Should age matter?
Dez
Should a dancer not be allowed to compete because of age? Many of my
students
are in a younger age catagory and at some swing clubs as well as some
coventions
they aren't able to compete. I have one student that is new, but is
also only 5 points shy of dancing in the intermediate division
according to the Phoenix 4th of July convention rules. I also know of
another Junior who has enough pionts to compete as and advanced
dancer, but because of age was not allowed to compete. Shouldn't it
be based on skill and not age? In Phoenix 2 of my students took first
in their catagories, my most famous student who's kickin' my butt,
Jesse, took first in All Stars and Kelly in advanced, but until
recently in the past year he wasn't allowed to compete in a club jack
and jill because of an age rule which was finally rectified.
Luckily most conventions don't have an age limit, but there are a few
that do or offer a junior division, but in some cases that division
has really young people, not at the level of others.
So... should age matter?
Dez
Mike Corbett
Yes. There are many reasons why age matters. You may want to look up
some of the previous discussions on the subject. You are also
incorrect about "most conventions don't have an age limit". Actually
it's not a limit it's a minimum age requirement to compete in adult
divisions. In the WCS community it's most commonly 18.
All NASDE divisions require competitors to have reached age 18 by the
final day of any convention where they might compete. See "General
Rule 1. at.... http://users.erols.com/crhutch/nasderu.html
Here's a hint. :-) If you had a 13 year old daughter would you want
her to dance with me to "Sweat" in a competition? Then there's the
old showbiz adage "Never follow animals or children on stage.". Think
it through and you'll get the picture.
Mike Corbett - Addison TX
If you can't enjoy yourself, enjoy somebody else. :-)
mikalai
"Mike Corbett" <mi...@corbettweb.com> wrote in message
news:5lbojuo2sl1ovu5ji...@4ax.com...
> Here's a hint. :-) If you had a 13 year old daughter would you want
> her to dance with me to "Sweat" in a competition? Then there's the
> old showbiz adage "Never follow animals or children on stage.". Think
> it through and you'll get the picture.
:
Hear, hear!
When I watch some tapes from young WCS divisions, I admire the level of
mastery, but at the same time I feel like pedophile when a 9-year old girl
does these sexy body waves and belly dancing tricks probably without even
being aware what she is doing (or fully aware? even worse).
I am not a purist, but I would set not only age restrictions but also
age-related restrictions for certain moves.
I remember a time when restrictions for ballroom dancing costumes were
introduced (basically amounting to saying that ladies must cover their bare
asses), and this minimal decency requirement did no harm to ballroom dancing
so far.
;mikalai
''''
CordobaSzekely
so we are back to this again...Lets' take another thing into account most wcs
comps consist mostly of adults. In Fact as far as I am concerned it is an adult
venue and children do not belong..Until they become adults. Also at these
events adults tend to drink and sometimes get out of hand as they should be
allowed because they are adults...but when you have children around now we as
adults who do this for fun or for a living now have to mind our P's and
Q's.....You know the Shag community has it right...because both types of swing
WC and Shag were born in Bars They Feel if you are not old enough to drink
then you are not old enough to Dance and I agree. Another flip side...what
ahppens alot to kids who come into the swing world at a young age and are
talented and see success quickly they forget that an education is very
important, especially when a physical ailment happens and you can no longer
dance or teach. Having an education to fall back on is neccessary. The dance
will always be there after college. Just My Opinion Of Course.
Deborah Szekely
trish_connery
it is in their own age/peer group, and both dance and music are age
appropriate.
But I don't believe in kids competing against adults or vice versa
(Cabaret might be an exception). Mike Corbett, Mikalai and Deborah all
made very good points against it, and I agree with them. Particularly,
I'm against young girls being taught or mimicing sexy WCS moves. It's
as thought they've learned wiggle = reward. Not true, or ratber,
SHOULDN'T be true.
But the main reason I'm against it is... Most kids do not have the
necessary body development to handle WCS techniques such as true
connection, leverage, compression, resistance, etc.
Those of you who have been on rec.arts.dance a while may remember my
infamous flame war with the now defunct EW a few years ago on this
very same issue, LOL {sigh}.... oh, the pleasure of delivering a
really good insult! ;^)
Naturally, all my comments are my opinion only.
Sincerely,
Trish Connery
Los Angeles
One
cordoba...@aol.com (CordobaSzekely) wrote in message news:<
avid_dancer
> I remember a time when restrictions for ballroom dancing costumes were
> introduced (basically amounting to saying that ladies must cover their bare
> asses), and this minimal decency requirement did no harm to ballroom dancing
> so far.
How do you know this hasn't done any "harm?" It's a known marketing tool
that to increase coverage (such as on TV or Miss America pagents), decreasing
coverage is the simplest means :-)
MSlaterHi
look at both sides. You don't want to take away from the children or make them
feel like they are be penalized. Yet I do agree with the appropriate moves.
Iattended my first US Open in 84 thier 2nd year and went every year til 96 when
I was in Hawaii. I have seen alot of changes and watch alot of these so called
kids who are now young adults. Where would they be if we took dancing away from
them?
Tegan
> Just had something I wanted to throw around.
>
> Should a dancer not be allowed to compete because of age?
I've considered this issue often since I was competing with both
juniors and adults when I was under 18. There are several separate
issues:
1. Physical maturity. It seems unreasonable to expect a woman to deal
with the physical dynamics of dancing with a 5'2" 100 pound 15 year
olod boy in a jack and jill. On the other hand, I was elegible to draw
the same size of partners when I was 17 and adult sized but dancing in
the junior division, and totally unfamiliar with danceing with other
young people. The physical issue is hard to deal with with rules, but
it's definitely an issue.
2. Emotional maturity and sexuality. I don't think younger children
should be doing WCS comps no matter who they're dancing with. For one
thing, the pressures of high-level competition should not be placed on
a kid. Plus the sexuality of the dance just isn't appropriate for
children. The training of kids from age 10 or younger has gotten us
some great dancers but that doesn't mean it's right. What's more,
partner dancing should not become like so many other physical
activities where top levels of competition cannot be reached unless
one is lucky enough to be trained at a young age.
That said, I think though 18 is an arbitrary cutoff age in the
legal system it isn't the best age to split competitions. 16 would be
a better age -- many teens this age are capable of handling adult
competition. As long as they are used to dancing with adults socially
and their parents authorize it, they should be allowed in general
divisions. There are a total of two other teens dancing WCS in the
same state as me. If someone's out social dancing with the dancing
public and competing with them in club competitions, why not national
comps? And on the issue of music: blatant sexuality shouldn't show up
in JnJ comps anyway, and if a teen's parents don't object there is no
reason why a teenager cannot learn to deal with sensuality. After all,
they are legally allowed to pilot large deadly hunks of metal at 16,
why not compete with adults?
And a word about Jr comps: this is what I've been saying and will keep
saying. Extend the age to 20. This is a logical breakoff point since
in may places being a minor is a disadvantage in social dance
opportunities. A higher age range will allow more people to compete.
IMO a person should be dancing a year or two (or more) before they
compete, and WCS before puberty is a bad idea, so the little 15 year
old wouldn't be competing at all in my world. In fact, I would have no
problem with having absolutely no competitions for those under 16. You
may get fewer champion 18 year olds, but you also get fewer messed up
kids and fewer outlets for messed up parents. Somebody should learn
partner dancing of their own motivation, not that of the parent who
signs them up for private lessons at age 12. Have the kids do solo
dancing, they'll be well prepared for a partner when they begin to
actually develop an interest in dancing with others.
kaysee
I guess the voice of personal experience speaks most clearly.
