I think I have internalised homophobia...

  • thatirishbast...

    Posts: 3523

    Feb 07, 2013 3:24 PM GMT
    ...about ballroom dancing.

    Now, I've seen same sex couples dancing together at line dances or doing the waltz together at parties and weddings and I think it's sweet and beautiful. But when I see a same sex couple who wants to be taken seriously as ballroom dancers, I just can't do it. I just can't take it seriously.

    I've always thought that ballroom dancing, like any dance, is an aesthetic art and that the bodies of men and women move and flow in different ways. Ballroom dancing was made to be between a man and a woman, it was crafted to compliment the two different bodies. The heart of the tradition and technique is there for a reason, the man leads and lifts, the woman follows and flies. This is not something that can be changed and still be considered 'ballroom dancing' as an art form! Some would disagree, but I'm a dance snob and a purist.

    And then a little while ago I had an epiphany while discussing it with a friend and I realised that I sounded exactly like someone who is anti-marriage. Fuck, even my arguments are nearly identical. It started bothering me, a LOT! Because the last thing I want to be is somehow homophobic.

    I ended up grabbing coffee with two of my mates here, husbands who teach dance, one of them teaches the tango. I asked them their thoughts and they looked at me and said 'Thank you, so much, for saying this.' I was informed that while there are studios here in Chicago that do same sex ballroom dances, my mate's studio has gotten heat because men partner only with women. The same goes for almost every competition. And the thing is...I still agree, for artistic reasons.

    I'm just curious as to your thoughts. Homophobia? Dance snobbery? Or are we just splitting hairs now?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2013 3:36 PM GMT
    So what you're saying is, ballroom dancing is so gay already that having two men do it together would just put it over the top? icon_confused.gif


    I actually have no opinon, I just wanted to give you a hard time.
  • thatirishbast...

    Posts: 3523

    Feb 07, 2013 3:44 PM GMT
    showme saidSo what you're saying is, ballroom dancing is so gay already that having two men do it together would just put it over the top? icon_confused.gif


    I actually have no opinon, I just wanted to give you a hard time.


    ....not my original thought, but definitely a valid point....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2013 3:52 PM GMT
    Wow I just learned a new perspective my self on why many people are opposed to the idea of same sex marriage. Until now I didn't understand people and why they were so against same sex marriage.

    But I feel the same way as you do. I always cringe when two dance partners of the same sex want to be taken seriously at something so traditional where there is a distinct female role and a male role.

    It'd be like watching two guys perform the Tchaikovsky pas de deux and wanting to be taken seriously. I would see it as disgraceful if a guy was in a tutu and pointe and wanted to be taken as seriously as the female principle dancer.

    Could it be that people who call anti-same sex marriage supporter ignorant, are just as ignorant?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2013 3:54 PM GMT
    You're not supposed to admit to internalized homophobia, you're supposed to deny it, kicking and screaming, and tell others who don't have it that they're wrong. Haven't you learned anything from RJ?? TSK!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2013 3:54 PM GMT
    KKim11 said
    Could it be that people who call anti-same sex marriage supporter ignorant, are just as ignorant?


    No.
  • ignaceqbc

    Posts: 202

    Feb 07, 2013 4:00 PM GMT
    test test test iam new here

    thatirishbastard said...about ballroom dancing.

    Now, I've seen same sex couples dancing together at line dances or doing the waltz together at parties and weddings and I think it's sweet and beautiful. But when I see a same sex couple who wants to be taken seriously as ballroom dancers, I just can't do it. I just can't take it seriously.

    I've always thought that ballroom dancing, like any dance, is an aesthetic art and that the bodies of men and women move and flow in different ways. Ballroom dancing was made to be between a man and a woman, it was crafted to compliment the two different bodies. The heart of the tradition and technique is there for a reason, the man leads and lifts, the woman follows and flies. This is not something that can be changed and still be considered 'ballroom dancing' as an art form! Some would disagree, but I'm a dance snob and a purist.

    And then a little while ago I had an epiphany while discussing it with a friend and I realised that I sounded exactly like someone who is anti-marriage. Fuck, even my arguments are nearly identical. It started bothering me, a LOT! Because the last thing I want to be is somehow homophobic.

