Dancing and Moral Outrage

[pygmalion]

This topic came to mind primarily because of all of the pro/anti grinding conversations we've had lately. But again yesterday, I was googling and came across a web page which talked about the moral disapproval aimed at Viennese waltz, when it was introduced and against tango, when it was introduced.


Then I saw a pattern. Am I imagining things? New dance form --> Moral outrage -->Eventual acceptance -->Homogenization -->New dance form. Of course, that's just me. I like seeing patterns where there may be none. :oops: :wink: :lol:

But, to you, is there a connection between the introduction of new dances and moral outrage, and , perhaps, societal change or advancement? What makes a dance socially acceptable or unacceptable? Are there some dances that will NEVER be okay? What transforms a dance from scandalous to laudable (e.g. VW)? Is this just another one of those inevitable social cycles? Does cultural background play a role? What's up?

[tasche]

I'm not opposed to grinding. What I am opposed to however is the forced intimacy that sometimes occurs when I guy tries to grind against you with out the usual social preludes.

However grinding is closer to sex that the VW

[pygmalion]

Good point, tasche. A LOT closer! LOL. :lol: :lol:

[Sakura]

However grinding is closer to sex that the VW

*snickers* Now all we have to do is put a grinding club on the moon. That way, when there are dancers grinding horrizontally, it becomes that much closer. :lol: :lol:

But, in all seriousness, to answer your question, Pygmalion, I think that the culture and time period bring quite a bit into whether a dance invokes moral outrage before leading to it's acceptance. I suppose it also depends on where the dance is introduced.

I believe VW started out as a folk dance, if I'm not mistaken; so obviously, to the people who invented it's first form, there would have been nothing wrong with it. Introducing it to other people may have been the problem; if no one had ever seen anything like the dance before, some people may have been offended by the lighthearted playfulness of it. (At least, that's what I get out of it from what I've seen of VW.)

As for AT, I think it goes without having to say anything that people would think it's moraly outrageous. :wink: :D

As for grinding; I think that while many of us here on DF may not like it, with everything we see or hear in all forms of media today, for most people, it's just there, and pretty accepted by the majority of the populous. That doesn't mean that there aren't those of us who aren't pleased with it as a "dance" form (not meaning to offend anyone who grinds with that), but for most people now, those who don't like it just don't do it.

*shrugs* That's just me... :oops: :oops: I hope I didn't bore anyone with that huge post! Although, if someone doesn't like reading my posts, I suppose they can just scroll down, ne? :) :twisted: Heh, heh... See you guys later!

Sakura Kitty :kitty:

[squirrel]

I think most people, as they gorw old, might have the tendency of becoming...a little narrow-minded... God, all I need is look at myself! I'm only 27 and I feel so old compared to the 18-year-old! And mind me, I don't look my age... and don't think my age either...
Still, teenagers have this weird way of thinking that I cannot quite understand... and the fashion they like... oh, Jesus! To me it's as foreign as wearing 1950 clothing!
About dancing: yes, as one form of dancing appears, people might reject it! I'm sure people rejected breakdance, hiphop, rave anything... it's just a reaction to the 'new'...

[Flat Shoes]

I think most people, as they gorw old, might have the tendency of becoming...a little narrow-minded...

Actually it's biological. It's like 'you can't teach an old dog new tricks' when people are around 30 they tend to be less open to new stuff.


God, all I need is look at myself! I'm only 27 and I feel so old compared to the 18-year-old!

I think of 18 year olds as mere children now. (I'm 31) On the other hand, I know a lot of people through dancing that are in their very early twenties. And I do feel at one with this crowd too. 8)


... and don't think my age either...

Noone does! :lol:



Still, teenagers have this weird way of thinking that I cannot quite understand... and the fashion they like... oh, Jesus! To me it's as foreign as wearing 1950 clothing!

Reminds me of good old Denis Leary:

Eighteen-year-old kid, head shaved, both ears pierced, both nostrils pierced, both eyebrows pierced, tattoos coming out of the arms. He's got baggy pants that start at the knees, and twenty-seven inches of underwear. What's that about? That's one of the basic rules we know about--the underwear goes inside the pants! That's why it's called Under-f***ing-wear.

I go by that today. Yes, I may wear UFO-pants now. Totally unthinkable a couple of years ago. But my underwear stays inside the pants. And that's were they gonna stay.

And what's with this fashion anyway? Teeneagers wanting to imitate fat plumbers at work? I don't get it! :roll: (Actually I do, it's about showing that you can afford Calvin Klein underwear or whatever is in these days. I'ts just about showing off brand names. :roll:)


About dancing: yes, as one form of dancing appears, people might reject it! I'm sure people rejected breakdance, hiphop, rave anything... it's just a reaction to the 'new'...