"Tegan" <redhotsw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:38243258.02072...@posting.google.com...
Chris Brown
> Ok,
> so we are back to this again...
>
Yes, it is the age old question (pun intended). My answer is NO. IMO
the primary reason adults have issues with non-adults dancing is the
sexuality thing. Dancing is not an expression of sexuality, however
sexuality can be expressed in dance. Dancing is rythmic self
expression. When an adult chooses to dance sexually that certainly
can be appropriate or not. However for many (and I'm not suggesting
that DZ is one of these) this is the only form of their expression and
it is frustrating for them to dance with someone who is
innaproppriately younger than them in that respect. Imagine the case
when a 70 year old male is dancing with a 18 year old female. Is it
then appropriate or even attractive for the leader to get hot and sexy
with the follower? Both are adults by the current standards. Get
over it! These folks are missing a broad range of expression in dance
because they have a narrow minded view of dancing, i.e. dancing = sex.
A talanted dancer will be able to rythmically express in many forms
and can leave the sexuality for somebody more appropriate. Personally
I find too much bump and grind on the comp floor a cop out. Dancing
in comps should be ability limited only. If a junior dances at the
advanced level then let them dance there. Let's face it, there have
been remarkably few juniors who do have the talent to dance at the
higher levels of the dance. At the lower levels they should be trying
to keep to clean basics anyway. All that said it is still the Event
Promotor's perogative to decide how their event will be run.
As for the college issue, since when is an education limited to the
young. If someone is injured certainly they can attend school anyway.
(They might even be given preferental treatment.) Certainly not all
employment requires a college degree and many of the "talented" artist
types are the types not suited for the rigid structure of college
anyway. I am college educated in hard science and have a good paying
job, yet there are many with only High School diplomas who are making
considerably more than I. While getting an education may be the
prudent thing to do IMO, who are we to make this decision for these
individuals anyway. That is their right and their parent's
responsibility to help guide them.
As always, my two cents.
Chris Brown
Camarillo, CA
Mike Corbett
wrote:
>cordoba...@aol.com (CordobaSzekely) wrote in message news:<20020723032316...@mb-mu.aol.com>...
>> Ok,
>> so we are back to this again...
>>
>> Deborah Szekely
>
> IMO the primary reason adults have issues with non-adults dancing is the
>sexuality thing.
I suppose if we took a scientific survey, the above may be correct.
However, the "primary reason" is hardly the "only reason". When those
in leadership positions make decisions wisely, they take into account
as much of the picture as they can possibly comprehend and then weigh
the information carefully.
>snipped some good stuff I don't need to respond to..
> A talanted dancer will be able to rythmically express in many forms
>and can leave the sexuality for somebody more appropriate. Personally
>I find too much bump and grind on the comp floor a cop out.
While a talented dancer "can" do many things including leaving the
sexuality for somebody more appropriate, that DOES become a big issue.
In a ten couple National final, the (for example) 40ish male who draws
the 14 year old, now has both the disadvantage of removing one element
of interpretation and the advantage of adding the novelty of the 14
year old's talent. While sexuality may be a primary focus of this
discussion, a close second place that Chris ignores is the novelty
factor. I don't think it's wise to ignore any of the factors.
>Dancing in comps should be ability limited only. If a junior dances at the
>advanced level then let them dance there. Let's face it, there have
>been remarkably few juniors who do have the talent to dance at the
>higher levels of the dance. At the lower levels they should be trying
>to keep to clean basics anyway. All that said it is still the Event
>Promotor's perogative to decide how their event will be run.
Your opinion is noted, however, you are incorrect about it being
exclusively the promoter's prerogative to decide age requirements.
Parents and the NASDE Board (for NASDE member events) are major
contributors to such decisions.
Chuck Brown
I refuse to get involved any more than I have to with this issue, but
I am here to point out one thing; just because a kid starts dancing
young, doesn't mean they can't handle or be mature enough handle the
sexual or explicit nature of WCS: I have 6 words that will back my
opinion:
Jordan, Tatiana, Benji, Hiedi, and Parents
Enough said?
Chuck Brown
:)
saima m fazli
m*************************************
* Saima M. Fazli *
* Professional Student *
* City College of San Francisco*
* thin...@sfsu.edu *
**************************************
* *
- ^ -
\___/
Mike Corbett
wrote:
Enough said? No!
If the existence of exceptions prevented rule making, we would have no
rules. Fortunately, that's not how the world operates.
I think you and I were probably both present when, with Robert
Royston, Tatiana won her first Champion Level Jack and Jill at the
1999 Monterey convention when she was 15. By that time, she had been
dancing with adults regularly for some time, under the supervision of
a parent, in most cases. Then and now, I thought that since there was
no rule against it, her entry was absolutely appropriate precisely
because her experience and supervision circumstances were sufficiently
different from most teenage participants to warrant exception to the
principles upon which minimum age requirements currently in place
elsewhere are based.
On the other hand, the rules are for the many, not the exceptional.
Once a rule is in place, it isn't a "rule" unless it is enforced
without exception. In the absence of in place age requirements, I
have no problem with Event Directors using their discretion with
regard to youth entry to contests they offer.
None of the exceptions you cite represent unsupervised "children".
Are you suggesting that you would support the entry of children of any
age competing with and against adults without restriction? If not,
what minimum age requirement would you suggest and in what
circumstances, if any, would you make exceptions?
Bonnie
there was a but, didn't you ?) what I do have a challenge with is
young people staying up so late, and being unsupervised. Many
competitions and events I've been to, go until the wee hours of the
morning. I can't imagine allowing a 12 year old up until 2 am -
that's just wrong to me. And, most of the time, the parents are out
dancing, not supervising their child.
If parents want to bring young ones to events, that's great ! Share
an event with your kids, but don't get so into dancing that you leave
your child out. Kids know when they are "in the way". It's not fair
to them (to bring them, then leave them alone).
Age restrictions at events are a tough one. If alcohol is being
served, I agree with a minimum age. Just remember, us Canadians have
different age minimums than you (18 or 19 years, not 21). I think
that after certain times (eg. 12 am)kids should be "at home in bed".
If that means the parents leave too, well, they chose to bring them.
Children are not a one time thing, you must invest in them
continually.
Just my thoughts,
Bonnie Pearce
MSlaterHi
exclusively the promoter's prerogative to decide age requirements.
Parents and the NASDE Board (for NASDE member events) are major
contributors to such decisions
>
>I don't mind young people dancing with/against me. However (you knew
>there was a but, didn't you ?) what I do have a challenge with is
>young people staying up so late, and being unsupervised. Many
>competitions and events I've been to, go until the wee hours of the
>morning. I can't imagine allowing a 12 year old up until 2 am -
>that's just wrong to me. And, most of the time, the parents are out
>dancing, not supervising their child
Cant agree more PARENTS need to take responsibility for thier kids. As I
previously I have two kids and they go with me to almost all events I go to.
Normally we take someone with us so if we stay out late they stay and watch the
kids. They enjoy being there and watching and now have started dancing. and now
it is MY responsibility to insure and instill upon them the proper morals and
values. NOT the promotors or NASDE.
Randi Cohen
> On 25 Jul 2002 10:54:22 -0700, dance...@earthlink.net (Chris Brown)
> wrote:
>
> While a talented dancer "can" do many things including leaving the
> sexuality for somebody more appropriate, that DOES become a big issue.
