How does a dynamic dancer dance?

[JournalInTime]

Please don’t blame all followers for accepting what LOOKS LIKE a hand-eceo.

You weren't replying to me, but: I would never do that. I'm talking about unambiguous cases, the two egregious behaviors being walking down a line of followers with a hand stuck out until one accepts, and intercepting a follower being walked back to her seat by another leader as they come off the floor. The first is flat-out desperation, insulting to all the followers involved; the second is aggressive, insulting to the other leader involved.

True, though I think the handeceo guys are mostly known as such,

Yes. I could name them (first name, at least) everywhere I dance. I know who they are, and when they're around at the same time as preferred partners, I will very often make a verbal pact – often at the door or at the bar, and sometimes even before the event, via social media – to dance "a vals," "a Pugliese," or whatever with someone. That way, when handeceo guy approaches that dancer, she can say with total honesty on her face that she promised me a tanda, and can walk over and dance with me to prove it.

Now you know what I have been gripping about for a few years on here

Indeed, I've griped about it here for quite a while, too.

I'd throw my hat in the ring for "worst eyesight on the Tango Argentino discussion forum," and while I might not win, I'd at least place or show. For instance, I have to dance with my glasses on, or the result is catastrophe. Despite that, I try to use the cabeceo as much as possible, the two exceptions being: (1) arrangement in current or previous conversation with a person standing less than 1 metre from me, and (2) arrangement via prior social media chat, text, phone call, etc. to dance a specific thing this evening.

I stop trying to ask ladies who repeatedly reward this kind of behavior.

Same. If they'll accept any old partner without regard for manners or level of dance, solely on the basis of being asked aggressively and to their face . . . well, they don't need me to dance.

It also correlates with bad floor craft.

Yes. The most annoying handeceo guy here stares at his chosen follower as he backs onto the floor, often pulling her onto the floor. He does not look at the oncoming leader to ask permission to enter. He does not look at the ronda at all. He enters in reverse and he drags his partner into the line of dance. If I were a follower, I'd say something . . .

Quantity simply trumps quality.

Unfortunately. Plenty of followers will forgive the leader with terrible manners, bad floorcraft, and a low level of dance if that leader invites them several times per milonga at every milonga, even when that gets directly in the way of dancing with a leader with good manners, floorcraft, and technical skills who invites them once or twice a year.

As regulars we usually know who dances more with whom. Even if you are not regular as a visitor you can tell with little observation and pair’s body language towards one another. In my experience regulars who are friends or dance with each other more, also mostly use cabaceo. Might also look out for the other.

And it's fine to have preferred partners! Where it gets not fine is when the preference is expressed via bad manners. You can go to a milonga with 20 tandas and dance 4 tandas with each of 4 favorites, leaving 4 for breaks or one-offs, and be polite about it. You can also go to a milonga with 20 tandas and dance with 20 different partners, but be rude about each and every one of those 20 invitations. I've never observed a correlation between "has favorites" and "is rude with invitations," only between "has terrible floorcraft" and "is rude with invitations."

I don’t believe in rewarding bad behavior in any sphere of life.

Same. I'm starting to cut out followers who accept rude invitations or invitations from dancers with poor floorcraft. Interestingly, I've been dancing more, and with better partners, since then. Good followers do notice.

Case in point: My primary dance partner – and life partner – has grown frustrated with these guys. She has started to say "Invite me properly!" to water-cooler interceptors and handeceo guys. When another leader on a crowded floor bumps her not honestly (because it's crowded, and bumps happen) but due to frank incompetence (e.g., repeated huge back steps), she lets him know her feelings verbally. This will doubtless mean those guys don't invite her . . . but why would she want to dance with them? First, they're rude, and second, she shows up with a partner who is willing to dance with her.

 

[opendoor]

....Plenty of followers will forgive the leader with terrible manners, bad floorcraft, and a low level of dance if that leader invites them several times per milonga at every milonga, even when that gets directly in the way of dancing with a leader with good manners, floorcraft, and technical skills who invites them once or twice a year..