I used to roll on my eyes on break-dancing and hip-hop and all that stuff too. Denis Leary again, this time talking about his ideal bar:

And all we play is The Stones, 24 hours a day! That's all we're playin'. No house, no techno, no rave, no puff daddy, no f***in' puff the magic dragon or H & R Puffinstuff or chemical brothers or chemical sisters or cock or shock or rock pock and beats. No. No hip, prip, skip, chip, flip, f***ing hop, no! Stones, all the time.


But after dancing for a while I've come to appreacitate the athletism of hip hop and breaking much more, and I'm awed by some of the popping, locking, gliding stuff that some people are able to do. :shock:

About waltz. I remember reading/hearing about this somewhere. I think in the beginning they used some foot positions from ballet or something. The point is, they were dancing with their feet pointing outwards and in closed position this creates a rather interesting way of contact between the couple. So of course, there were reasonable grounds for a moral outcry! :lol:

[brujo]

Everything goes in cycles.

I hardly think that the grinding that goes on in clubs today is less risque than those naked people in the mud at Woodstock. There will always be young people out there having fun and conservative people with sticks up their asses. Swing, lambada, etc. It is completely harmless, but for some reason the fun slippery slope of morality always gets in the way of a good time...

[Sabor]

bottom line for me is dance and let dance .. i'd say.. if i dont have a taste for the way something is danced.. then i just look away to something i have a taste for.. that simple. :)

[Flat Shoes]

Everything goes in cycles.


How true. Today we've the outrageous ultra-wide hip hop pants. Back then, when swing was young, the crazy thing was the outrageous ultra-wide Zoot Suits.

And of course, a lot of swingsters today have their own Zoot for those dressing up occasions.

[Genesius Redux]

*snickers* Now all we have to do is put a grinding club on the moon. That way, when there are dancers grinding horrizontally, it becomes that much closer. :lol: :lol:

You're such a sweet and innocent girl. :lol: What in heaven's name makes you think you have to be horizontal? :wink:

[Genesius Redux]

And by the way, why on earth are people hung up on the idea of sex and morality anyway? For crine out loud, get over it!

[Sakura]

*snickers* Now all we have to do is put a grinding club on the moon. That way, when there are dancers grinding horrizontally, it becomes that much closer. :lol: :lol:

You're such a sweet and innocent girl. :lol: What in heaven's name makes you think you have to be horizontal? :wink:

*taps her nose* I have to make the conventionalists happy first, don't I?! *evil grin*

"You're such a sweet and innocent girl." :shock: *evil laughter* That's what *yoooouuu* think! :twisted: :lol: :twisted:


And by the way, why on earth are people hung up on the idea of sex and morality anyway? For crine out loud, get over it!

People are hung up on the idea because when it comes down to it, when all of the other topics of discussion have been discussed, apparently all that's left is sex! *shrugs* Couldn't tell you why... Maybe people are still fighting about Missionary vs. "Karma Sutra" (*Yes* I know it's really an actuall book, and not a book of sexual positions. :roll: )

'Sides, what's life without a little controversy, ne? :wink: People like you and I would be out of our "jobs" of poking fun at things like this! :D 8)

Sakura Kitty :kitty:

[DanceAm]

I spent 4 years overseas, mostly in Norway. I think American attitudes toward sex and the nude body are very immature. It took me a while to stop gawking at the big blonde bare breasted women on the beach, for those of you unfamilier, tops are optional on all beaches there for women. I think their evolved attitudes make for a more friendly society. In their movie rating system, Movies with extreame violence are not suitible for children and even banned altogether. "Total Recall" with Arnold Schwartzenegger was such a banned movie. But sex scenes, so long as they are not violent, are shown on TV, regular TV, not cable. Thinking that their ancestors were the Vikings, known for their warriors, this was a major turn-around for their country.

But they are a very friendly, patient group of people. I would say their society is very liberal. I found very little evidence of racism or malice toward anyone. I think I would decribe them as a mixture of a democracy with socialism. Not a dictatorship or communist state, just that their government is very involved with taking care of the people and for that, they are heavily taxed. I liked it and I liked them and I saw a country of people working for a better society.

It seems our attitudes toward sex in America lead to Strip clubs, Adult book stores, etc. Making the nude body and sex dirty I think creates closet pornographers out of us. I think this attitude makes people more obsessed about sex rather than relaxed about it. If you compare our shooting and violent crime rates, including rape, you will see we are backwards in our thinking. Rape is actually a crime of violence, not sex. If we adopt a similar attitude, violence is bad, sex is natural, I think we will have a better society.

I think America'a attitude grows from our priority on the "Family". Infidelity is a leading reason for divorce, and I have no information on that for Norway, in fact, I don't know what their divorce rate is. But I would speculate that it has very little to do with domestic violence over there. Trying to control sex in America, especially since the Janet Jackson thing, must make the other developed countries think we are confused or obsessed about something so trivial. But being moral in America is about monogamy and fidelity, but try to enforce gun control and people go crazy.