> In a ten couple National final, the (for example) 40ish male who draws
> the 14 year old, now has both the disadvantage of removing one element
> of interpretation and the advantage of adding the novelty of the 14
> year old's talent. While sexuality may be a primary focus of this
> discussion, a close second place that Chris ignores is the novelty
> factor. I don't think it's wise to ignore any of the factors.
if this is a national final, i would hope that the judges would be
experienced and unbiased enough to ignore both sexuality and novelty,
and grade on the basis of technique, music interpretation, creativity,
etc. (they already have to de-
cide in many other cases how to treat novelty/adjustment to an unusual
situation/avoidance of sexuality, as with parent-child dance couples,
couples who have recently broken up, a couple where the leader is much
shorter than the follower, a couple where one or both dancers choose
to avoid sexuality in their dance, etc.. random chance, positive and
negative, does happen in j&j's, which is why they are not "just
dance"s )
This being said, I've definitely seen young people who I think were
brought into the scene too early/inappropriately supervised. But I've
also seen young people who could take the playing/sexuality in stride,
and remain aware of the importance of an education, who find the dance
community to be an important source of support and enjoyment while
they are growing up. I tend to think that what makes the difference
is their fundamental character and how their parents raise them, and
not whether they are allowed to compete in J&Js.
BTW, let's not forget, there are (sadly) alot more unwholesome places
for young people to be in this world than a WCS competition!!!!!
RC
Swin...@webtv.net
Holly, Niki, Michael, Alicia, Kelley, Olivia, Scott, Kimberly, Amanda,
Will, Mathew, Erin, James, Austin, Rachel, Scott, Joe, Lisa, Scott,
Andy, Keith, Kimberly, Nicole, Jennifer, Danielle, and all the other
(used to be) kids?
Of course one did become a titty bar dancer :-)
There are only two ways of telling the complete truth - anonymously and
posthumously.
Thomas Sowell
Dez
First, what does education have to do with someone dancing. I don't
remember saying that this was a career choice. 99.0 percent of the
people that compete in comps don't do so as a career choice. It's a
fun hobby that you can make money at, and for some it can be a career.
Competitions, especially Jack & Jills should not be taken seriously,
there are to many factors out of your control, you just hope you have
a good dance and you get rewarded for it.
Nobody is talking about what if the young person were a male dancing
with an older woman. It seems we have a lot of guys that have sex on
the mind when they dance. Not every song is sexually influenced. I
was talking about if someone is talented enough to hang with the big
dogs, then shouldn't they be allowed to dance with the big dogs,
instead of being forced to dance with the puppies.
There are some talented young people who I enjoy dancing with very
much because they are extremely talented and that's it! Why can't
someone who is capable of excelling in this very difficult dance be
held back because of age. If I could dance with a talented 16 year
old or a crappy 40 year old, I'd take the better 16 yr. old. There
are some ladies who I have danced with that are 60 plus and I love
dancing with them because they are fun. Age doesn't matter. It's
dancing.
Dancing good is a talent. Dancing Great is a gift. Why should we
take that away from someone and not let them enjoy their God given
gift.
Let them dance!
Dez
Icono Clast
> if this is a national final, i would hope that the judges would be
> experienced and unbiased enough to ignore both sexuality and novelty,
> and grade on the basis of technique, music interpretation, creativity,
> etc.
On the rare occasions that I've entered competitions, I've left out
the sleaze except when the competition was Sleaze. I think that, in
general, sleaze is inappropriate in normal competition. But, on the
other hand, when all the competitors are on the floor and a very sexy
number's played, what is Sarah (uh, I meant to say "one") to do?
> the leader is much shorter than the follower
You sometimes resemble that remark. But, yes, not in competition.
> But I've also seen young people who could take the playing/sexuality in
> stride
That's not what gets me into trouble: What is is sexy children who
willfully and deliberately do things to this old man that would drive
most kids crazy. Oh, yes, they're done in good humor and are a lot of
fun but I dare not respond. A particularly sexy minor whose name is
beginning to appear in results that appear in this forum, has been
doing terrible (well, delightful) things to me for several years. Many
of our dances have been truncated by rolling convulsions of
uproariousness.
> I tend to think that what makes the difference is their fundamental character
> and how their parents raise them,
Zactly. There's no harm in a little humorful nuts driving of an old
guy providing it's understood who's doing what and the intent of
what's being done. But I still think it's inappropriate in
competition.
> BTW, let's not forget, there are (sadly) alot more unwholesome places
> for young people to be in this world than a WCS competition!!!!!
Indeed, Randi.
________________________________________________________________
ICONO CLAST http://geocities.com/dancefest/ IClast at SFbay Net
A San Franciscan who never says "No!" to an invitation to dance!
Icono Clast
> Bonnie objects to:
> >young people staying up so late, and being unsupervised. Many
> >competitions and events I've been to, go until the wee hours of the
> >morning. I can't imagine allowing a 12 year old up until 2 am -
> >that's just wrong to me. And, most of the time, the parents are out
> >dancing, not supervising their child
>
> Cant agree more
I don't agree at all. A convention is exceptional, i.e., not daily
life. If the child is functioning well at 2 a.m. and having a good
time giving good dances to many partners, why not? I see them, I dance
with them, I talk to them. And I have no qualms about their degree of
supervision as they're in a large group of mostly nice people who wish
no harm.
> PARENTS need to take responsibility for thier kids.
Yes! And you, and Abra, appear to be among the best parents I've ever
observed in the dance community. When your first child was still too
young to walk, you brought him dances. Even though you knew the sound
levels at our dances are not high, you neveretheless protected your
child's hearing by using ear covers. I presume you did the same with
your second child and I further presume that you do many things for
the health, saftety, and proper development of your children. Not all
parents do. Your children are still very young and need all the
protection good parents should provide but, soon, they'll not need, or
want, the degree of "protection" you might want to provide at dance
events. I hope you recognize when that is.
> it is MY responsibility to insure and instill upon them the proper morals and
> values. NOT the promotors or NASDE.
Shore is!
Swin...@webtv.net
As I've stated in previous discussions on this subject, the reason kids
are not allowed to dance against adults is because the adults DON'T want
to dance against the kids. Period.
All the other reasons are dance babble and is of little importance
except for discussion fodder.
Fred Miner
> Talent has very little to do with age.
>
> As I've stated in previous discussions on this subject, the reason kids
> are not allowed to dance against adults is because the adults DON'T want
> to dance against the kids. Period.
I guess the old farts can't keep up with the young'uns. I've watched
'em dance and I ain't even gonna try!
Fred
>
Bonnie
> > Bonnie objects to:
> > >young people staying up so late, and being unsupervised. Many
> > >competitions and events I've been to, go until the wee hours of the
> > >morning. I can't imagine allowing a 12 year old up until 2 am -
> > >that's just wrong to me. And, most of the time, the parents are out
> > >dancing, not supervising their child
> >
> Cant agree more
> I don't agree at all. A convention is exceptional, i.e., not daily
> life. If the child is functioning well at 2 a.m. and having a good
> time giving good dances to many partners, why not? I see them, I dance
> with them, I talk to them. And I have no qualms about their degree of
> supervision as they're in a large group of mostly nice people who wish
> no harm.
My respone is:
1. Many of the kids I've seen at events are going to ALOT of them !
This makes a convention not "exceptional", but routine.