Now that you're writing this, JournalInTime, I'm reminded of an early trauma. At seventeen, I hitchhiked to the Côte d'Azur. In the youth hostel, there was a pretty girl from Sweden. I offered her a deep conversation about Nietzsche, Thoreau and Heidegger, followed by silent meditation at sunset on a rock high above the Mediterranean. She chose the American, who played mini-golf with her and then treated her to ice cream.

 

[Miradamiranda]

I will very often make a verbal pact – often at the door or at the bar, and sometimes even before the event, via social media – to dance "a vals," "a Pugliese," or whatever with someone. That way, when handeceo guy approaches that dancer, she can say with total honesty on her face that she promised me a tanda, and can walk over and dance with me to prove it.

Nice of you, but that only kicks the can down the street for her. He’ll just keep trying like the pesky fly you can’t wave away. Guys like that need a verbal no with no excuses added.

 

[JournalInTime]

Nice of you, but that only kicks the can down the street for her. He’ll just keep trying like the pesky fly you can’t wave away. Guys like that need a verbal no with no excuses added.

Agreed. I cannot provide that for a third party, however. The best I can do is be one of several small barriers that might – might – do the trick if there are enough of them over a long enough time period.

That said, I have agreed to show up with, sit with, dance a lot with, and leave with tangueras who are not my life partner, on a pretend date, to discourage these guys. Strangely, that works . . . most of these people like to dance with "available" partners, and our arrangement signals "unavailable." There are, of course, social consequences: secret reports to my life partner that I have a mistress, which, since she knows the truth, she laughs off; assumptions, by those who know I have a partner who is comfortable with this, that we are swingers; or assumptions, by those who have no idea what my couple status is, that I am some sort of serial creep, showing up with a different girlfriend each time.

It feels like an "I can't win!" situation.

 

[Brummbaer]

I don’t believe in rewarding bad behavior in any sphere of life.

Neither do I, but your response penalises the 'victim' (you won't invite those ladies who accept such invites), and yourself (you're missing a potentially good tanda), meanwhile the perpetrator achieved their objective. And you're not setting a better example (avoiding those milongas - assuming otherwise they're worthwhile).

I dislike those guys as well - does seem to correlate with poor floorcraft from the hotshots, but you're just victim shaming, denying yourself a tanda, and giving them free rein. The Engish idiom is: cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Of course, they may just be getting the dances they want...

 

[opendoor]

Honestly, I didn't find it funny back then, JournalInTime. But there was compensation: Forty years later, they all came running after me whenever I promised mindful sunsets and much more...

..show up with, sit with, dance a lot with, and leave with tangueras who are not my life partner. . . There are, of course, social consequences: secret reports to my life partner that I have a mistress...

Maybe it's your fault. You have violated the hidden codigos of tango and confused the spaces. I, too, had/have a tango partner as my life partner, I also always had a dedicated dance partner, and various changing appointments. However, I kept these circles strictly separate. I only went to milongas with my life partner. But the real tango life doesn't take place at the milonga any more. The milonga has been sold off to beginners. True aficionados and good dancers always meet at prácticas and at practice sessions that teachers and studios offer their students. And at these practice sessions, you don't come with your life partner, but with your dance partner. Even the old milongueros complained that the milonga was no longer the center of tango, but had degenerated into a practice night for students:

In the past, the maestros danced at the milonga and the students stood in the second row, holding their breath. Today it's the other way around.

 

[JournalInTime]

Neither do I, but your response penalises the 'victim' [...] you're just victim shaming

I hesitate to agree because I do not consider enablers to be victims.