I love my country and I love their country. I love their relaxed nature. And I love the choices we have in America. It is hard to have the best of both. If your thinking if I love it so much why don't I move there, well, I would move there and want to become a citizen except for 1 thing, I froze my a$$ off over there, 9 months of winter is too much. I think North Dakota is beautiful, but I won't live there either.

[SDsalsaguy]

I've never been to Norway but have spent some time in both Sweden and Denmark with very simillar expereinces to what you describe. I find the socail attitudes and social egalitarianism much more enlightened on the whole and, like you, might consider moving if not for the temperatures... brrrr!

[Genesius Redux]

Maybe people are still fighting about Missionary vs. "Karma Sutra" (*Yes* I know it's really an actuall book, and not a book of sexual positions. :roll: )

:lol: It's actually very much a book about sexual techniques, not just positions--it would be good to see it posted in the Supreme Court, but I believe in the separation of Church and State. When we first moved to Nashville, and we didn't have any money or jobs, my ex worked for Vandy Temp Services. One of the things they gave her to do was read for blind students.

Well, one of those blind students was taking a comparative religion course, and so my ex was reading passages out of the Kama sutra on tape for this guy she'd never met! :lol:

It's a living.... :roll:

And that's all the discussion I'm going to have about the Kama sutra with a 16 year old girl. Ask me again in a few years. Meanwhile, go watch Pocahontas. :wink:

[mhgroove]

I spent 4 years overseas, mostly in Norway. I think American attitudes toward sex and the nude body are very immature. It took me a while to stop gawking at the big blonde bare breasted women on the beach, for those of you unfamilier, tops are optional on all beaches there for women. I think their evolved attitudes make for a more friendly society. In their movie rating system, Movies with extreame violence are not suitible for children and even banned altogether. "Total Recall" with Arnold Schwartzenegger was such a banned movie. But sex scenes, so long as they are not violent, are shown on TV, regular TV, not cable. Thinking that their ancestors were the Vikings, known for their warriors, this was a major turn-around for their country.

But they are a very friendly, patient group of people. I would say their society is very liberal. I found very little evidence of racism or malice toward anyone. I think I would decribe them as a mixture of a democracy with socialism. Not a dictatorship or communist state, just that their government is very involved with taking care of the people and for that, they are heavily taxed. I liked it and I liked them and I saw a country of people working for a better society.

It seems our attitudes toward sex in America lead to Strip clubs, Adult book stores, etc. Making the nude body and sex dirty I think creates closet pornographers out of us. I think this attitude makes people more obsessed about sex rather than relaxed about it. If you compare our shooting and violent crime rates, including rape, you will see we are backwards in our thinking. Rape is actually a crime of violence, not sex. If we adopt a similar attitude, violence is bad, sex is natural, I think we will have a better society.

I think America'a attitude grows from our priority on the "Family". Infidelity is a leading reason for divorce, and I have no information on that for Norway, in fact, I don't know what their divorce rate is. But I would speculate that it has very little to do with domestic violence over there. Trying to control sex in America, especially since the Janet Jackson thing, must make the other developed countries think we are confused or obsessed about something so trivial. But being moral in America is about monogamy and fidelity, but try to enforce gun control and people go crazy.

I love my country and I love their country. I love their relaxed nature. And I love the choices we have in America. It is hard to have the best of both. If your thinking if I love it so much why don't I move there, well, I would move there and want to become a citizen except for 1 thing, I froze my a$$ off over there, 9 months of winter is too much. I think North Dakota is beautiful, but I won't live there either.


Dance Am,

You bring up some very interesting points...but your overgeneralization of American culture about sex is the same rhetoric I hear from liberals all the time.

I will agree with you that American culture isn't (evolved) as the European Culture regarding sex & nudity. I must admit I'm conversative & a Christian. But there's a time and place for sex & nudity. Those things are adult in context and should be done and shown in the proper time. I don't need to see a nude body or woman's breast on regular tv in the middle of the afternoon or on the beach in the daytime just to say I'm evolved. That's what most liberals miss in the entire Janet Jackson-Super Bowl Fiasco. As a man, I have no problem seeing her breast. But that was not the proper time or place. It's actually okay to have some modesty and decorum with sex & nudity.

I believe sex is still one of the most powerful activities the human beings can do with one another. I know our society regards sex as less important these days. It's just something to do...which does bother me quite a bit. That's another discussion for another day!

Also, men are visual creatures. Men love to look at women! So I believe pornography would still exist in a so-called evolved, liberated society like Norway. Even as a Christian, I love to look at a shapely, voluptuous woman. That won't change..but again there's proper time and place for it.

