Discussion in 'Salsa' started by thespina13, Jul 21, 2006.
i was temporarily afflicted by ADD when i wrote that
There were plenty of interesting insults in this thread, but I vote the above-quoted one as the most clever -- another way of saying, "you can't be as dumb as you sound." I'm going to have to use that on somebody sometime.
By the way, for the folks getting in a huff about the "pearls" and "swine" -- the phrase "casting pearls before swine" is a fairly common figure of speech here in the United States. I think it even derives from some passage in the Bible. I don't think anybody was actually calling anybody else a "swine" in this forum.
Does one need another person to be, act, feel sexual?
Oh yes, I did go there.....:twisted:
Ok, I apologize if I gave the impression that I was actually taking all posts seriously when I had actually dismissed some posters' merit a long time ago, possibly even prior to this thread, thus wasting mine and everyone else' time. no smilies. glad we all see eye to eye now
Really? Read a bit through the posts above and below. Apparently some people cannot take it when their "values" differ from the rest of the people's.
Sexuality and dance are intertwined (I hope this is the correct spelling). Dance has been used for mating ever since the beginning of times (some species, including MAN, are still using it). Of course, now we pretend to have "de-sexualized" it (yes, I have used the word again) and are offended if someone is attracted to us and wants to dance with us.
I do not mean groping, I just refer to ATTRACTION. Why does it have to be reduced to some "dirty pig" copping a quick feel??? It might not be mutual, of course. But let me ask you this, as I am sure nobody here dances with the intention of satisfying briefly his/her sex needs: how many times did you feel attraction for someone which was not mutual? Maybe I don't know how to express what I think, but, from my experience (both first hand and shared by friends) attraction is mutual.
Again, I don't take into consideration the frustrated people who would do just about anything to get their hands on somebody of the opposite sex. I mean people who are satisfied about their lives (more or less) and are not desperate to "mate". Attraction happens whether you are or are not in a relationship, whether you welcome it or not. And it is not reduced to the dance world. It is everywhere around us, when a man looks at a woman.
Edie the Salsa Freak said it in one of her interviews: people dance mostly TO MEET PEOPLE! To be around them, socialise and have fun and yes, sometimes have sex. In this world, which is more and more "de-humanised", which uses EMAIL as a means of communication instead of the phone call (or personal meeting), which more or less encourages us to be enstranged from our fellow men, we need dancing.
In my country, it is not so bad. We still communicate, see our friends and families. We still know our neighbours and knock on their door if we need anything. I talk to my family almost daily. I have to visit them once a week. If he could, my dad would have me live with them still (I'm 30) and go on vacation as we used to when I was 10. I can DEPEND on them from many points of view. I can ask for material support or soul "healing".
So maybe this is why here we still dance "sexually" as thespina wants. We express our bodies and use them to flirt and mock the opposite sex. We sometimes do moves for which some of the people in this thread would slap us. But we DO it. And are neither ashamed nor afraid to.
Hope I made some sense above (I am tired...).
Actually, I've felt that one-sided attraction lots of times (more times than my poor heart wishes to count ). Hasn't the concept of "unrequited love" been a theme in stories throughout recorded human history? Aren't there even plenty of Salsa songs about it?
I guess I'm one of those people who doesn't think that sexuality is necessary for a satisfactory dance. The vast majority of the time, my desire to dance starts with the music. After the music gives me that impulse, then I try to adjust my movements to whichever partner I happen to find. By the way, I also start with the presumption that any new partner does not find me attractive. I do safe moves and then progress to whatever extent the situation warrants. If my partner is attractive to me, then the moves probably reflect that; however, if I don't have any attraction to my partner, the moves might be different -- but I can still come up with a satisfying dance.
Social conventions have made it such that I only think about partner dancing with women. However, I've been part of dance routines with all males in them, without feeling any "sexual tension" towards the other men. I can dance by myself at home without necessarily needing sexual tension, either. For some of us, dancing really is primarily about oneself and the music. Obviously, it's very nice to have a partner for the socialization aspect of dancing -- but sexuality doesn't have to be a part of it.
I'm far from a "puritan" in my social views, but I simply don't need attraction or sexual tension to have a satisfying dance. It's more like icing on the cake, instead of the cake itself.
Actually you've just joined the bandwagon. The idea was not whether we need it or not to have a satisfying dance, but whether it is better when it's present.
Let's face it, aside from water and food, I don't really NEED anything. But I want plenty of other things.
Huh? Look again. I was basing my comment on previous ones like these, which appeared to make sexuality a basic element of Salsa-dancing satisfaction:
ugh. To paraphrase WC Fields... I once lost my corkscrew and had to survive on nothing but food and water for a week. It was an experience to be avoided.
Yeah, for SOME!!!! Highlight the parts that support your objection and leave out all the qualifiers? Come on. No matter how moderate and fair I try to be, we still get disagreements and misinterpretation. Arguing that for SOME PEOPLE, salsa SHOULD NOT be a basic element of satisfaction is like saying for some of you, dancing SHOULD NOT be about oneself or primarily the music. Which is utterly ridiculous. For some of us, there is simply a different focus on another aspect of the dance. We just weigh the different motivations differently.
Wheeee! The slump is over. For now. Last night I had a great mix of fun, friendship, challenge, ease, sexiness and classiness. i danced with a guy that looked and moved like a ballet dancer, I danced with someone straight from Cuba and had only moved here recently, I danced with a very challenging LA guy who usually has me tied in knots, but with whom, last night, I was keeping up. The great part about all of it was how different each dance was, how totally relaxed I was, and how much joy I was feeling. On fire. And the guy from cuba was sexy. Oh yeah. In this beautiful, subtle way. It tipped the night over the top. The dancing we pulled out was amazing, and not really in very close, overt contact. We kept a polite distance, but there was just that zing between us. It was a great way to put that icing on the cake.
Yeah, without it I would have had a very fun night. But with it, it was over the top. That's what I was missing so much. Just a sense that I'd really caused some electricity. I read it as tension or something, but it really was just great dancing, and the surprise of connecting so unexpectedly with someone neither of us knew at all. And being impressed with one another on a more raw sort of level. Which, yes, is nice.
Apparently now I need to tell you to "look again" also. When did I ever say sexuality "should not" be a part of satisfaction?
My only point was that it is not a necessary element for me, even though it apparently is a necessary element for other people.
Sorry. It sounded general to me. I must have been getting habitually defensive. It's become automatic reaction on this thread
Separate names with a comma.