2. "they're in a large group of !mostly! nice people who wish no
harm"
- that comment scares me ! If you are allowing kids to wander around,
with out a designated supervisor, you should leave them at home with a
sitter. I'd hate to hear a "what if" happen at an event, because all
the hundreds of very caring people would be heartbroken, let alone the
effects on the child.
Bonnie Pearce
Oliver Bandel
"I was astouned the first time I saw Irmgard come
from a running start and dive into the floor on
a diagonal (down, forward, left). She claimed that
she was "riding the kite tension" and added, "the
space will hold you". I had my doubts, but decided
that if someone nearly 50 years older could do it,
so could I. After a couple of bruised knees, I
discovered that, indeed, (...)"
Peggy Hackney, Making Connections,
(Page 4 in Chapter 1: Personal Memories of irmgard Bartenieff)
Ciao,
Oliver
Mikalai
"Oliver Bandel" <oli...@first.in-berlin.de> wrote in message
news:ai9jgi$j...@first.in-berlin.de...
> "I was astouned the first time I saw Irmgard come
> from a running start and dive into the floor on
> a diagonal (down, forward, left). She claimed that
> she was "riding the kite tension" and added, "the
> space will hold you". I had my doubts, but decided
> that if someone nearly 50 years older could do it,
> so could I. After a couple of bruised knees, I
> discovered that, indeed, (...)"
Age does matter indeed:
In my over the hill age, I would easily do without bruised knees...
by learning to dive onto something soft first :-)
;mikalai
''''
Chuck Brown
There are many kids that are wonderful in the community, but that's
the responsibilities of the parents to trust and oversee their actions
and other things.
I belive that 99.9% of the people in our community would not even
think of doing anything wrong with the kids in our community, but like
everyone is saying, there are things that happen and there really
isn't anything as individuals can do, again, it's the parents
responsibility to oversee their child's actions and behavior.
As for competing, skill level only, we should consider the skill and
experience of the competitor. For the most part, I believe that real
young dancers (<16)should not be competing with adults, but there will
be a few exceptions...like some of the names mentioned here.
Deborah was right when she talked about the sexual content, an issue
that has to be addressed or at least talked about. I don't know, this
subject is very difficult to arrive at a viable solution that benefits
and protects all of us.
Anyway, just my opinion....
I have too many thoughts regarding this topic....I would be writing
for a long time...so..back to work!!!
LOL,
Chuck
Mike Corbett
wrote:
>
>As for competing, skill level only, we should consider the skill and
>experience of the competitor. For the most part, I believe that real
>young dancers (<16)should not be competing with adults, but there will
>be a few exceptions...like some of the names mentioned here.
So, you ARE saying age matters but you are more concerned about those
under 16 instead of under 18?? Did I misunderstand? If you
acknowledge the validity of the concern then I advise you to stop
using the phrase "skill level ONLY". "Only" is an absolute term, so
ONLY use it when you mean it. :-)
>Deborah was right when she talked about the sexual content, an issue
>that has to be addressed or at least talked about. I don't know, this
>subject is very difficult to arrive at a viable solution that benefits
>and protects all of us.
Yes, everybody who mentioned the sexual content was right. Yes,
you're right, the subject IS very difficult unless you separate the
children from the adults. That's why it's done that way. :-) It's
not just "difficult" it's virtually impossible.
I don't have any problem toning down the sexual aspects when dancing
with children but we're talking about competing, so don't put me at a
disadvantage by taking that aspect away (in a competition) by putting
me in a position to draw a child for a partner. And, don't put the
child in a position to wonder whether the next person will exercise
the same good judgement and accept the disadvantage. Get it?
Please don't confuse "should" with "I wish". :-)
Swin...@webtv.net
area.
Mikalai
> On 1 Aug 2002 10:19:16 -0700, swingzo...@aol.com (Chuck Brown)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >As for competing, skill level only, we should consider the skill and
> >experience of the competitor. For the most part, I believe that real
> >young dancers (<16)should not be competing with adults, but there will
> >be a few exceptions...like some of the names mentioned here.
>
> So, you ARE saying age matters but you are more concerned about those
> under 16 instead of under 18?? Did I misunderstand? If you
> acknowledge the validity of the concern then I advise you to stop
> using the phrase "skill level ONLY". "Only" is an absolute term, so
> ONLY use it when you mean it. :-)
Let me mention still another aspect, in addition to skill level and "adult
content", that IMO plays an important role in "age segregation".
Consider an analogy: we (many of us) enjoy watching both the prancing of a
colt and the gait of a stallion.
But colt and stallion play on totally different aesthetic strings in us;
they have no common gauge
(oranges vs.orangs, if you wish).
Since dancing includes a significant part of aesthetic content, the same
applies to young vs. adult people.
But transition from colt to young stallion occurs fast; unfortunately it is
not so fast for people. There is no absolute, agreed upon, cutline; and
cannot be. Therefore this split is painfully arbitrary, but we have to live
with what we have. Shifting the threshold from 18 to 16 to 15yrs7mos will
not help much, neither will adding more age divisions. Moreover, we must not
forget that in young ages the development of physical/mental facilities is
very uneven across the population and even across the residential areas for
the same age. Therefore there always will be special cases. Like a 4-year
old boy lifting 120 lbs. :-)
@{enter grumble mode}
Yes, we old farts do not want to compete against rapping youngsters.
I suspect that the latter ones are responsible for making Intl Latin to look
so jerky and Standard so stiff.
I remember the same had happened with gymnastics sport.
It was such a pleasure to watch graceful bodies of young women.
But then there came these ugly fat-free knees-and-elbows teenager girls,
spinning and flying so fast you can see nothing.
@{exit}
;mikalai
''''
Chuck Brown
You're missing my point. I do believe that age matters, but I believe
it's the ultimate responsibility of the parent to let the kids compete
or not. If they are good enough based on skill level and experience,
then let them compete. I don't have a problem with that. The problem
lies with the attitudes and thoughts of those thinking of something
else.
Did Tatiana have a problem? Jordan? Did they need sexual content to
win and advance through the ranks, I think not!!! It's your ability as
a leader to dance with the partner you have and bring out their
strengths and weaknesses. No matter what music is playing. If I have
an athletic tick girl, I do tricks; if i have a groovy girl..I groove;
if I have a spinner, I can spin her. It is up to the leader to manage
the dance and the follower will follow. You you don't think sexual
content is good, then leave it out. J&J's are luck of the draw
anyway...and I don't think it's a penalty to dance with someone
younger.
However, I do understand the other side and I can appreciate that view
as well. I am saying that this is a huge topic, with many many
components involved. A quick ultimate judgement without examining all
the options and opinions is not wise and unjust. A common vote or
opinion would be better; then the rules can be laid down.
Remember, I am for a standard set of rules and guidelines in our dance
community. I hope we can see that someday soon!
as always, IMHO!!!
Chuck
Mike Corbett
wrote:
>Mike,
>
>You're missing my point. I do believe that age matters, but I believe
>it's the ultimate responsibility of the parent to let the kids compete
>or not. If they are good enough based on skill level and experience,
>then let them compete. I don't have a problem with that. The problem
>lies with the attitudes and thoughts of those thinking of something
>else.
So, instead of saying "skill level only" you meant something entirely
different. No wonder I missed your point. :-)
>
>Did Tatiana have a problem? Jordan?
Again you focus on the exceptions/exceptional. "Rules" are for
everybody, not just the exceptional.