Sex & nudity are natural but there is a proper context and place for it and so called enlightened or evolved attitudes or behaviors is definitely not the answer.

Furthermore, I completely disagree with being heavily taxed especially when you have work for living. People should have more their money that they worked for. That's also another subject for another day!

Pygmalion, I apologize for getting off-topic from your post. But I don't like American culture being attacked because it's not evolved enough or liberal enough. I will respond directly to your post later. Because dancing & morality is an important issue to me as a Christian!

[pygmalion]

Actually, mhgroove, both you and DanceAm do bring up some very interesting perspectives. 8)

Hmm. I really wish I remembered what the topic of this thread was, though. :oops: I think it was something to do with whether people's disapproval of new dance forms is just a normal, predictable reaction that has been repeated throughout history. (Or something to that effect. LOL.) Anybody have thoughts on that?

[d nice]

*shakes head*

There was no attack, just an honest comparison.

[jon]

At risk of putting words in DanceAm's mouth, I think part of the point is that in a culture which doesn't suppress sexuality so much as ours, it is less likely that sexuality can or will be used to shock and surprise.

IOTW there is a "proper time and place", and that's not during a musical performance on prime time TV - and the only reason it happened that way was exactly because a lot of people would be put off by it and a lot of media attention would be had. I shouldn't be surprised if fading celebrities in western Europe get attention through means which are equally shocking in their culture.

[pygmalion]

Okay. So here's the deal. I'm going to change the title of this thread from "Dancing and Morality" to "Dancing and Moral Outrage," since that's what I'd actually intended to discuss.

And good point, jon. I'm quite sure there are some things in European societies that would elicit a similar reaction to the Janet incident. (btw, have you heard anything from her new CD? No wonder she felt the need to create some publicity for herself. The album is well ... not a favorite of mine to say the least. :shock: :lol: :lol: )

[rails]

I think America'a attitude (about sex) grows from our priority on the "Family".

Nah, it comes from our cultural predecessors, the puritans. But I digress. I think pygmalion is dead on. And Sakura, didn't pretty much every popular dance start out as a "folk" dance later adopted by the upper and middle classes over the objections of the church and one's elders?

Here are a few excerpts on Waltz that I found just now looking around on the Web. Pretty entertaining stuff. It's funny that nowadays a lot of people think of Waltz as some stuffy, boring dance. I'm a beginner, but it seems like a lot of fun to me. The cavorting and sin stuff I just read just makes it even better. I gotta make the Friday night Waltz in a few days.

In July of 1816, the waltz was included in a ball given in London by the Prince Regent. A blistering editorial in The Times a few days later stated:

"We remarked with pain that the indecent foreign dance called the Waltz was introduced (we believe for the first time) at the English court on Friday last ... it is quite sufficient to cast one's eyes on the voluptuous intertwining of the limbs and close compressure on the bodies in their dance, to see that it is indeed far removed from the modest reserve which has hitherto been considered distinctive of English females. So long as this obscene display was confined to prostitutes and adulteresses, we did not think it deserving of notice; but now that it is attempted to be forced on the respectable classes of society by the civil examples of their superiors, we feel it a duty to warn every parent against exposing his daughter to so fatal a contagion."

Even as late as 1866 an article in the English magazine Belgravia stated:

"We who go forth of nights and see without the slightest discomposure our sister and our wife seized on by a strange man and subjected to violent embraces and canterings round a small-sized apartment - the only apparent excuse for such treatment being that is done to the sound of music - can scarcely realize the horror which greeted the introduction of this wicked dance."

In 1787, Johann Count Fekete described a ball which included waltzing: "It was wild and immoral. The women behaved in a Bacchanalian manner, all innocence fled from the place." And the Duke of Devonshire declared unequivocally: "I would never marry a woman who dances the waltz!"

The waltz as we know it today, was the first unquestionable closed couple dance done in aristocracy with all the other dances before being open dances (no embrace.) The waltz was considered very "scandalous," for the dancers did an embrace and held each other so close that their bodies and even faces touched while they danced. The women were thrown around exuberantly (Adagio type) which at the time was "Immoral and Sinful."

Decrees were issued forbidding "all gliding and turning," posting public ordinances, which read:
1) "Both men and women must be dressed decently for the waltz."
2) "No man might dance in breeches and doublet without a coat."
3) "Women and girls must not be thrown about."

--- Dancing was forbidden under Puritan decree (and others) among the settlers. As an instance, the Bishops of Wurzburg and Fulda forbade the waltz and prohibited it being danced in 1760. Noblemen ultimately started building private ballrooms in their houses to circumvent the demoralized situation, they had sequestered balls with only nobility and the best dancers attending, thus adding to its zeal. Even up to the early 1900's, the dance was scrutinized, In Zorn's book (1905) he explains the waltz hold, "Never place your arm around the ladies waist and do not raise his left arm so high as it causes her arm to go around him."