I liken this to people buying and using illicit drugs: Regardless of my beliefs about drug decriminalization or legalization, while those drugs are illegal, people who buy them are willfully supporting an illicit economy by making the sale of drugs profitable – and worse, if they're pretending that their purchases aren't funding violence and murder by criminals willing to do harm to defend their share of that market, they're remaining willfully ignorant. That willfulness makes them criminals, if lesser criminals than drug dealers and cartels, and while they might be "victims" of addiction, they are not "victims" of the things they're willfully supporting, but enablers, even accomplices.

I see the same dynamic in tango invitations: Regardless of my beliefs about who should invite whom and how, while certain invitations defy custom, people who accept them are willfully supporting socially frowned-upon conduct by making said invitations fruitful – and worse, if they're pretending that accepting such invitations does not encourage leaders willing to break the rules and thus thwart leaders who follow the rules, they are remaining willfully ignorant. That willfulness makes them part of the problem, if a smaller part than the impolite leaders, and while they might be "victims" of sitting out and not dancing otherwise, they are not "victims" of the rude leaders, but enablers, even accomplices.

To be crystal clear: I totally grasp the differences between laws and customs, and between potentially deadly substances and mere social inconvenience! However, I don't believe that those differences change the philosophical distinction between "victim" and "enabler/accomplice" one iota. To me it's a clear "If you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas" situation. You can't expect people who find a conduct rude not to label you as complicit with it if, you know, you're complicit with it.

 

[JournalInTime]

You have violated the hidden codigos of tango and confused the spaces.

I've never heard of any tango code that says anything firm about your relationship with people before you walk into the milonga with them or after you leave with them! That seems to be more of a nudge-nudge, wink-wink macho thing . . . "Un cafecito hermosa?", part of a certain era of Argentine culture more than of tango codes per se.

I kept these circles strictly separate.

I cannot. Most of my friends are tangueros and tangueras. My life partner is also a tanguera. So was my ex, for that matter. The Venn diagram of "my social life" and "tango" is very close to a single circle.

But the real tango life doesn't take place at the milonga any more. The milonga has been sold off to beginners. True aficionados and good dancers always meet at prácticas and at practice sessions that teachers and studios offer their students.

As with everything we discuss here, that might be true where you live. Where I live, though, the dancing at prácticas – and I attend a lot of them – is on average atrocious. There are people who go to practice (I do), but mostly there are people who lack the self-confidence to attend milongas, going to dance before they finally find self-confidence and stop being beginners. Milongas are full of people who have done that for years and become good enough to deal with milongas.

And at these practice sessions, you don't come with your life partner, but with your dance partner.

This is true. When my life partner wants to practice, we attend the práctica together and dance together almost exclusively. When she is too tired for that, in her case for medical reasons, I attend with one of 3-4 other people I consider "my dance partner." I'm monogamous about life partners, but polyterpsechorean about dance partners.

Even the old milongueros complained that the milonga was no longer the center of tango, but had degenerated into a practice night for students:

That might have been true somewhere at some point, and might still remain true in certain contexts, but here the milonga is the center of tango. Practice happens at prácticas, and as I said, those are utter chaos because a low-level milonga overlaps the práctica in time and space. In modern-speak, milongas have remained milongas but prácticas have all become "practilongas."

 

[opendoor]

..might have been true somewhere at some point..

You're not addressing my points. Perhaps they're not ready for you yet. That's okay. I appreciate you and respect your path! But there are always crossroads and forks in the road.

 

[Brummbaer]

because I do not consider enablers to be victims.

That's like blaming rape victims (cf. tangueras) because of their dress style - but the guy in the suit is ok.

'Enabler' here could just mean 'easy way out without causing a scene' (as @opendoor 's anecdote elaborated). So we have a mix of women, some of whom got fed up with ironing chairs, who may be willingly 'abused' (by a 'hand-eceo') who get blamed, or those who don't wish to accept, but either 'no' is not accepted (and 'no' means 'no'), or agreeing is an easy way out.

A tanguera who gave up recently commented to me: I got fed up travelling to milongas to get one dance all evening (I'd danced some pleasant tandas with her some years ago).