>
>However, I do understand the other side and I can appreciate that view
>as well. I am saying that this is a huge topic, with many many
>components involved. A quick ultimate judgement without examining all
>the options and opinions is not wise and unjust. A common vote or
>opinion would be better; then the rules can be laid down.
I was present and voted at the recent NASDE board meeting where the
issue was clarified for NASDE member events. For NASDE events, the
rule IS laid down.
>
>Remember, I am for a standard set of rules and guidelines in our dance
>community. I hope we can see that someday soon!
Be for it and hope all you want but as long as there is no sanctioning
organization and a mix of private promoters and member managed dance
clubs organize the events, there will be no standard set of rules.
Why don't you think through how exceptions could be made and why.
Think through the criteria to use that would be "accepted" by the
adult competitors and the parents of the child competitors. When you
think you have it, publish it. Until you do so, you're simply whining
and shoulding in the wind, IMO.
Dancer526
we had to dance to a very slow song, it just plain old felt "dirty." I
couldn't dance the way I like or interpret the music the way I would like and
I'm sure they felt just as uneasy dancing with someone the age of their
mothers.
I don't feel this issue has to do with just "dance ability."
Be Good to Yourself!
Sue Canada
Woodland Hills, CA
Randi Cohen
> with children but we're talking about competing, so don't put me at a
> disadvantage by taking that aspect away (in a competition) by putting
> me in a position to draw a child for a partner. And, don't put the
> child in a position to wonder whether the next person will exercise
> the same good judgement and accept the disadvantage. Get it?
>
There are plenty of dancers I can think of who don't participate in
the sexual aspects of the dance. Mary Ann Nunez is one prominent
example (or at least, I can't recall ever seeing her engage in that
type of flirtation on a dance floor). I've never seen anybody
disadvantaged by drawing her name.
Furthermore, "sex" does not start with "t". Give me a partner with
timing, technique, and teamwork and I don't care if they're 7 or 70.
cheers,
RC
Ed Jay
>There are plenty of dancers I can think of who don't participate in
>the sexual aspects of the dance. Mary Ann Nunez is one prominent
>example
As Mike might say, "You focus on the exceptions/exceptional."
It doesn't matter whether or not Mary Ann, Jordan, Tatiana, or anyone else
employs sexuality in their dance. What matters is that the potential for
any inappropriate (for kids) sexual interaction between an adult and a kid
be eliminated.
>Furthermore, "sex" does not start with "t". Give me a partner with
>timing, technique, and teamwork and I don't care if they're 7 or 70.
>
Good for you, but we're not speaking to your dancing.
Ed Jay (No X to reply)
Swin...@webtv.net
<<I was present and voted at the recent NASDE board meeting where the
issue was clarified for NASDE member events. For NASDE events, the rule
IS laid down.>>
Yeah, but can they keep it this time?
Chuck says:
<<Remember, I am for a standard set of rules and guidelines in our dance
community. I hope we can see that someday soon!>>
Dream on.
Mike says:
<<Be for it and hope all you want but as long as there is no sanctioning
organization and a mix of private promoters and member managed dance
clubs organize the events, there will be no standard set of rules. Why
don't you think through how exceptions could be made and why. Think
through the criteria to use that would be "accepted" by the adult
competitors and the parents of the child competitors.>>
Ask the US Open and Seattle about exceptions :-) How embarassing :-(
Flagrant disregard (I'll cut them a little bit of slack...let's say
flagrant "misinterpretation") for rules that were supposedly already
laid down. Bummer.
Randi Cohen
> As Mike might say, "You focus on the exceptions/exceptional."
>
And so do you! Who in this community is so inflexible that they can't
handle a partner they can't flirt sexually with, yet is obtuse enough
that they still expect to do consistently well in Jack n Jills despite
an inability to adjust to this not uncommon situation (I can name
plenty of other dancers who don't flirt)?
Furthermore, they must also be enough of an idiot that they think
bumpin' and grindin' with a little kid will somehow be accepted and
even approved of by judges and audience. I would certainly hope that
such a person is an exception in our community, or else we need our
collective consciousness raised!
> It doesn't matter whether or not Mary Ann, Jordan, Tatiana, or anyone else
> employs sexuality in their dance. What matters is that the potential for
> any inappropriate (for kids) sexual interaction between an adult and a kid
> be eliminated.
If the community is indeed responsible for guaranteeing this, the kids
should not even be allowed in the ballroom. It's certainly just as
likely for the inappropriate behavior to occur off the comp floor as
on it.
> >Furthermore, "sex" does not start with "t". Give me a partner with
> >timing, technique, and teamwork and I don't care if they're 7 or 70.
> >
> Good for you, but we're not speaking to your dancing.
I would hope that any competitor would agree with me - the whole point
of a jack n jill is dancing to partners' strengths, and this is hard
to do when you're upset about their perceived flaws. And yes, if they
made it to finals (the only situation in which you're judged as a
couple), the judges are saying they *do* have strengths that are equal
to any lack of sexiness, you just need to be skilled enough to find
them.
RC
Mike Corbett
>Ed Jay <Xe...@aes-intl.com> wrote in message news:<qnmjkuclbn16rfsq0...@4ax.com>...
>> As Mike might say, "You focus on the exceptions/exceptional."
>I would hope that any competitor would agree with me - the whole point
>of a jack n jill is dancing to partners' strengths, and this is hard
>to do when you're upset about their perceived flaws. And yes, if they
>made it to finals (the only situation in which you're judged as a
>couple), the judges are saying they *do* have strengths that are equal
>to any lack of sexiness, you just need to be skilled enough to find
>them.
Hope away but not only many competitors but organizers and parents,
don't agree with you. If it weren't so, we wouldn't be having this
discussion, now. Would we?
It's not a matter of being able to adjust and have a good dance. It's
many things that have already been mentioned in this thread. If you
don't find them valid, that's your choice but hoping won't make them
less valid for the many who don't share your opinion. Neither
"flirting" or "bumping and grinding" was actually what I had in mind.
You go from the exceptional to the extreme. Maybe it's that
astrophysicist's warp speed that needs a little slow down. :-)
Chuck Brown
The reason I dont' get on RAD is because of personal attacks on
individuals. Let's start by saying that I am not whinning about
anything and YEs I have discussed this issue all over the US and
Canada and have not reached a definate opinion yet. I truely can see
both sides or the augument.
As for exceptions, that is the problem. You refer to these people as
exceptions, but they instead should be examples, not exceptions!!!
As for people who think a standard set of rules cannot be done has no
vision; I believe if there's a problem to be solved, then it will be
solved. I personally believe that creating a uniform book of rule or
guidelines would benefit all competitors and strengthen our community.
But, since this is not considered a sport per se, it will be a large
challenge for all of us (promoters and dancers).
I personally don't care either way; however, I do care about
consistancy and a uniform set of rules. For judging, competitions, and
level of dance (point system).
Anyway, these points are as always my OPINION only....
Chuck
Asya Kamsky
Dancer526 <danc...@aol.com> wrote:
>I have to saw I drew one of the "boys" in a competition when they were 16 and
>we had to dance to a very slow song, it just plain old felt "dirty." I
>couldn't dance the way I like or interpret the music the way I would like and
>I'm sure they felt just as uneasy dancing with someone the age of their
>mothers.
But wouldn't you have the same problem if they were just-turned-18?
I know _I_ have that problem when I dance with some men who are older
than my father and they dance too-friendly [1]
[1] which just freaks me out when I have never seen them before in
my life and they want to get all down and dirty on the dancefloor.