    I ended up grabbing coffee with two of my mates here, husbands who teach dance, one of them teaches the tango. I asked them their thoughts and they looked at me and said 'Thank you, so much, for saying this.' I was informed that while there are studios here in Chicago that do same sex ballroom dances, my mate's studio has gotten heat because men partner only with women. The same goes for almost every competition. And the thing is...I still agree, for artistic reasons.

    I'm just curious as to your thoughts. Homophobia? Dance snobbery? Or are we just splitting hairs now?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2013 4:12 PM GMT
    I think it is just dance snobbery you sissy boy icon_wink.gif





  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Feb 07, 2013 4:14 PM GMT
    KKim11 saidWow I just learned a new perspective my self on why many people are opposed to the idea of same sex marriage. Until now I didn't understand people and why they were so against same sex marriage.

    But I feel the same way as you do. I always cringe when two dance partners of the same sex want to be taken seriously at something so traditional where there is a distinct female role and a male role.

    It'd be like watching two guys perform the Tchaikovsky pas de deux and wanting to be taken seriously. I would see it as disgraceful if a guy was in a tutu and pointe and wanted to be taken as seriously as the female principle dancer.

    Could it be that people who call anti-same sex marriage supporter ignorant, are just as ignorant?


    No, you're ignorant. There's nothing disgraceful about breaking traditions and taking artistic license with dance.

    I don't think it's weird at all to see two guys dancing, even if one of them IS in a tutu. Not sure if it's self acceptance, it just simple maturity.

    Grow up, boys.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2013 4:18 PM GMT
    The first time I walked into a gay bar was the first time I ever saw 2 men kissing live. It was different to seeing it in porn. It was shocking, and made me uncomfortable despite knowing there was nothing wrong with it.

    Now I feel more comfortable seeing it than seeing straight people kiss. Sometimes we just need to get used to seeing these things. Maybe we should have been seeing them all along.
  • ignaceqbc

    Posts: 202

    Feb 07, 2013 4:21 PM GMT
    well, i think..if you are not comporfortable dancing 2 same sex. you can show the dancing which preety much colaboration than romantique style. fisrt off all, you have to know where you dance, do the clients are open minded mostly, they are homophobie? from there you can create what kind of dance if you want to dance with the same sex. other wise you can dance by 2 men and one women, or 2 women and 1 man.
    cheer
  • ignaceqbc

    Posts: 202

    Feb 07, 2013 4:22 PM GMT
    ignaceqbc saidwell, i think..if you are not comporfortable dancing 2 same sex. you can show the dancing which preety much colaboration than romantique style. fisrt off all, you have to know where you dance, are the clients are open minded mostly ?, they are homophobie? from there you can create what kind of dance if you want to dance with the same sex. other wise you can dance by 2 men and one women, or 2 women and 1 man.
    cheer
  • thatirishbast...

    Posts: 3523

    Feb 07, 2013 4:22 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    KKim11 saidWow I just learned a new perspective my self on why many people are opposed to the idea of same sex marriage. Until now I didn't understand people and why they were so against same sex marriage.

    But I feel the same way as you do. I always cringe when two dance partners of the same sex want to be taken seriously at something so traditional where there is a distinct female role and a male role.

    It'd be like watching two guys perform the Tchaikovsky pas de deux and wanting to be taken seriously. I would see it as disgraceful if a guy was in a tutu and pointe and wanted to be taken as seriously as the female principle dancer.

    Could it be that people who call anti-same sex marriage supporter ignorant, are just as ignorant?


    No, you're ignorant. There's nothing disgraceful about breaking traditions and taking artistic license with dance.

    I don't think it's weird at all to see two guys dancing, even if one of them IS in a tutu. Not sure if it's self acceptance, it just simple maturity.

    Grow up, boys.


    But that's the reason dance forms such as modern, lyrical, even hip hop and urban styles exist. They were created to break away from the more traditional forms and explore what the human body can do.