Cabeceo/mirada isn't always a workable option (despite the beliefs of some), or it's unknown, so other ploys (like the 'water-cooler' chat) are used. And used successfully to achieve their objectives (or else they'd use other techniques). But - blame the follower for taking a tanda, and cut yourself out at the same time, whilst hand-eceo guy gets a tanda.

 

[JournalInTime]

That's like blaming rape victims (cf. tangueras) because of their dress style

I cannot agree. For me, the litmus is this: Is this person a victim? I'm arguing "no" here. I am totally against victim-blaming in any and all contexts, but my caveat is that we identify the correct party as the victim. In this specific discussion:

1. Rude leaders who block lines of sight, preempting the cabeceo? Major perpetrators, and definitely not victims.
2. Followers who accept to dance with the above leaders? Minor perpetrators – enablers, accommodators – and definitely not victims.
3. Polite leaders who do not get to dance with the partners they want to dance with? Victims.

I cannot imagine how those in group #2 are victims here. They have the power to accept or refuse; there is no force here, physical or social, that doesn't come from within (okay, I suppose that means these people are victims of themselves in some way). Those in group #1 aren't victimizing them . . . they are victimizing group #3 in what amounts to a zero-sum game.

'Enabler' here could just mean 'easy way out without causing a scene'

That's their choice, but it is a choice . . . they are deciding that "causing a scene" is worse than respecting custom, and moreover that this justifies denying a polite invitation.

willingly 'abused' (by a 'hand-eceo') who get blamed, or those who don't wish to accept, but either 'no' is not accepted (and 'no' means 'no'), or agreeing is an easy way out.

I don't really understand how the handeceo abuses followers. Plenty apparently think it's great; those who don't learn to ignore it. I do understand how it abuses other leaders, though, because they're the people who suffer a net loss in the situation – and completely without a choice in the matter.

A tanguera who gave up recently commented to me: I got fed up travelling to milongas to get one dance all evening (I'd danced some pleasant tandas with her some years ago).

I know several like this. Unfortunately, one thing we have no choice in is who chooses to invite us, be it politely or rudely. For any number of reasons ranging from the shallow (attractiveness, age) to the fairly valid (skill, hygiene), some people get picked more than others. I consider that to be completely beside the point of my 1-2-3 breakdown above, however; "Nobody picked me, so I joined group #2" doesn't magically shift the target from denied polite leaders to exasperated followers. Ask, "Who's dancing?"

 

[JournalInTime]

A hidden assumption in this "Who's victimizing/abusing who?" discussion is that we should be thinking like old-timey gentlemen and ladies, where tangueros are supposed to be gallant and invite tangueras because leaving a woman seated isn't right . . . and also be manly about shrugging it off when aggressive blokes get in the way of a cabeceo ("Hey-ho! Stiff upper lip and better luck next time!"). There's an assumption that tangueras need protection against rude tangueros, and are innately in a position of powerlessness and at risk of abuse, while polite tangueros should be Real Men because they already have plenty of power.

I reject that completely.

At the milonga, I see only humans. Some lead, some follow, some do both. All have the power to invite, to accept invitations, and to refuse invitations. All I expect of them – irrespective of role or gender – is that they do those three things politely. That most followers are female and most leaders are male even in 2026 is beside the point . . . and I don't see how making it the point changes what's polite. "Female follower remains seated because nobody invites her, and she's too traditional to invite" is different from "leader (male or female) doesn't dance with preferred followers because other leaders are rude," but both are problems. Solving the first one is mostly about female followers learning to invite; solving the second one is mostly about people in both roles, regardless of gender, learning some manners.

I'm just talking about the second problem here. It's about manners – how people invite – and not role or gender, or who people invite. I am entirely willing to accept that this is scene-specific: My analysis might be fine in my progressive North American metropolis of 4.4 million people but not in some other place where I don't dance.

 

[pianistamediano]

I'd rather not dance with followers who prize quantity over quality enough that they'd dance with those leaders rather than sit and wait for better dances.