I can only imagine how that feels to an 18 year old.
--
Asya Kamsky
"To forgive is an act of compassion. It is not done because
people deserve it, it's done because they need it." -- Rupert Giles.
Ed Jay
>Ed Jay wrote
>> As Mike might say, "You focus on the exceptions/exceptional."
>>
>And so do you!
Do not! Do not!
>Who in this community is so inflexible that they can't
>handle a partner they can't flirt sexually with...
A few years ago the subject of groping was discussed here. If I recall
correctly, eight of ten women said that they had been groped, and that it
was not unusual for them to be groped. It seems that inappropriate sexual
behavior is not the exception, but, unfortunately it's the norm.
Notwithstanding the apparent normalcy of male sexual behavior (you're all
pigs --- 'cept me), were one single incident against a child to occur,
exceptional as it may be, it remains an issue that we as a community must
exhibit due diligence to prevent.
>
>If the community is indeed responsible for guaranteeing this, the kids
>should not even be allowed in the ballroom..
If that's the only option, so be it. Personally, I agree with the NASDE
rule. I also think that nobody under 16 should be allowed to dance with
adults either socially or competitively.
>
>> Good for you, but we're not speaking to your dancing.
Sorry if it came across as offensive. I should have said 'It may be good
for you, but...' .
>
>I would hope that any competitor would agree with me...
I don't compete, but I'd wager that you'll find few competitors that would
agree.
Ed Jay
>...I personally believe that creating a uniform book of rule or
>guidelines would benefit all competitors and strengthen our community.
>
For the most part, I agree with you; however, my beliefs go a little
deeper. I say rules, not guidelines, should govern comps. But, as SwingPoop
has already pointed out, rules are meaningless if events don't adhere to
them or the officiating authority doesn't enforce them. Unfortunately,
recent history has borne out that even NASDE's own member events don't
follow NASDE rules.
Mike Corbett
wrote:
>Ok Mike,
>
>The reason I dont' get on RAD is because of personal attacks on
>individuals. Let's start by saying that I am not whinning about
>anything and YEs I have discussed this issue all over the US and
>Canada and have not reached a definate opinion yet. I truely can see
>both sides or the augument.
I'm unaware of any personal attacks in this thread and I don't
remember anybody writing the word "whining". I'm glad you can see
both sides of the issue but if you don't have a definite opinion yet,
I'll advise you again to stop using terms like "only". :-)
>
>As for exceptions, that is the problem. You refer to these people as
>exceptions, but they instead should be examples, not exceptions!!!
That's your opinion but it's not supported by the facts. Why do you
think they are examples instead of exceptions? The "examples" you use
are not representative of the "majority" of WCS competitors under age
18 , even if they are the "only" ones that come to your mind. The
rules now in place are not about the exceptional but rather about the
majority, now and in the future.
>As for people who think a standard set of rules cannot be done has no
>vision; I believe if there's a problem to be solved, then it will be
>solved. I personally believe that creating a uniform book of rule or
>guidelines would benefit all competitors and strengthen our community.
>But, since this is not considered a sport per se, it will be a large
>challenge for all of us (promoters and dancers).
Don't confuse "can't" with "won't". There are consistent rules
governing Showcase, Classic and the top level Strictly Swing at NASDE
member events. The reason there "won't" be consistent rules for ALL
National WCS events is because of the diversity of format combined
with the individual motivations of promoters and regional
needs/resources.
Saying it "cannot" be done may well indicate a lack of vision but
knowing it "won't" be done indicates a deeper understanding of the
various issues and motivations.
>
>I personally don't care either way; however, I do care about
>consistancy and a uniform set of rules. For judging, competitions, and
>level of dance (point system).
Which is it "I don't care" or "skill level only"?
Level of dance applies primarily to Jack and Jill competition.
Regional needs and resources will preclude absolute uniformity.
Consistency in judging in context of subjective presentation is an
oxymoron. The best one can hope for is some published standards and
definitions. How they are applied is still up to the individual
judges. Judging is another issue best discussed in another thread.
Mike Corbett - Carrollton, TX
Ed Jay
>I know _I_ have that problem when I dance with some men who are older
>than my father and they dance too-friendly [1]
>
>[1] which just freaks me out when I have never seen them before in
>my life and they want to get all down and dirty on the dancefloor.
>I can only imagine how that feels to an 18 year old.
Keep Icono out of this. :-))
Randi Cohen
> On 2 Aug 2002 10:16:35 -0700, ra...@ucolick.org (Randi Cohen) wrote:
>
> >Ed Jay <Xe...@aes-intl.com> wrote in message news:<qnmjkuclbn16rfsq0...@4ax.com>...
> >> As Mike might say, "You focus on the exceptions/exceptional."
>
> >I would hope that any competitor would agree with me - the whole point
> >of a jack n jill is dancing to partners' strengths, and this is hard
> >to do when you're upset about their perceived flaws. And yes, if they
> >made it to finals (the only situation in which you're judged as a
> >couple), the judges are saying they *do* have strengths that are equal
> >to any lack of sexiness, you just need to be skilled enough to find
> >them.
>
> Hope away but not only many competitors but organizers and parents,
> don't agree with you. If it weren't so, we wouldn't be having this
> discussion, now. Would we?
Really? So who is it that said in this discussion that they
personally cannot adjust to, and find the strengths of, young folks
who make it to finals? (despite the fact that the judges obviously
think they are just as good as the other finalists).
What I've read was more along the lines of "Well, *I* would adjust
fine, though I'm not always happy about it, but unnamed other people
might not be so wise".
> It's not a matter of being able to adjust and have a good dance. It's
> many things that have already been mentioned in this thread. If you
> don't find them valid, that's your choice but hoping won't make them
> less valid for the many who don't share your opinion. Neither
> "flirting" or "bumping and grinding" was actually what I had in mind.
> You go from the exceptional to the extreme. Maybe it's that
> astrophysicist's warp speed that needs a little slow down. :-)
I've read the thread, and was responding directly to a particular post
on it. If you don't like the terms I used, substitute your own
expression meaning whatever it is you don't want to see done with a
minor on a dance floor.
BTW, this is RAD, so kindly leave my brain outta this. ;)
RC
Mike Corbett
>Mike Corbett <mi...@corbettweb.com> wrote in message news:<feglkuslehocuv56i...@4ax.com>...
>> On 2 Aug 2002 10:16:35 -0700, ra...@ucolick.org (Randi Cohen) wrote:
>
>Really? So who is it that said in this discussion that they
>personally cannot adjust to, and find the strengths of, young folks
>who make it to finals? (despite the fact that the judges obviously
>think they are just as good as the other finalists).
Nobody said the "cannot" anything. It's not about can and can't.
>
>What I've read was more along the lines of "Well, *I* would adjust
>fine, though I'm not always happy about it, but unnamed other people
>might not be so wise".
I think it's more the questioning of the wisdom of putting either
party in that situation. Beyond the wisdom, does it create a fair
competitive situation?
>
>> It's not a matter of being able to adjust and have a good dance. It's
>> many things that have already been mentioned in this thread. If you
>> don't find them valid, that's your choice but hoping won't make them
>> less valid for the many who don't share your opinion. Neither
>> "flirting" or "bumping and grinding" was actually what I had in mind.
>> You go from the exceptional to the extreme. Maybe it's that
>> astrophysicist's warp speed that needs a little slow down. :-)
>
>I've read the thread, and was responding directly to a particular post
>on it. If you don't like the terms I used, substitute your own
>expression meaning whatever it is you don't want to see done with a
>minor on a dance floor.