T. A. Faulkner, a converted dance master, took careful census of two hundred prostitutes in Los Angeles, and found that one hundred and sixty-three attributed their fall to the dance and the ballroom; twenty to drink given by their parents, ten to willful choice; and seven to poverty and want. Bishop Spaiding of New York said that 19 out of 20 fallen women stated that their fall came through dancing. A great educator has said, "the dance hall is the nursery of the divorce court, the training shop of prostitutes, and the grade school of infamy" ("Word and Work" P. 67—March 1949). And the same source quotes the "Reader's Digest" Oct. 1937, wherein Galit Burgess stated; "To my satirical eye dancing is the most ludicrous and soul exposing activity in life. The poses, the movements, and expressions reveal as nothing else a person’s vanity and passion, just as plainly in the Waltz as in the ceremonial cavorting of savages. It's a sort of X-ray movie of the subconscious self. Everything that is primitive and innate comes to the surface for all to see”.

[squirrel]

We have a lot of Puritans here... hypocrits if you ask me... do it, but don't talk about it or don't show it! that's their motto! don't get me wrong, there's a place and a time for everything, but...

for instance, we have this 'Big Brother' show on TV and some people (guy and girl) had sex one night... nothing obviously shown... blurred and in the dark, you know... but everybody was outraged! wow! live sex on TV! at prime time! but they forgot they saw 'Basic Instinct' at the same hour, and the sex in the TV show was nowhere near the sex scenes in Basic Instinct... yes, Basic Instinct is a movie, but... CAN KIDS MAKE THE DIFFERENCE? 'cause the fact that kids watched it was the main issue... don't let your kids watch it, I say...

Sex is private, but not shameful! why should I be ashamed of doing it? not in public, of course, but... I can talk about it, right? it's natural and normal!

I think the moral outrage against dancing has to do with its being connected (in people's mind) to sex... dancers are considered 'easy' most of the time... maybe we should change the way we think, but HOW?

I don't think the same about dancing... I don't think dancers are less moral than other people... and I talk about sex if I feel like it (and I usually do :twisted: :lol: ) ... but this is who I am...

[pygmalion]

Hmm. This thread is going to make for an interesting Tuesday, I see. 8)

Isn't that always the way, though? Sex and nudity have always been hot button issues. The people who take a more conservative approach are labelled puritanical. The people with a more liberal approach are labelled immoral. Eh. I guess people have the right to come down wherever they want, on that issue, and they will.

Here's a question. What about the reaction to newer, suggestive forms of dance in Europe today? Like, for example, do people grind there? What's the feeling on the street about grinding? Historically, as rails' post points out, there was quite a bit of backlash against dances perceived to be suggestive. How about now?

[DanceAm]

I am glad that someone took a contridictory view of what I said. And I have heard the dancing seen at clubs with the "Freakin" going on, termed as pornographic. And this was stated by Ballroom dancers. So everyone has their level of morality as well as what they consider pornographic.

I actually don't think Janet Jackson's breast during a stage show to be out of place. I have seen much more skin in stage shows and considered it art and I have seen stage shows where everyone was fully clothed and considered it offensive. It was not the breast that I found unsuitable for a prime time audience. Little kids on Norwegian beaches didn't seem to care about all the bare breasts exposed on the first warm days of summer. They played in the sand or in the water just like American kids do at the beach. It is a breast, and it shocked the hell out of just about everyone. Yet no one seemed to be complaining about the lyrics, the type of dancing going on and there was very little even mentioned that her clothes were ripped off of her. That would be the act that would probably offend the Norwegians as it was demeaning toward women. The act of even pretending to rip off her clothes, dancers grinding in a sexual position and the lyrics of the song were all enough to keep it out of Prime Time Network TV, but OH MY GOSH, a breast, that's going too far. For all I care, start showing Marching Bands at half time again, let's stay with tradition.

I am not apoligetic of my views, I don't consider myself immoral and the way I live my life, you would think I was very conservitive. I don't cheat on my wife, I don't drive drunk, and I expect my son to respect not just me, but everyone. I say thank you and your welcome many times throughout the day and I don't have a stash of X-rated videos hidden in a closet. From an objective point of view, my life looks boring. Ballroom dancing with my wife is about as dirty as it gets in public, and for the Bible Belt, that might be enough to keep me out of heaven. But because I choose to live my life in a conservitive manner doesn't mean I think public display of breasts is pornographic or immoral. And dancing fads, however distastful, will pass quicker if we don't make a big deal out of it. I don't think the pictures in a Victoria Secret catalogue are that different from a Playboy, but I do see a difference between those and a Hustler magazine. But as it has been argued by the Supreme Court, we are just talking levels of taste.

