opendoor
Forum Master
I saw so many partnerships break up in tango. But never out of jealousy. Very often envyness is a reason.
Having problems with my wife dancing with other men
- Thread starter Improvisedsteps
- Start date
Thanks, @Tangogal. You're right about society and scandal of course, but this is about personal relationship. As it happens, my girlfriend was once in a previous relationship in which her then-SO was big on kizomba, which she however hated him dancing with other women, on account of its being "overly and overtly sexualised" as you put it. (They eventually split up for unrelated reasons.) So she empathises with me, and we recognise we're not terribly far apart on that sensitivity spectrum. This is why someone else's fixation here with "validation" is irrelevant to me. And again and again: the issue is not one of fear or projection into the future, i.e. fear that the dance/s could lead to something else, like an affair. (We are both secure in the knowledge that neither of us would have an affair.) The issue is that the dance itself is too much, i.e. too "overly and overtly sexualised".
Per the above, my lady feels bachata is OK but kizomba is too far; I feel salsa is OK but bachata is too far. It's a question of degree, and of individual feelings of propriety. That's what I've been exploring, and why I'm trying to deepen my understanding. Now, I realise this thread was originally about TA, and I have no knowledge of that particular dance and how much it fires up that sense of propriety in dancers and their SOs. But -- considering that I stumbled upon an old thread and then thanked a particular insightful & empathetic poster -- engaging in conversation here has been an education..!
opendoor
Forum Master
Such a statement is not moralizing. We can't argue about taste and preferences.
But bachata is also a broad field. You don't have to dance b. sensual, there also is b. dominicana.
Tango can also be danced in a number of different ways. We immediately show female newcomers how to control the tightness of the dance hold. But depending on the music you can dance tango also half-open or completely open. It's never the dance itself, it's always the people's preferences.
TTanguero
Forum Master
Perhaps you are, but your thread exists within the context of the least secure people being the most vocal about how secure they are, so you shouldn't be surprised when people are unpersuaded of this.
This is fatuous stuff. I have already plainly repeated what my issue is, and what I am exploring etc. And yet you are unpersuaded that my issue is not a different one.
(If my issue was about affair insecurity, why wouldn't I say so here, and make that the discussion point?)
This is helpful context. But it does raise as many questions as it answers.
I can easily see how the dance being "too sexualized" makes you not want to dance it yourself. I don't care for sensual bachata for that very reason--it asks for a mode of expression that doesn't suit my personality very well.
But I don't understand the last part of the thought: it is too sexualized for me, therefore my SO should not do it.
There is simply no logical connection. And if we rule out possessive jealousy, the only possible justification I can imagine is that it is somehow inherently immoral for *anyone* to express sexuality that way. In which case, a dance forum is indeed the very last place you will find any agreement.
Last edited:
JournalInTime
Forum Master
Yes, that's the part that keeps making my head hurt whenever I return to this thread. I quite sincerely see no difference between:
A. "Crop-tops that show bellybutton, tight jeans that show thong, the thong itself, and very high heels are too sexualized for me; therefore, my SO shouldn't dress like that."
and:
B. "Argentine tango is too sexualized for me; therefore, my SO shouldn't dance it."
Statement A is practically one of the litmus tests for controlling and emotionally abusive relationships. Ask a couples therapist – a secular psychologist or social worker with a bona fide university degree, not some religious counsellor trying to dictate what's moral for couples – and they'll tell you as much. So, for me it follows that statement B expresses control and emotional abuse as well.
In a healthy relationship: If you find something too sexualized for you, that's on you to manage. If your SO finds something too sexualized for them, that's on them to manage. You can support one another in the management, but you cannot make decisions for each other. If you follow a moral philosophy (typically meaning religious or social conservativism) that frowns on sexualized things, pick an SO who shares that philosophy on Day One – don't try to squeeze it in later and change how they dress, dance, talk, walk, make friends, etc. That's textbook emotional abuse.
Yes again. I, too, see no logical connection, which leads me to the same conclusions as you: It's either possessive jealousy (what I termed "controlling and emotionally abusive") or a moral judgment (what I termed "a moral philosophy that frowns on sexualized things"). I can't use actual logic as I was taught it in university to reach another conclusion, which is why I keep coming back to hoping for a 5W1H analysis that frames the original point more precisely.