The debate tactic of exaggeration is what I take exception to. To
understand and appreciate the breadth of the issue, one must cease to
focus on a single aspect and evaluate the whole.
Mike Corbett - Carrollton, TX
Richard Maurer
1. Physical maturity. It seems unreasonable to expect a woman to deal
with the physical dynamics of dancing with a 5'2" 100 pound 15 year
olod boy in a jack and jill. On the other hand, I was elegible to draw
the same size of partners when I was 17 and adult sized but dancing in
the junior division, and totally unfamiliar with danceing with other
young people. The physical issue is hard to deal with with rules, but
it's definitely an issue. >>
This is good evidence that the "Signal" (as opposed to "Lead")
theory is not correct, but only valid as a guide to "lighten up" more often.
Even if the leads are light, partner A still needs partner B to be
able to hold onto the floor when going around partner B at speed.
There is then force through the arms, likely used more
by the follower than the leader.
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Randi Cohen
> On 2 Aug 2002 16:44:33 -0700, ra...@ucolick.org (Randi Cohen) wrote:
>
> >Mike Corbett <mi...@corbettweb.com> wrote in message news:<feglkuslehocuv56i...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 2 Aug 2002 10:16:35 -0700, ra...@ucolick.org (Randi Cohen) wrote:
>
> >
> >Really? So who is it that said in this discussion that they
> >personally cannot adjust to, and find the strengths of, young folks
> >who make it to finals? (despite the fact that the judges obviously
> >think they are just as good as the other finalists).
>
> Nobody said the "cannot" anything. It's not about can and can't.
>
What then is it about? They just don't want to?
> >
> >What I've read was more along the lines of "Well, *I* would adjust
> >fine, though I'm not always happy about it, but unnamed other people
> >might not be so wise".
>
> I think it's more the questioning of the wisdom of putting either
> party in that situation. Beyond the wisdom, does it create a fair
> competitive situation?
I find it interesting how often you bring up the concept of "fair
competition" in a jack n jill format, and interpret it to mean that
folks who may be a challenge to some to adjust to should be barred
from entry. This seems to me to turn the concept of "fairness" on its
head - as it is usually used to describe a situation in which folks
are given equal opportunities to participate/achieve.
The whole premise of a jack n jill is to challenge competitors to
dance well with others who are talented but who may or may not respond
well to one's usual dance style. It rewards flexibility and
adjustment. If one is looking for a contest which minimizes this
aspect of dancing, perhaps one should enter a strictly swing instead.
> >
> >> It's not a matter of being able to adjust and have a good dance. It's
> >> many things that have already been mentioned in this thread. If you
> >> don't find them valid, that's your choice but hoping won't make them
> >> less valid for the many who don't share your opinion. Neither
> >> "flirting" or "bumping and grinding" was actually what I had in mind.
> >> You go from the exceptional to the extreme. Maybe it's that
> >> astrophysicist's warp speed that needs a little slow down. :-)
> >
> >I've read the thread, and was responding directly to a particular post
> >on it. If you don't like the terms I used, substitute your own
> >expression meaning whatever it is you don't want to see done with a
> >minor on a dance floor.
>
> The debate tactic of exaggeration is what I take exception to. To
> understand and appreciate the breadth of the issue, one must cease to
> focus on a single aspect and evaluate the whole.
If you're reduced to objecting to my tactics, I conclude that I've
made my point. :)
RC
Mike Corbett
>Mike Corbett <mi...@corbettweb.com> wrote in message news:<qlamku0s7ovgthfmo...@4ax.com>...
>> On 2 Aug 2002 16:44:33 -0700, ra...@ucolick.org (Randi Cohen) wrote:
>>
>> >Mike Corbett <mi...@corbettweb.com> wrote in message news:<feglkuslehocuv56i...@4ax.com>...
>> >> On 2 Aug 2002 10:16:35 -0700, ra...@ucolick.org (Randi Cohen) wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Really? So who is it that said in this discussion that they
>> >personally cannot adjust to, and find the strengths of, young folks
>> >who make it to finals? (despite the fact that the judges obviously
>> >think they are just as good as the other finalists).
>>
>> Nobody said the "cannot" anything. It's not about can and can't.
>>
>
>What then is it about? They just don't want to?
It's about the whole combination of things discussed in the thread
instead of a single issue.
>> >
>> >What I've read was more along the lines of "Well, *I* would adjust
>> >fine, though I'm not always happy about it, but unnamed other people
>> >might not be so wise".
>>
>> I think it's more the questioning of the wisdom of putting either
>> party in that situation. Beyond the wisdom, does it create a fair
>> competitive situation?
>
>I find it interesting how often you bring up the concept of "fair
>competition" in a jack n jill format, and interpret it to mean that
>folks who may be a challenge to some to adjust to should be barred
>from entry. This seems to me to turn the concept of "fairness" on its
>head - as it is usually used to describe a situation in which folks
>are given equal opportunities to participate/achieve.
You're the mathematician, Randi, so you'll understand the effect of
introducing additional variables that apply only to the adult who
draws the child. There are two primary variables I have in mind that
can occur separately or concurrently.
1. Competitor must make major adjustment to flirtatious interaction
others need not make.
2. Competitor benefits from the novelty factor associated with the
child's talent.
>
>The whole premise of a jack n jill is to challenge competitors to
>dance well with others who are talented but who may or may not respond
>well to one's usual dance style. It rewards flexibility and
>adjustment. If one is looking for a contest which minimizes this
>aspect of dancing, perhaps one should enter a strictly swing instead.
I'm talking about avoiding adding additional variables, not limiting
the existing ones. See above.
>If you're reduced to objecting to my tactics, I conclude that I've
>made my point. :)
Smiley noted. Yes you've made your point. It doesn't fly. :-)
Jon Leech
Bob Wheatley <a.cwd...@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Jon Leech" <nos...@oddhack.engr.sgi.com> wrote in message
>news:aj1pr3$fjas1$1...@fido.engr.sgi.com...
>> I don't understand why anyone would feel otherwise, though it might
>> be amusing to see if the group could construct a broadly agreed-upon top
>> 10 list of constructive real-world accomplishments of rec.arts.dance
>> since its inception.
>
>Hell, try applying that standard to the other 30,000 plus news groups.
Yes, exactly so. r.a.d is nothing special, either to the good or the
bad, in the Usenet scheme of things.
Jon
__@/
Ed Jay
>You know what they say in show business....
>Something about having to follow kids and animals....:>))
>
Never follow kids, and watch where you step if you're following animals?
Randi Cohen
> I'm just saying that it's a dance contest, for
> heaven's sake, not the cure for cancer.
Tee hee! I may have to post this statement on my behind, with
attribution, next to my number at BbB!
(Sorry, Andy, I know I'm supposed to leave BbB out of this. ;) )
> How many times can I make this point? What you do in a Jack & Jill
> contest (whether local, regional, national, or global) is the same
> thing you do every time you social dance. The only difference is that
> there are judges and spectators watching, the whole thing may be
> videotaped for posterity, and maybe you'll end up with prize money or
> a trophy.
Apparently, an infinite number of times. But I'm glad you keep making
it anyhow...