So to bring this back on topic, Freakin, grinding and pretending to have sex like animals may be a dance craze just as the V-Waltz was, but I am going to go out on a limb and say it won't ever become a Sanctioned dance and you will never see it at Blackpool. I would venture to say it will go the way of the Twist and the Macarena. However, that Electric Slide sure is popular still down here in the South along with clogging and two-stepping. It is hard to say what will happen to those dances.

By the way, I am a Christian, and so are many Scandinavians and Europeans. Try not to talk for all of us when it comes to your views of morality. I believe lust and adultery are wrong, and those temptations are there whether you are in your Victoria Secret underwear, a Latin costume or latin pants or fully clothed in a nice Sunday dress. And my impressions of the Puritians were violent, saddistic and cruel. And if we truely founded our country on their principles, no one would be outraged over the treatment of prisoners in Iraq. I am outraged over the beheading of one of our civilians just as I was over OJ Simpson getting off scott free, but I am an American and I have to believe that even though our system is not perfect, it is the best, and we have evolved as a society and no longer subscribe to the "Eye for and eye" (not every state anyway), but that justice will prevail within our system and we value human life and ethical treatment of others regardless of how they treat us.

[Genesius Redux]

I believe all dance should naturally lead to the Hieros Gamos celebration.

[tsb]

I've never been to Norway but have spent some time in both Sweden and Denmark with very simillar expereinces to what you describe. I find the socail attitudes and social egalitarianism much more enlightened on the whole and, like you, might consider moving if not for the temperatures... brrrr!

i understand the suicide rate in sweden is actually quite high. this does not indicate such a utopia to me.

i believe one of the factors that contibutes to our situation today vs. in the past is that nowadays less people believe in right & wrong in an absolute sense. in today's society we still follow rules and observe conventions, but i suspect that a growing majority do so because they get a payback of some sort or fear the adverse consequences rather than because of an inner sense that it is the right thing to do. outrage by definition is an emotion that comes from a sense that something wrong has taken place.
if there is less of a sense of right vs. wrong, there will be a correspondingly smaller sense of outrage.

[tsb]

...but I believe in the separation of Church and State.

is anyone familiar with the actual text that this comes from? it's in the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

the way i read it, this says that while congress may not force anyone to adopt a national religion (which i see as a consequence of being a british colony and a response to the imposition of the anglican church), congress also should not prevent anyone from worshipping as they sees fit. but there's an implication that everyone would worship - which is no longer true. so only half of this part of the 1st amendment is actually enforced; as written it implies 'freedom of religion', the way it's currently enforced it actually means 'freedom FROM religion' - which actually makes NOT worshipping the national religion in the US. so what is described as tolerance (from the perspective of non-worshippers) is actually intolerance for those who do worship some sort of deity. ironically, while it think that the founding fathers would be appalled to see how this text is now currently interpreted, i don't think they'd try to change things because the beliefs they held allowed for non-belief even though non-belief would create conflict for those who did (believe).

i do want to make this distinction, i do not advocate a return to 'traditional' values, - at least, not for the general reasons put forth by others. chesterton put it this way:


"Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead."


chesterton goes on to say:


"Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man's opinion, even if he is our father."


i do think we should hold onto our customs though, traditions are generally selfish, while customs are generally unselfish (i think chesterton said this also).
so

[pygmalion]

Oh, tsb, I would have loved to have you in my sophomore year political philosophy classes! So much fun. 8)

[Pacion]

I think most people, as they gorw old, might have the tendency of becoming...a little narrow-minded...

I guess I must have been an "old" teenage then as I never cared for what I would call "grinding", "wining", "gyrating", or "rent-a-tile" :oops: unless it was with the boyfriend/SO :oops: :lol:

[Genesius Redux]

...but I believe in the separation of Church and State.

Not in this thread he didn't. I have to run off to my show, but maybe by tomorrow I'll figure out why I care about whether anyone finds dancing morally outrageous.

Cheers,

Genesius

[pygmalion]

:lol: :lol:

[Pacion]

:nope: GR and Pygmalion

[Adwiz]

the way it's currently enforced it actually means 'freedom FROM religion' - which actually makes NOT worshipping the national religion in the US. so what is described as tolerance (from the perspective of non-worshippers) is actually intolerance for those who do worship some sort of deity.

Exactly what's happening. Nicely put. There is now an official religion of amorality. It's labelled as tolerance but anyone who has other views is ostracized and called intolerant. People claim that there is no right and wrong, unless the other person has a moral or faith-based viewpoint, in which case they are viewed as wrong. It's pretty illogical.

The church (as a general institution) has demonstrated various extremes in the past, so I can understand why there is a cultural backlash. Dance is no exception.

