4 Jan
2013
4 Jan
'13
7:29 p.m.
On 1/4/2013 2:56 PM, Maia McCormick wrote:
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).
On the one hand, I'm
totally in agreement with finding out whether your
partner likes spinning a lot.
On the other hand, I'm sort of appalled that the default on a courtesy
turn is a twice-around twirl, rather than,
say, an actual courtesy turn, and you get that if you don't feel spinny
On the third hand, while I appreciate that this person inquired about
your preferences, I really don't like the
phrase "being flourished", which implies that it is something done to
you rather than something you are participating in. I think when I give
a gentle upward pressure on a lady's hand as she's coming at me in a
courtesy turn I'm _offering to enable her twirl if she wants one_, not
"flourishing her". I try to make clear offers and accept there being
declined.
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?
Well, sort of the inverse. When I started waltzing I felt pretty bad
about only being able to go round and round - I didn't know variations
and didn't have the confidence to try stuff; as a cis-male I was
automatically awarded the lead and didn't feel I could live up to it,
and this kept me from waltzing very much for years, which kept me from
getting good at it (although I eventually got over it and got very good
at it). Same dynamic has given me trouble
in learning foxtrot / swing / salsa and I'm not really over it, but I'm
also so happy with waltz/polka/mazurka/schottische that I don't spend a
lot of time trying to do the other things.
All that said, I'm not sure what you mean by "equalizing gender roles".
If you mean "change the roles to lead and follow instead of gents and
ladies" I think that would only intensify leaders being flashy and
showing that they're in charge compared to the existing situation. If
you mean "call the roles purple and green" then, yeah; we actually have
an ongoing experiment in gender-free contra and in my experience nobody
is dancing like they have to prove a right to wear the armband.
I've always allowed myself to believe that a good partner is there on
time, gives good weight, connects with partner, seems sincerely happy to
be dancing with the current person, and is in rhythm with the music, and
that anything else is lagniappe - that 'good' doesn't require
'impressive'. How do you feel about it when not dancing the gent role?
-- Alan