason to change it.
How about:- "Lessons are where it is custom to dance with whoever, providing they are behaving in an socially physically acceptable manner. Freestyles are where you have freedom regarding who you dance with."?
New dancers enter a venue. They learn {social rules} from what is said from the stage, what the taxi's impart and what they observe. Teachers and Taxis advocate the above rules. Most people in the venue follow these rules. The beginners become intermediates. These rules become the social "norm".
I think that the majority would agree with "Everyone should always accept a dance offer" as long as there was a "within reason" disclaimer. What we are arguing about is this reason and whether dancing with a dancer of lesser ability is an acceptable one.
Obviously this can only be qualified by the better dancers. And if they are seen to be going against the social teachings and ethical codes that are given from the management, then I think it's perfectly understandable that they be branded as "Hotshots" or "Elitist" by the dancers of lesser ability.
If you were brought up in a civilisation that practiced pologamy or capital punishment, then it wouldn't seem morally or ethically wrong. It's just a different culture. The laws in America differ from the laws here. They differ from state to state. Slightly different cultures. There is a culture on the Modern Jive scene that differs from almost every other social interaction 'hobby'. It even differs from ballroom, salsa, club, tango, or any other form of dance.
When you step into a MJ venue, you are stepping into this culture. You may not like it, you may not agree with it, you may think that some of the social rules are wrong, you may not adhear to any of them. That is your choice. I'm not arguing about forcing anyone to adhear to any rules of social interaction: I'm just pointing out that by being aware of them and not following these rules, there is some justification in assigning a dancer the label of "Hotshot".
It may have initially been The Collective that created this "pressure", however once the majority of dancers accept it, it becomes part of the social structure.
Some posts remind me of the quotation "To hell with posterity. What's posterity ever done for me?"
No arguments there. I could tell you the story of the local smelly guy, but that would be uncouth
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
![$vboptions[bbtitle]](images/master_col.bmp)
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks