just curious.... is it ever possible to always look great no matter who your partner?

alemana said:
it works both ways. leaders who don't showcase me don't get surrender, it's that simple. i am happy not to cede control - but then don't whine that i'm not following.
Click to expand...

oh, yes, definitely. i only surrender control when i know the man can handle it.

we're still talking dance here, right?
lol
;)
 
samina said:
uh-oh... this is the mentality of a 'roll over i'm done' type... lol
say it's not so, quixote!
;):cool:
Click to expand...

well, i suppose that's okay as long as you look good? ok, i'll take it ;) :p

as in other aspects of life, men in partner dancing are required to do a bit more work than the ladies... LOL
<ducking>
Click to expand...

may the world bestow free shines and t-stances galore on you :-p
 
alemana said:
it works both ways. leaders who don't showcase me don't get surrender, it's that simple. i am happy not to cede control - but then don't whine that i'm not following.
Click to expand...

Surrendering control is one following is other. If you're not following it should be because he's either 1. not leading or 2. his lead was confusing (due to xyz reasons) and you did not understand what it was but should have nothing to do with whether he showcases you or not.
 
englezul said:
Surrendering control is one following is other. If you're not following it should be because he's either 1. not leading or 2. his lead was confusing (due to xyz reasons) and you did not understand what it was but should have nothing to do with whether he showcases you or not.
Click to expand...

can't think of any follower who 'surrenders' entirely and can still be fun to dance with. The best ones are the active followers, who not merely follow but actually dance :)
 
surrendering does not preclude active following. and merely following does not preclude actual dancing.

really, you're in over your head here :)
 
quixotedlm said:
can't think of any follower who 'surrenders' entirely and can still be fun to dance with. The best ones are the active followers, who not merely follow but actually dance :)
Click to expand...

well, yeah... that's it, the lead strives to allow the lady maximum ability to dance her tuckus off. but she surrenders control in the dance to achieve that. doesn't mean she's a wet noodle. but someone has to be in the driver's seat or it's gonna be chaos & nobody's gonna be happy.

his objective is to allow her to highlight her charms through her dancing. being a newb makes this hard, because then she's just trying to follow & get over her feet. but once things find their place, it gets easier for her to actively fulfill her role in the matter...

am personally in that place, of making that transition...
 
quixotedlm said:
In a world where archaic (and mostly sexist) gender roles are being eliminated and the only vestiges we are all trying to retain are cosmetic ones, the applicability of this premise in this day and age sounds dubious to me. In a way, I find it very sexist, that the role of the guy in dancing is not primarily one of having a good time (within the constraints of being an adept dancer) but rather that of a showman who is expected to make the woman look stellar.
Click to expand...
Sexist?? Of course it's sexist! The whole premise of partner dance is that it's one huge stereotypical gender role. Come on! The man leads and protects, the woman follows and looks pretty? The real world doesn't work that way anymore; but that's just it. Dance is not the real world. It's a big game in which gender roles figure prominently. Inverting them, mocking them and otherwise playing around can be fun too, but it is all done in the context of the original gender roles.

And just as in life, gender roles are a division of labor. It's a tradeoff. You can't have two people leading; but since you can't lead and style at the same time, you also can't have two people styling. You want to style? Fine, then follow. Conversely, you want to lead? then stop confusing your lead with showoff movements. You don't like acting out stereotypical gender roles? Hey, then might I politely suggest that partner dancing is probably not the hobby that best accommodates that mindset?

Having a good time: I should hope we are both having a good time. I don't think having a good time is directly related to whether you are leading or following. (I've learned a little bit about leading as well - I'm completely awful at it of course, but I've found it to be lots of fun in a totally different way than following is.) Everybody should be having fun! :)
 
LOLOlolol.....

you tell'im, noobs! LOL

jk, quixote. but i do agree w/ her.

eh... whatever works for ya, actually. it's just, you can't have your cake & eat it, too... everything's a choice. if you don't want the strong archetypically male-leader role, that's cool... just don't let me catch you whining if you find you're attracting poor followers..

;):cool:
 
noobster said:
You don't like acting out stereotypical gender roles? Hey, then might I politely suggest that partner dancing is probably not the hobby that best accommodates that mindset?
Click to expand...

It works perfectly, actually. But that's a philosophical discussion for another time :)

The idea of division of labor without a fundamental shift in power is modern, which is what most of us desire.

To play out the traditional roles as they used to be, I'd have to assume a framework in which all the independance the follower has is given by the leader, and it is his prerogative to take it back anytime he pleases, good reason or not good reason. In short, it has to become a sort of patriarchy which is also a benevolent dictatorship (or not). That's stereotypical gender roles for you.

What we are all discusssing about here are cosmetic aspects of that stereotype. None of us (presumably) is really advocating that the guy could whip the gal around all he wants (or any other variation thereof of being the controller) as long as he can make her look good. The idea of leading-as-a-form-of-invitation is still the crux of what we do, and if she doesn't want to accept an invitation, that has to be fine - and that's a modern soul in an old bottle :)
 
I agree with Noobster about social dance being a break from the real world.

It's like reading romance novels for women or watching a James Bond movie for us guys. Sure, we like watching Bond jumping out of airplanes, getting shot at, and having beautiful women fall for him wherever he goes, but that doesn't mean we want that in real life. (Well, maybe the last part of that...:-)).
 
quixotedlm said:
To play out the traditional roles as they used to be, I'd have to assume a framework in which all the independance the follower has is given by the leader, and it is his prerogative to take it back anytime he pleases, good reason or not good reason. In short, it has to become a sort of patriarchy which is also a benevolent dictatorship (or not). That's stereotypical gender roles for you.
Click to expand...
I dunno. I kind of feel like that is the way the dance actually works. The follower really doesn't have much independence other than what is granted by the leader. She has independence in open shines and T-stances, but the leader usually decides if/when those are going to happen.

The idea of leading-as-a-form-of-invitation is still the crux of what we do, and if she doesn't want to accept an invitation, that has to be fine - and that's a modern soul in an old bottle :)
Click to expand...
Well, that depends in part on the leader. Some leaders invite. Others definitely direct. Some of them even demand. In any case, if the follower consistently fails to do what the leader invites/directs/demands, the leader is going to get annoyed, and probably refuse to dance with that follower anymore. But that's fine, it's legitimate, because the ground rules are that the leader leads and the follower follows. Politely inviting is of course much preferable to roughly demanding. But that doesn't change the basic mechanics of the thing.
 
i'm out...

The crux of this conversation is based on follower's views of what leading ought to be, and leaders views of what kind of leading is sufficient and what should be enough or fun for followers. Considering the fact that I'm not a follower, I can't effectively agree or counter the other viewpoints. OTOH, I know from experience that what I'm doing today (as I've articulated here) is welcomed by many good followers and I'm not starved. It either means that I'm right and you are wrong :), or that what I'm saying and you are saying are the same things and we have a disconnect in articulating our minds, because we don't share the same perspectives (because we don't actively indulge in both leading and following)....

So what I'm seeing is a divergence of ideas, with no convergence in sight. These things never end and drag on forever... So I'm not sure I have much more to say :)
 
hmm. i could refuse something led when i'm dancing, but then i would cease to be dancing, wouldn't i?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Dance Ads

Advertise on Dance Forums Reach dancers, teachers, studios, event organizers, and dance-friendly brands. View ad options
Back
Top