It's funny, but there's a part of me that finds all of these different words a little weird. In a way, I'm not sure I like any of them. But I do like the sense of liberation they give -- the level of comfort that's appearing at dances for people dancing with anyone. In my area, the SF Bay Area, men are definitely getting more comfortable dancing with men. Around here -- as opposed to outlying areas -- there has always been a level of tolerance, but the level of acceptance is growing.

I think my sense of weirdness -- slight discomfort -- comes from both working to change my habits, and from the sense of the terms being contrived. OK, my thought/feelings are changing, and my mind is starting to think of this use as being creative rather than contrived. Also, use is working in my favor: the more I call using Larks and Ravens, the more comfortable it's getting for me, and I'm feeling it's less "contrived." But it has been a bit of a hurdle for me to overcome.

As for liking jets & rubies, I have the same problem many do: the multiple meaning of the word "jet." OK, I can be told it's a jem, but a machine to fly, developed by the military, designed for aggressive fighting, then given to the public for high-carbon footprint travel is my first thought -- extremely masculine.

Second thought that comes to an old geezer like me is a gang in New York's West Side, about which there is a story, which is also masculine...

Jet as a gem would be slow to replace the other two. So, were I to try these, I'd go for gems & rubies. But we'll stick with Larks & Ravens for a while...

~erik hoffman
    oakland, ca

On 5/28/2015 12:30 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers wrote:

For those interested in gender free contra dance terms:

1. Do you like or dislike jets / rubies ?
2. How would gems / rubies compare?

In dance,
Ron Blechner



_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net