Discussion in 'Ballroom Dance' started by dancin_feet, Mar 10, 2004.
I fully agree with this.
has not been my experience, either. it may be true that the tallest, most aggressive guy with the biggest wallet may indeed get the trophy-wife...who's looking for the tallest, most aggressive guy with the biggest wallet.
but with those that have richer, more heart-felt values, there are oodles of cases of unattractive or geeky men getting beautiful women...because they tap into deeper veins of satisfaction for the women they love.
a man who can dance definitely adds value of the latter sort...
Me too. Any woman who dances with, or dates a guy only because he's tall, aggressive or rich, is not a woman worth having anyway, IMO. Find a woman with a brain and good judgment.
Love your post, Samina. So inspiring.
Point: it's also possible that sometimes, the taller and/or better-looking guy with the bigger wallet is nicer and/or less needy than the geeky less-attractive one because he's not bitter, insecure and/or resentful, or walking around with a huge chip on his shoulder about how all the women are going to ignore him because he's not taller/richer/handsome one and that's really, really off-putting. I'm not looking for a man (date or dance partner) who needs a mommy or a therapist and if you're putting off the woe is me and all good-looking men are jerks vibe, I'm gone.
I dont' think it's about just an ability to dance that started the reputation about the guy who dances getting the girl. It's not so much the actual dancing, it's the attitude/bearing it creates. Most of the male pros and good ams that I know or have seen are attractive when they dance, not because what their faces or bodies look like but because dancing, ESPECIALLY competitive dancing, requires a man to tap into some very primal things--it's really sexy when a guy can walk out on the floor and without even making a great big posturing deal out of it, claim his space and be confident in holding it. There are some competing pros whom frankly I wouldn't look twice at if I passed on the street who are HOT when they are out on the floor just because of how their bearing changes. (No, men of my studio, I'm not telling if any of you are included in that. ) A guy can have some technique and know some steps, but without that confidence that says "Now we dance", it's still not going to magically make him hot.
:applause: Yep, leave your emotional baggage off the dance floor.
True for women also.
DOI: Nicely put. This attitude can be seriously swoon-worthy.
I understand the need for the advanced students to work with the most senior instructors. And someone has to take lessons from the junior instructors. However, I think it would be good for the newbies/beginners to have their training periodically reinforced by the senior instructors, even if just a group class. Maybe FADS's system with buddy teachers is kinda like this?
To me, the generally prevailing studio system I've seen is as if we're saying the newbies have to prove themselves and survive long enough to get to the real stuff (unfortunately the newbies don't know that). Some people luck out and somehow manage to get the best instructors when they start out. Others get inexperienced instructors (perhaps with just weeks of experience). They either persevere long enough to get to a senior instructor who gets to undo all the bad habits they've built up, or they quit, frustrated with dancing, never having become aware of the fundamentals that would have made it fun and physically comfortable.
Which, to get back to the start of thread, is one of the reason's guy's don't dance.
It's also why men good at martial arts are also often good dancers - the late Patrick Swazye and Bruce Lee come to mind.
The skills and personality traits that make a good dancer also make a good fighter.
There is theory that see's dance as form of 'ritual combat' where no blood is drawn but the winner gets the girl of his choice , which let's be honest here, is what happens with the best male dancers. They get the pick of the partners.
boys don't dance b/c we don't know how to teach boys. Boys need male role models, they have shorter attention spans than girls and the dance needs to be physically disciplined and challenging. Boys are stronger and have different dispositions. They have huge jumps and turns that's why they are taught separately in ballet academies. My favorite memory of dance class was when the girls put on their point shoes, my teacher would come up to me and ask “how’s your double tour?”
Because a beginning follower can get a huge kick out of "being danced" by an even a little bit more advanced leader, while a beginning leader will experience dancing with any follower as mostly frustrating, with more advanced followers being even more frustrating than fellow beginners.
tritto... great post danceronice...
I could rattle the world at times with society's perceptions when it comes to men dancing... and what you wrote DOI. Teleport me back to the 1920's/30's/40's please
Given the difference in initial learning curves for leaders and followers, a solution might be to teach men and women both to lead and to follow.
@TC - that's my focus in group settings in a perfect world...
Plus mad costuming skillz.
And you like "compact" guys.
So what sorts of issues do you encounter with this class format?
Moree women need to like us compact guys.
Issues? Well, some people don't like having to actually *learn*. Le sigh. And some people don't like leading/following if that's not "their part".
But I swear the biggest breakthroughs my husband or I have ever had in dancing is to become proficient at the *opposite* role.
Too bad I'm already taken... But if you think my boy is cute... If you can just hang on 10 more years... I'll have a daughter that I can pawn off on ya. She's something else all right. Lemme see...
She made the dress herself! Takes after her ma, she does. Guaranteed not to be tall, too!
Separate names with a comma.