Neither I nor the OP has stipulated that “last part of the thought”. I’m mature enough to know that if you force someone to stop something, resentment and secrecy can ensue.
TTanguero
Forum Master
See above: insecure people are always the most insistent about how secure they feel. And because, as Fiesta has pointed out, your stance makes literally no sense otherwise. If it's too 'sexualised' for you, don't do it, problem solved.
Ok, this is good to hear!
But it also means we've talked a full circle and gone nowhere. The only possible advice in such a case is make your peace with SO's hobby, with a side of here are some mental framings that might help you do that. Which is precisely what most people in the thread have been doing from the start.
I'm not sure what else anyone can say. Otherwise, this is mostly a declaration of "I don't like XYZ. End of thought." It's a fine statement, but there's nothing to follow up.
JournalInTime
Forum Master
That's hopelessly subjective, then.
For instance, I dance almost exclusively in a very close hold, a hug, with significant weight-sharing. When you see me dancing with women, their entire torso – breasts and all – is pressed against mine, with no space for a sheet of paper between us. I embrace low, so my right arm is more or less around the waist, just above the line of the buttocks. I prefer partners who embrace high, with their hand on the back of my neck. I lead lots of wraps, ganchos, and other entanglements, which at that distance can get high and close enough that there's brief contact between legs and groins.
So, is that a sexualized dance? I wouldn't say so.
All of this is just how I was trained: You share weight to allow for faster, more effortless rotation around the common axis – I was actually taught with the sheet of paper there, and dropping it was a fail. A low embrace means the lead information is received closer to the legs, permitting snappier response times. The follower's hand on the back of the neck keeps their left arm from blocking my right, and facilitates turns, especially to the right. Leg and foot play is a natural consequence of weight-sharing (which makes it easier to free legs for the same reason why a three-legged cat is more stable than a one-legged human) and a low embrace (which keeps legs close enough to make such movements safe).
I dance that way with anybody who doesn't object (one person, ever, has objected). This is irrespective of my partner being light, heavy, short, tall, old, young, sexy, or really not sexy at all. It's just how I dance. It's a technical effort . . . Frankly, my sin is sloth, not lust: I want the dance to be as effortless as possible, and I can't be bothered to relearn how to dance with another embrace.
At last night's (masked, vaccinated, registered, limited-attendance . . .) milonga, there was a guy dancing almost totally open, his hand way up on the woman's shoulder blade, sticking largely to big, open walks and turns. He was also hitting on his partners like a dog. In my view, that's what can be sexualized: The intention of the dancer, not the dance itself.
Again, this curiously defaults straight to toxicity. But here’s my take: In a healthy relationship, Person A says to B that s/he is uncomfortable with such-and-such, and here’s why. They discuss, exchange understanding, and in the end, they come to an accommodation. Person A might say, OK honey, I see it your way, and I’m no longer uncomfortable. Or Person B might say, OK honey, I see it your way, I’ll do something else. Or, they might both agree to do something else etc. But it starts with communication. WHY is there this presumption here that as soon as one party in a relationship has misgivings about something, the immediate consequence is “emotional abuse”?! Can’t you give people credit for having a modicum of maturity and emotional intelligence?! Give and take exists in real life: does it not on this forum?
Couples may differ in some way at the beginning but then come to all sorts of accommodations on money, kids, intimacy, career, concerts, ball-games, choice of dinner, whatever: it is healthy that as humans we can communicate and discuss and horse-trade and learn. The default is NOT abuse. The default is communication, with love as the foundation. For goodness’ sake..!
TTanguero
Forum Master
In a healthy relationship, person A doesn't get uncomfortable about person B doing a perfectly innocent activity they love.
Men get engaged and learn to spend less time going to ball-games and hanging out with the boys. Sometimes they need the prompting of their fiancé. It’s perfectly innocent, and they love it, but that doesn’t mean the good lady can’t be uncomfortable with it - in context.
To be honest, we usually don't even agree with each other on many fundamental aspects of our own dance.