I'd feel insulted if a dancer danced with me just because she was tired of sitting down, not because she actually wanted to dance with me.

The vast majority of experienced dancers I've danced with have no problem ignoring or declining invitations, verbal or otherwise, and they still get plenty of dances. If a tanguera fears that she will get less dances if she refuses the leaders who come up to her with their hand outstretched, it's literally a skill issue.

 

[Brummbaer]

is worse than respecting custom,

As pointed out elsewhere, several times, 'custom' evolves (e.g. recently here). And, of course that whole discussion on dual-role as a 'solution' - mostly for female followers not getting dances. I can't get too upset about 'rude leaders' either, annoying though they are. That's what happens when social AT moves out of that mythical BsAs environment with separated regions for followers, leaders and couples, and an expectation to clear the floor and sit after the tanda. We like some 'rules', but not others. Each new generation thinks it's interpreting the 'rules' in a traditional way - and they're the only ones who are correct. I usually see that aspect at milongas with a younger crowd - but perhaps also because of numbers and environment.

Yes, there are some hand-eceo guys, in my experience usually trying to be hotshots on the dancefloor, a small minority who may be a risk to their female victim. I'd put the rest at 'don't know better' or 'found a techniquue which works for their objective'. How women react to that is up to them. Are they going to teach them their 'rules' at the milonga? Obviously many seem to be ok with that - it gets them tandas. Are some 'guys' going to be 'traditional' and escort them out to the back of the building to teach them? Maybe some would prefer some other custom? I can't mansplain their viewpoint. I see it as up to them unless the guy doesn't accept 'no' (which goes with that technique), but I'm not going to cut them off from dancing with me however they choose to respond (I can, of course, demonstrate a better way and provide a better tanda experience)

I'd feel insulted if a dancer danced with me just because she was tired of sitting down, not because she actually wanted to dance with me.

 

[JournalInTime]

I'd feel insulted if a dancer danced with me just because she was tired of sitting down, not because she actually wanted to dance with me.

Hmm, why the strange reaction? Perhaps it's down to the pro-individualist, anti-collectivist upbringing I had in a military town on the NATO side of the Cold war that I have no love for honorable mentions, runner-up prizes, and participation trophies – everyone wanted the medal. Or maybe it goes back to being chosen last for the team, and only because I was the only kid left, not because anybody wanted me there. Whatever it is, for me, being selected merely because I am leftovers is one of the worst feelings in the world . . . I'd rather be passed over completely and try my luck next time, or the time after that, or after that.

So, I cannot imagine a seated tanguera wanting to dance with a tanguero with whom she otherwise would not dance, when his invitation – however he makes it – cannot hide, "I guess it'll be her because she's the only one left."

Likewise, as a tanguero, I cannot imagine being happy to have my invitation accepted solely because a tanguera – possibly one who previously ignored me when there were more tangueros around – was tired of sitting, and not because she wanted to dance with me, personally.

Don't we prefer to dance with specific individuals who interest us, be our reasons for that related to dance (embrace, musicality, adornos, technique, posture, dance-floor conduct, underlying style, "level," etc.) or je ne sais quoi (hygiene, looks, fashion, elegance, relative height, being from away, "aura," or whatever your thing is)? We should make occasional exceptions for inclusion and community-building, but shouldn't that be a conscious decision ("I will base my interest in them on the fact that I want to include them"), not an unconscious default due to someone being the only choice left?

As ever, this might be location talking: I dance mainly at regular milongas in dedicated tango studios that often have two milongas a week, in a city where I can do that every night, and those milongas (with a few notable exceptions . . . but I don't go there) typically have dozens of tables surrounded by chairs, and the floor can be so crowded that simply entering the ronda takes half a tango. There are definitely slow nights – and again, places that are exceptions – but for the most part, that's my scene. So, there are nearly always lots of choices of people to dance with on the basis of interest rather than default.