My Standard coach was talking about the church's opposition to the Tango when it first appeared on the scene. People were morally outraged and anyone caught dancing the Tango could be expelled from the church. It was viewed as much too erotic and the contact too sexually explicit. When we look at it today we laugh at those kinds of ideas because we know that while one could look at Tango and see sexually suggestive movements, those dancing it don't feel anything sexual. It's dance. The morality of dance, provided the dancers are clothed, is entirely in the mind of the observer. Makes me wonder how dirty the minds were of those who opposed it.

[tsb]

Oh, tsb, I would have loved to have you in my sophomore year political philosophy classes! So much fun. 8)

i can just see it - me against the rest of the class AND the professor. :P

[tsb]

...but I believe in the separation of Church and State.

Not in this thread he didn't.


sorry, but who is 'he' here?

p.s. sounds like dr. seuss



I have to run off to my show, but maybe by tomorrow I'll figure out why I care about whether anyone finds dancing morally outrageous.

Cheers,

Genesius

[pygmalion]

Oh, tsb, I would have loved to have you in my sophomore year political philosophy classes! So much fun. 8)

i can just see it - me against the rest of the class AND the professor. :P

LOL. Nope. It was ME against them -- a group of whitebread, privileged kids. I don't think they'll forget me anytime soon. LOL!

[tsb]

the way it's currently enforced it actually means 'freedom FROM religion' - which actually makes NOT worshipping the national religion in the US. so what is described as tolerance (from the perspective of non-worshippers) is actually intolerance for those who do worship some sort of deity.

Exactly what's happening. Nicely put. There is now an official religion of amorality. It's labelled as tolerance but anyone who has other views is ostracized and called intolerant. People claim that there is no right and wrong, unless the other person has a moral or faith-based viewpoint, in which case they are viewed as wrong. It's pretty illogical.

The church (as a general institution) has demonstrated various extremes in the past, so I can understand why there is a cultural backlash. Dance is no exception.

My Standard coach was talking about the church's opposition to the Tango when it first appeared on the scene. People were morally outraged and anyone caught dancing the Tango could be expelled from the church. It was viewed as much too erotic and the contact too sexually explicit. When we look at it today we laugh at those kinds of ideas because we know that while one could look at Tango and see sexually suggestive movements, those dancing it don't feel anything sexual. It's dance. The morality of dance, provided the dancers are clothed, is entirely in the mind of the observer. Makes me wonder how dirty the minds were of those who opposed it.

i can't speak for other faiths, but within christianity there is a concept of liberties, with the recognition that some may attribute sort of wrongdoing to a morally neutral act, and out of love those of 'weaker' faith should be accomodated by refraining from certain activities and behaviors that may affect that 'weaker' person ability to follow their faith - even though there may be no actual wrongdoing involved were those activities or behaviors to be performed. the actual situation was that people were eating meat that has been sacrificed to idols. it was quality meat, and probably a bargain financially. but to those who left an idol-worshipping background and changed faiths they could not dissociate the idol-worship from the piece of meat because it was a reminder of a wrongdoing in their past they wanted to repudiate.

my take is that everyone of (a) faith/belief system has a general & natural responsibility to minimize contact with things (or people) that affect their own ability to worship. for each person, certain otherwise morally neutral things will have an impact based on their personal makeup and upbringing. unfortunately, what has happened in the interpretation of this principle is that those who are 'weaker' in this regard have turned their weakness into a position of strength by holding others emotional hostage with their own distress. but to be fair, there will always be some folks who will be in denial about what adversely affects their faith. in these cases, i can understand a stronger response from those who share that faith.

[tsb]

Oh, tsb, I would have loved to have you in my sophomore year political philosophy classes! So much fun. 8)

i can just see it - me against the rest of the class AND the professor. :P

LOL. Nope. It was ME against them -- a group of whitebread, privileged kids. I don't think they'll forget me anytime soon. LOL!

two minorites banded together against the common enemy. unfortunately, back in college all i was, was angry & incoherent.

[pygmalion]

Oh Lordie! What a complicated situation I've created. :oops: :( This thread was never intended to be about religious beliefs, but about people's negative reactions to new dances.

That said, tsb, based on what I've been taught and have understood, there are few absolute "rules." Instead, many things are dictated by conscience, dance included. And, as I see it, it's up to each person to decide how their conscience meshes with their dancing.

[Genesius Redux]

...but I believe in the separation of Church and State.

Not in this thread he didn't. I have to run off to my show, but maybe by tomorrow I'll figure out why I care about whether anyone finds dancing morally outrageous.

Cheers,

Genesius

Well, it appears that I did write it on this thread--though the absence of context makes it rather difficult for me to recognize myself.

On the subject of which, I shall refer only to one of my favorite writers, Jonathan Swift.

Readers may be divided into three classes, the superficial, the ignorant, and the learned: and I have with much felicity fitted my pen to the genius and advantage of each. The superficial reader will be strangely provoked to laughter; which clears the breast and the lungs, is sovereign against the spleen, and the most innocent of all diuretics. The ignorant reader (between whom and the former the distinction is extremely nice) will find himself disposed to stare; which is an admirable remedy for ill eyes, serves to raise and enliven the spirits, and wonderfully helps perspiration. But the reader truly learned, chiefly for whose benefit I wake when others sleep, and sleep when others wake, will here find sufficient matter to employ his speculations for the rest of his life.

Or as Pope writes of the fruitless efforts of wrangling editors and booksellers to grasp the authors they would control in The Dunciad:

So Proteus, hunted in a nobler shape,
Became, when seiz'd, a puppy, or an ape.

Cheers,

Genesius

[SDsalsaguy]

i understand the suicide rate in sweden is actually quite high. this does not indicate such a utopia to me.
tsb, I never declared it utopic. More to the point, the suicide rates are predominantly linked to climatic considerations.

[tsb]

i understand the suicide rate in sweden is actually quite high. this does not indicate such a utopia to me.
tsb, I never declared it utopic.

you're right. you didn't. and you qualified your enthusiasm by noting the weather.


More to the point, the suicide rates are predominantly linked to climatic considerations.

there's definitely an inverse correlation between sunlight & levels of depression. the inuit (eskimo) also experience a high suicide rate. there's an interesting article here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1048958/posts

one point being that young native alaskans (eskimos) are now turning to dance to deal with their depression.

[DanceAm]

I think that anything new is met with critisizm and when not fully understood is pre-judged by on-lookers. So when the V-Waltz and the Tango were new and different those who looked at it judged it to lack any value or qualities. Because of their lack of understanding, it must also be sinful or immoral because all they saw were hips too close for anything else but sex.

Fads will die out and anything with true artistic value will continue. But the dances we see young people doing might someday be considered art forms, but I doubt any formal art form will come of it. In fact, the dancing appears to have historical roots in pagen fertility rituals, and my always be with us. In the movie Dirty Dancing, it was suggested that this type of dancing was going on at private parties in basements, the difference, most couples were facing each other, not the same direction as it is seen today. That was almost 20 years ago. What we might actually be talking about is youth rebellion. Young people testing the waters with louder more profane music and dance than their parents had. Which is rather funny because Rap means to talk, which is descriptive but not bad and Hip Hop sounds like a child's game, does anyone know if it has a root meaning that is bad? Rock and Roll is slang for having sex, most slang for sex is not fit to print on this board, but Rock and Roll was started in my mother's generation. I think she knew what "Rock and Roll" really meant, but did her parents?

Our outrage may be because of religious beliefs, upbringing, sense of morality, and all of us have different views. I believe kids will be kids and this dancing they do will not lead to the moral decay of society, because society was never that moral. Before the 60's, racism was legal and inhumane treatment of minorities was ignored, before the 70's, women were the oppressed "Majority", lower pay and limited opportunity for women was also legal. Before the Birth Control Pill, they estimated that 40% of marriages were due the woman getting pregnant. (Shotgun Weddings) So the good old days were not that good and TV and Radio were not obvious but they used innuendo. A line from a common foxtrot comes to mind "Your lips burning mine", when you think about it, these two are about to have some real hot wild sex. It only takes a little imagination to see what is about to happen.

I think each teenage generation gets older and finds that shocking their parents isn't fun anymore and they have to think about serious things like getting a good job and being a responsible husband, wife, parent. Then they have to deal with the wild decadant youth they bore. Being the father of an 18 year old, by not forcing every opinion I have on him, he has matured on his own to see right from wrong and form his own opinions. Some of which I don't agree with, but I understand that he is not just reacting to an emotional feeling, but has really thought about what he believes and knows why. This from a child that I had my doubts about, and what parent doesn't, but I believe that he will be leader in our society and I see a good future in store for all of us.

I hope everyone sees that this is a natural continous cycle of life and if you don't like what you see at clubs, stop going. All I know is when I go to a club, no one goes up to the people "Freakin" and let's them know what great dancers they are like they do to my wife and I. Those who sit in admiration at our Cha Cha and Samba to some of today's new music don't laugh at us like they do at the couple getting down and dirty to the same song. But a couple of good hip-hoppers can steal the show for a while, because what they are doing looks good, it shows that it takes practice, timing and athletic ability, just like our dancing does. My recommendation is that we take a deep breath, exhale slowly and relax a bit. This dancing is not that different from when the V-Waltz or Tango started, it is still two clothed individuals rubbing their bodies together to music. Maybe when the English get a hold of it, they will create and sanction a new dance style, break it down into patterns, structure it and by the time they get through with it, it will look nothing like the original dance. But dance teachers will make a lot of money teaching it.