    But the fact remains that the traditional forms are so because of the rules that make them so. And it goes so far beyond gender, for good or for ill, professional ballerinas have to be a certain size and their feet need to be a certain shape for them to reach the top. It's certainly discriminatory but it also adheres to the demands of that specific form of art.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Feb 07, 2013 4:24 PM GMT
    thatirishbastard said
    HottJoe said
    KKim11 saidWow I just learned a new perspective my self on why many people are opposed to the idea of same sex marriage. Until now I didn't understand people and why they were so against same sex marriage.

    But I feel the same way as you do. I always cringe when two dance partners of the same sex want to be taken seriously at something so traditional where there is a distinct female role and a male role.

    It'd be like watching two guys perform the Tchaikovsky pas de deux and wanting to be taken seriously. I would see it as disgraceful if a guy was in a tutu and pointe and wanted to be taken as seriously as the female principle dancer.

    Could it be that people who call anti-same sex marriage supporter ignorant, are just as ignorant?


    No, you're ignorant. There's nothing disgraceful about breaking traditions and taking artistic license with dance.

    I don't think it's weird at all to see two guys dancing, even if one of them IS in a tutu. Not sure if it's self acceptance, it just simple maturity.

    Grow up, boys.


    But that's the reason dance forms such as modern, lyrical, even hip hop and urban styles exist. They were created to break away from the more traditional forms and explore what the human body can do.

    But the fact remains that the traditional forms are so because of the rules that make them so. And it goes so far beyond gender, for good or for ill, professional ballerinas have to be a certain size and their feet need to be a certain shape for them to reach the top. It's certainly discriminatory but it also adheres to the demands of that specific form or art.


    That must be why they don't let women perform Shakespeare, since traditionally all the female roles were performed by men in drag.
  • ignaceqbc

    Posts: 202

    Feb 07, 2013 4:25 PM GMT
    no iam not sure they are sissy...some yes but not all
  • ignaceqbc

    Posts: 202

    Feb 07, 2013 4:26 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]dudewithabeard said[/cite]I think it is just dance snobbery you sissy boy icon_wink.gif





    i dont think they all sissy..some yes
  • thatirishbast...

    Posts: 3523

    Feb 07, 2013 4:30 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    thatirishbastard said
    HottJoe said
    KKim11 saidWow I just learned a new perspective my self on why many people are opposed to the idea of same sex marriage. Until now I didn't understand people and why they were so against same sex marriage.

    But I feel the same way as you do. I always cringe when two dance partners of the same sex want to be taken seriously at something so traditional where there is a distinct female role and a male role.

    It'd be like watching two guys perform the Tchaikovsky pas de deux and wanting to be taken seriously. I would see it as disgraceful if a guy was in a tutu and pointe and wanted to be taken as seriously as the female principle dancer.

    Could it be that people who call anti-same sex marriage supporter ignorant, are just as ignorant?


    No, you're ignorant. There's nothing disgraceful about breaking traditions and taking artistic license with dance.

    I don't think it's weird at all to see two guys dancing, even if one of them IS in a tutu. Not sure if it's self acceptance, it just simple maturity.

    Grow up, boys.


    But that's the reason dance forms such as modern, lyrical, even hip hop and urban styles exist. They were created to break away from the more traditional forms and explore what the human body can do.

    But the fact remains that the traditional forms are so because of the rules that make them so. And it goes so far beyond gender, for good or for ill, professional ballerinas have to be a certain size and their feet need to be a certain shape for them to reach the top. It's certainly discriminatory but it also adheres to the demands of that specific form or art.


    That must be why they don't let women perform Shakespeare, since traditionally all the female roles were performed by men in drag.


    Aye, that's how it's been performed every time I've ever seen it.
    Kidding of course.
    I didn't make this topic to say that I'm right, I made it because it's a conundrum in my mind that genuinely bothers me. And I'll say right off that I've seen male-duo lyrical, modern, and other routines that I have absolutely adored, they were inspiring. But I remain unconvinced that every tradition needs to be broken simply because it's tradition. In my own dance form, the boys don't dance the slip jig. We just don't. It's a female dance, there is history and culture behind WHY it's a female dance, and breaking that apart would feel dishonest to the art form, and not just to me.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Feb 07, 2013 4:41 PM GMT
    thatirishbastard said
    HottJoe said
    thatirishbastard said
    HottJoe said
    KKim11 saidWow I just learned a new perspective my self on why many people are opposed to the idea of same sex marriage. Until now I didn't understand people and why they were so against same sex marriage.

    But I feel the same way as you do. I always cringe when two dance partners of the same sex want to be taken seriously at something so traditional where there is a distinct female role and a male role.

    It'd be like watching two guys perform the Tchaikovsky pas de deux and wanting to be taken seriously. I would see it as disgraceful if a guy was in a tutu and pointe and wanted to be taken as seriously as the female principle dancer.

    Could it be that people who call anti-same sex marriage supporter ignorant, are just as ignorant?


    No, you're ignorant. There's nothing disgraceful about breaking traditions and taking artistic license with dance.

    I don't think it's weird at all to see two guys dancing, even if one of them IS in a tutu. Not sure if it's self acceptance, it just simple maturity.

    Grow up, boys.


    But that's the reason dance forms such as modern, lyrical, even hip hop and urban styles exist. They were created to break away from the more traditional forms and explore what the human body can do.

    But the fact remains that the traditional forms are so because of the rules that make them so. And it goes so far beyond gender, for good or for ill, professional ballerinas have to be a certain size and their feet need to be a certain shape for them to reach the top. It's certainly discriminatory but it also adheres to the demands of that specific form or art.


    That must be why they don't let women perform Shakespeare, since traditionally all the female roles were performed by men in drag.


    Aye, that's how it's been performed every time I've ever seen it.
    Kidding of course.
    I didn't make this topic to say that I'm right, I made it because it's a conundrum in my mind that genuinely bothers me. And I'll say right off that I've seen male-duo lyrical, modern, and other routines that I have absolutely adored, they were inspiring. But I remain unconvinced that every tradition needs to be broken simply because it's tradition. In my own dance form, the boys don't dance the slip jig. We just don't. It's a female dance, there is history and culture behind WHY it's a female dance, and breaking that apart would feel dishonest to the art form, and not just to me.


    I like being informed but I'm not sentimental about history. They didn't even have toilet paper back then!! It's no wonder everyone was frigid and uncomfortable. This is 2013 and if it bothers you to see a man dancing like a woman, or vice versa, then you're in the wrong century....

    One valid point you make however is that women are lighter and easier to lift, so perhaps the dance would have to be modified for two men. Either way, they should not be scorned. Liberty is more valuable than art. Art is a product, but liberty is a state of being. If you don't free your mind, art loses it's value fast.
  • thatirishbast...

    Posts: 3523

    Feb 07, 2013 4:54 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    thatirishbastard said
    HottJoe said
    thatirishbastard said
    HottJoe said
    KKim11 saidWow I just learned a new perspective my self on why many people are opposed to the idea of same sex marriage. Until now I didn't understand people and why they were so against same sex marriage.

    But I feel the same way as you do. I always cringe when two dance partners of the same sex want to be taken seriously at something so traditional where there is a distinct female role and a male role.

    It'd be like watching two guys perform the Tchaikovsky pas de deux and wanting to be taken seriously. I would see it as disgraceful if a guy was in a tutu and pointe and wanted to be taken as seriously as the female principle dancer.

    Could it be that people who call anti-same sex marriage supporter ignorant, are just as ignorant?


    No, you're ignorant. There's nothing disgraceful about breaking traditions and taking artistic license with dance.

    I don't think it's weird at all to see two guys dancing, even if one of them IS in a tutu. Not sure if it's self acceptance, it just simple maturity.

    Grow up, boys.





    I like being informed but I'm not sentimental about history. They didn't even have toilet paper back then!! It's no wonder everyone was frigid and uncomfortable. This is 2013 and if it bothers you to see a man dancing like a woman, or vice versa, then you're in the wrong century....

    One valid point you make however is that women are lighter and easier to lift, so perhaps the dance would have to be modified for two men. Either way, they should not be scorned. Liberty is more valuable than art. Art is a product, but liberty is a state of being. If you don't free your mind, art loses it's value fast.


    It doesn't bother me. That's why I greatly enjoy lyrical, and modern, and even urban dance, all forms where rules are made to be broken.

    But I was trained in one of the most rigorous, technique oriented, and rigid forms of dance in existence. The beauty of Irish dance isn't about us breaking rules and taking risks. It's the spectacle of perfect teamwork and rigid unity, as well as the mastery of an established form. This is why I love rules. I LOVE rules.

    It doesn't bother me to see two men or women dancing together. Never has. That's the human in me. But the artist in me knows that certain forms of dancing were crafted to aesthetically compliment a man and a woman. And changing that transforms the art into something it's not. You yourself suggested that the dance may need to be altered for things like lifts.

    It's like some who says 'I'm going to paint an oil painting...but with clay!' He might create a beautiful piece, but it's not an oil painting anymore.

    I'm fully aware that I'm too often a Puritan with dance sometimes. I'm just trying to make sure that my opinions on same sex dancing is a result of my artistic tastes and conditioning and not on some sort of internalised homophobia.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2013 4:58 PM GMT


    You know, in the past, these names were solely for boys:

    Lynn
    Ashleigh or Ashley
    Avery
    Kelly
    Shannon
    Courtney (only after 1956 when a popular book had a girl named Courtney -- before it was all boys)
    Darcy
    Brooke
    Dana
    Jody
    Lane
    Tracy

    icon_wink.gif

    In the theatre, long ago, women were always played by men.

  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Feb 07, 2013 4:58 PM GMT
    I enjoy dance, and I have the utmost respect for the athleticism and aesthetics of great dancers. I used to watch So You Think You Can Dance, but I finally got sick of how they defined their gender roles so narrowly. It was obvious, season after season, that a number of the male dancers were gay, but the characters they had to portray were always straight. They were very clear about that, especially in the traditional dances, but even in the modern dances they shied away from same sex attraction. Any time two men were partnered, it was a platonic pairing. Just seeing all the gay dancers conform got sickening. Maybe the show has since given a nod to it's gay audience, but I'm over it. It may be art, but for gay artists to capitulate to their straight audience on every level, every time, makes it seem disingenuous. What's the value of art if it only projects a false image of who we really are?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2013 4:59 PM GMT
    thatirishbastard said
    HottJoe said
    KKim11 saidWow I just learned a new perspective my self on why many people are opposed to the idea of same sex marriage. Until now I didn't understand people and why they were so against same sex marriage.

    But I feel the same way as you do. I always cringe when two dance partners of the same sex want to be taken seriously at something so traditional where there is a distinct female role and a male role.

    It'd be like watching two guys perform the Tchaikovsky pas de deux and wanting to be taken seriously. I would see it as disgraceful if a guy was in a tutu and pointe and wanted to be taken as seriously as the female principle dancer.

    Could it be that people who call anti-same sex marriage supporter ignorant, are just as ignorant?


    No, you're ignorant. There's nothing disgraceful about breaking traditions and taking artistic license with dance.

    I don't think it's weird at all to see two guys dancing, even if one of them IS in a tutu. Not sure if it's self acceptance, it just simple maturity.

    Grow up, boys.


    But that's the reason dance forms such as modern, lyrical, even hip hop and urban styles exist. They were created to break away from the more traditional forms and explore what the human body can do.

    But the fact remains that the traditional forms are so because of the rules that make them so. And it goes so far beyond gender, for good or for ill, professional ballerinas have to be a certain size and their feet need to be a certain shape for them to reach the top. It's certainly discriminatory but it also adheres to the demands of that specific form of art.


    + 1 Thank you for elaborating, that's exactly what I was thinking.

    We created other dance forms such as modern, lyrical and hip hop to break away from traditional form, but not to change the traditional form it self.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Feb 07, 2013 5:02 PM GMT
    KKim11 said
    thatirishbastard said
    HottJoe said
    KKim11 saidWow I just learned a new perspective my self on why many people are opposed to the idea of same sex marriage. Until now I didn't understand people and why they were so against same sex marriage.

    But I feel the same way as you do. I always cringe when two dance partners of the same sex want to be taken seriously at something so traditional where there is a distinct female role and a male role.

    It'd be like watching two guys perform the Tchaikovsky pas de deux and wanting to be taken seriously. I would see it as disgraceful if a guy was in a tutu and pointe and wanted to be taken as seriously as the female principle dancer.

    Could it be that people who call anti-same sex marriage supporter ignorant, are just as ignorant?


    No, you're ignorant. There's nothing disgraceful about breaking traditions and taking artistic license with dance.

    I don't think it's weird at all to see two guys dancing, even if one of them IS in a tutu. Not sure if it's self acceptance, it just simple maturity.

    Grow up, boys.


    But that's the reason dance forms such as modern, lyrical, even hip hop and urban styles exist. They were created to break away from the more traditional forms and explore what the human body can do.

    But the fact remains that the traditional forms are so because of the rules that make them so. And it goes so far beyond gender, for good or for ill, professional ballerinas have to be a certain size and their feet need to be a certain shape for them to reach the top. It's certainly discriminatory but it also adheres to the demands of that specific form of art.


    + 1 Thank you for elaborating, that's exactly what I was thinking.

    We created other dance forms such as modern, lyrical and hip hop to break away from traditional form, but not to change the traditional form it self.


    So, where are all these same sex hip hop routines you speak of? I've never seen a single one!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 07, 2013 5:03 PM GMT
    thatirishbastardIt doesn't bother me. That's why I greatly enjoy lyrical, and modern, and even urban dance, all forms where rules are made to be broken.

    But I was trained in one of the most rigorous, technique oriented, and rigid forms of dance in existence. The beauty of Irish dance isn't about us breaking rules and taking risks. It's the spectacle of perfect teamwork and rigid unity, as well as the mastery of an established form. This is why I love rules. I LOVE rules.

    It doesn't bother me to see two men or women dancing together. Never has. That's the human in me. But the artist in me knows that certain forms of dancing were crafted to aesthetically compliment a man and a woman. And changing that transforms the art into something it's not. You yourself suggested that the dance may need to be altered for things like lifts.

    It's like some who says 'I'm going to paint an oil painting...but with clay!' He might create a beautiful piece, but it's not an oil painting anymore.

    I'm fully aware that I'm too often a Puritan with dance sometimes. I'm just trying to make sure that my opinions on same sex dancing is a result of my artistic tastes and conditioning and not on some sort of internalised homophobia.


    Totally agree. I was trained in classical ballet, which if people get to know, contains vast differences between the roles of male and female dancer no matter the rank of the dancer.

    I'm thinking exactly the same thing about same sex dancing
  • thatirishbast...

    Posts: 3523

    Feb 07, 2013 5:07 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidI enjoy dance, and I have the utmost respect for the athleticism and aesthetics of great dancers. I used to watch So You Think You Can Dance, but I finally got sick of how they defined their gender roles so narrowly. It was obvious, season after season, that a number of the male dancers were gay, but the characters they had to portray were always straight. They were very clear about that, especially in the traditional dances, but even in the modern dances they shied away from same sex attraction. Any time two men were partnered, it was a platonic pairing. Just seeing all the gay dancers conform got sickening. Maybe the show has since given a nod to it's gay audience, but I'm over it. It may be art, but for gay artists to capitulate to their straight audience on every level, every time, makes it seem disingenuous. What's the value of art if it only projects a false image of who we really are?


    They had a beautiful lyrical dance between two of the men recently. Very much meant to be non-platonic. I don't watch the show regularly enough to know if more has happened.

    The choreographers and judges are similar to me in this regard, as dance purists. Probably a lot more so. The funny thing is, the 'character' dances are the ones where I love seeing male duo couples or female duo because they're crafted to be so flexible, and I'd love to see them delve more deeply into it.

    But on the dances such as the tango, waltz, salsa, etc, the exact same thing would inhibit the dance itself. Not at the basic level, but in the higher forms.

    I watched a clip of Chaz Bono dancing in 'Dancing with the Stars.' I liked it. Not just because Chaz identifies as a man, but because they took something controversial and new and stayed honest not only to Chaz but to the art as well.