I was dancing at Greenfield when someone I partnered with (I was following) asked me a question that I had not yet heart in my nearly-two-years of dancing: "do you like being flourished?" I was floored. It had literally NOT OCCURRED to me that that was a question you could/should ask. Now I always ask if I'm leading someone I don't know and I feel in a spinny mood (i.e., anything other than a standard one-twirl at the beginning or end of a swing, and maybe two off a courtesy turn). I think it ought to be much more of an obligation that people ask it of their dance partners (and asking about dip preferences SHOULD be a no-brainer).
Another thought on flourishes, that relates to my first post on the topic and some of the questions that have been going around: I realized writing another post that I first started flourishing others, and that I pride myself on my leading/flourishing ability to such a large extent, because it's a way of compensating for my sex when it comes to leading. Part of me feels that to be an impressive and good partner, I should have that little extra bit of flash--in a sense, to prove that I have a reason for leading, and a *right* to, instead of following like women ought. Of course, that's only part of it, but I was really interested in this thought when it occurred to me. Maybe equalizing gender roles would, to a small extent, lessen their applicability (i.e., the degree of lead/follow dynamic) in the first place? Has anyone else experienced or seen this sort of thought pattern before? Maia On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Alan Winston <[email protected]>wrote: > On 1/4/2013 7:49 AM, Aahz Maruch wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013, Kalia Kliban wrote: >> >>> On 1/3/2013 8:21 AM, Aahz Maruch wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013, Alan Winston wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't think you need this for the argument; there were flourishes >>>>> when I started contra dancing in 1985 (but we called the people who >>>>> did them "hot-doggers" and complained about them). >>>>> >>>> Which "we" are you talking about? >>>> >>> I'm one of them. It's possible to flourish responsibly, but that is >>> often not the case. [...] >>> >> My point/snark was that using "we" as Alan did implies a kind of >> agreement that I think is vastly overgeneralizing here. As I wrote in >> the part of my post you elided, this has long been a source of tension >> across multiple dance communities, I'd bet it probably goes back hundreds >> or thousands of years. >> >> Your point about people disrupting the dance with flourishes is >> appropriate, but I don't think that making grandiose statements about >> community attitudes toward flourishes helps any. >> > > Ah, I thought you were saying "Alan doesn't speak for me" while I now > think you're saying "Alan doesn't > have the right to speak for the entire community." So I will clarify that > across a fairly broad swath of > Bay Area callers, dance organizers, and volunteers in the late 1980s, > "hot-dogging" and "hot-doggers" > were fairly standard terms, and they referred to people who did flourishes > to the possible detriment of > the overall dance - showy swing dance balances that intruded into other > dancers spaces, men cranking women > around in twirls, swinging extra-long and being late for the next figure, > grabbing neighbors nonconsensually > for a swing in the middle of the hey, not taking hands along long lines > and instead one partner drops the other partner to the floor and picks > (her, usually) up, a guy who used to literally pick women up and put them on > his shoulder for lines of four down the hall. "We" (Bay area dance > organizers, callers, and volunteers I talked to > in the late 1980s) called it hot-dogging and considered it a problem. > > Things not considered a problem: Cheat swings, general playfulness, > sticking out your tongue during a gypsy, etc, etc. > > Over the years the flourish baseline has adjusted, we don't hear a lot > about hot-dogging, and so on. But *I* internally still feel that no other > dancer should do anything to me without at least my implied consent that > keeps me from following the callers directions, no other dancer should rob > me of agency (and the stupid "make an arch instead of R&L thru" thing is > asymmetrical, keeps me from following the directions, and doesn't give me > a way to decline), everybody should release their neighbors or partners in > time to dance with me on time, and > should dance in a way that shows awareness and at least minimal > consideration of the people around them. > > If you disagree with that, let's discuss it. But I haven't seen you dance > in a way that looks like you disagree with it. > > -- Alan > > > > > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Callers mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.sharedweight.net/**mailman/listinfo/callers<http://www.sharedweight.net/mailman/listinfo/callers> >