RC
Bob Wheatley
Well.... That applies to kids too, depending on how old they are.:>)
Diapers don't always catch everything.:>)
---
Bob Wheatley
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.380 / Virus Database: 213 - Release Date: 7/24/2002
Swin...@webtv.net
<<I don't understand why anyone would feel otherwise, though it might be
amusing to see if the group could construct a broadly agreed-upon top 10
list of constructive real-world accomplishments of rec.arts.dance since
its inception.>>
Me
Ed
Mike
Dave
Andy
Trish
Sue
Randi
Bob
Ike
JC
Asya
Tegan
Melvalena
Victor
even L
Mike Corbett
wrote:
>Mike Corbett wrote:
>> I'm taking exception to his first sentence, "If you are Really Serious
>> about competing in WCS, you'll find a competition partner and prepare
>> a Classic or Showcase routine."
>
>Yep, this is what I love most about r.a.d - where anything I say can
>and will be taken out of context, put under a microscope, and examined
>from every direction for the worst possible meaning. :-)
>
>Mike, Mike, I was trying to lighten up this thread with a little bit
>of tongue in cheek humor (the whole post from which you pulled this
>sentence was written in that vein), and you respond with paragraphs of
>outraged deconstruction of one sentence. (You should have been a
>philosophy major. Or maybe you were?) I thought the tongue in cheek
>was obvious from my exaggerated style and Use Of Initial Caps, but I
>guess not.
You guess correctly. :-)
>> Andy, please correct me if I misunderstood
>
>You misunderstood. :-)
>
>> but I took your meaning to be that you don't consider Jack and Jill
>> or Strictly Swing contests to be "Really Serious" but rather less
>> serious "for fun" contests.
>
>Oh great, now you're trying to make me sound like I disrespect those
>who only compete in J&Js. When all I was trying to do was make the
>point that all your ponderous talk about National Level Competition
>for Jack & Jills doesn't cut it, IMHO, when what we're talking about
>is a dance contest that depends as much on luck as on skill. And is a
>dance contest rooted in social dancing, to boot. That isn't a knock on
>J&J competitors. I'm just saying that it's a dance contest, for
>heaven's sake, not the cure for cancer.
Lots of things that don't cure anything have age restrictions,
including all NASDE competition divisions. :-)
>How many times can I make this point? What you do in a Jack & Jill
>contest (whether local, regional, national, or global) is the same
>thing you do every time you social dance. The only difference is that
>there are judges and spectators watching, the whole thing may be
>videotaped for posterity, and maybe you'll end up with prize money or
>a trophy.
What is in the mind of the competitor may well vary from competitor to
competitor. Mostly, you and I don't know what is in other people's
minds. Why you would assume to know is beyond me. "Serious" is in
the mind.
>> I address my comments to National competition, rather than local
>> competition because my personal opinion is that the differences are
>> significant enough to warrant different considerations, including
>> different age requirements
>
>Saying it is so doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you
>repeat it.
I don't know that I HAVE repeated it.
>What are these "significant differences" please?
I have happily done so below.
>And don't say it's about creating sensuality with your partner. You can do that
>in late night social dancing too.
What's the name of that debate technique, Andy? You know, the one
where you tell the other party what not to say and why? :-)
Personally, I'm somewhat more concerned about the novelty/cute factor
issues than the sensuality. However, when competing with my ability
peers on a National competition, those peers, if "adults" are fair
game for "two-way street" exchanges of flirtatious interaction, and
(not being children) don't inject the novelty of childhood into the
mix.
In serious competition, "competitors" tend to use all the tools
available to them. They'll use any novelty available, such as huge
height differences, etc. that DO occur in an adult mix and yes,
they'll use the child novelty factor (they being both the adult and
the child). Further the sensuality tool is a "choice" by both
partners, the same as say, a lift in a Jack and Jill (when allowed) is
a mutual choice initiated by one individual and excepted or rejected
by the other. Mutual participation is rewarded.
Protecting "children" from the choice some individuals (child or
adult) may make to initiate the use of the sensuality tool in the
contest is a serious issue, in my opinion and that of many folks I
know you respect. That it's your value judgement, the issue is not a
high enough priority to enact and enforce age restrictions is your
choice and judgement. Others, many of whom are actually "parents"
disagree.
As for, "you can do that in late night social dancing too" that is
certainly correct but social dancing is not competition. Motivations
are different and organizers have a different level of
responsibility/liability for social dancing than actual competition,
IMO. Any motivation to insert sensuality or novelty in social dancing
is not a "dance competition" motive.
>Tell us what you do in a National
>Level J&J Contest that you don't do in social dancing.
So, what's different. First, it's a "competition". Many of those who
enter, take National competitions much more seriously than local ones.
They prepare seriously and spend serious travel dollars. There are
usually hundreds of dollars in prize money at stake, that serve to
provide serious reward, even if only to the extent of offsetting a
portion of related expenses.
Secondly, local competitions are more controlled. See you own post
about how things work locally in your area.
Here's a hint of one thing I and at least SOME others do to prepare
for a (for instance) Jack and Jill final. Personally, when finalists
are posted in advance, I'll write my own list of the follower's names
and go off someplace by myself and consider and visualize how I might
plan to adjust my dance to suit each of the potential partners based
on what I know about their strengths and abilities. For those with
whom I'm less familiar, I may seek advice from somebody who knows them
better. I don't do this to prepare for social dancing. It would be
interesting to hear the answers other competitors may offer to the
same question.
I didn't make the advanced final this past weekend in Denver but a
friend who did, asked me to go over what I knew about each competitor
on the finals list, for a similar purpose.
>And more broadly, what do you think a Jack & Jill is all about, if you don't
>agree with me that it's about highlighting good social dance skills?
I DO agree that highlighting good social dance skills is ONE of many
key things, National Level Jack and Jill "competitions" are about.
Did I use the word "competition"? Yes, I believe I did. :-)
It's interesting that you chose the word "highlighting". I would
choose the word "show" as in "Show", the noun. :-)
"Show" and "Competition" as well as their internalized meanings for
any Jack and Jill competitor are "personal". Jack and Jills are still
competitive dancing viewed "competitively" by "competitors".
>
>> Please explain why you think [requirements for Classic and Showcase]
>> is a whole different subject.
>
>Easy. Classic and Showcase are different from Jack & Jill or Strictly
>Swing because the element of luck (apart from the order that each
>couple dances) is eliminated. It's strictly about the best dancing.
>You pick your partner, you pick your music, you plan your routine to
>match the music, you and your partner practice it endlessly. It's a
>whole different level of commitment from what goes into competing in a
>J&J or SS. If you're doing a routine, you spend a lot of time
>practicing with just one partner. It's not about spontaneous
>lead/follow or choreography on the fly. It's more akin to what you'd
>see in the ballroom world than to what you'd see in social WCS
>dancing. In fact, too much social dancing might be a distraction for
>the Classic or Showcase couple.
I'm familiar with the differences. Since you wrote above,
>Oh great, now you're trying to make me sound like I disrespect those
>who only compete in J&Js. When all I was trying to do was make the
>point that all your ponderous talk about National Level Competition
>for Jack & Jills doesn't cut it, IMHO, when what we're talking about
>is a dance contest that depends as much on luck as on skill. And is a
>dance contest rooted in social dancing, to boot. That isn't a knock on
>J&J competitors. I'm just saying that it's a dance contest, for
>heaven's sake, not the cure for cancer.
would you be so kind as to explain why the differences you mention
would warrant a different opinion from you about potential age
restrictions? Sorry I didn't make the context of my question clear.
>
>Here's how you know it's a different level of competition: How many
>people (without looking it up) remember who won Classic and Showcase
>at the US Open last year? Yeah, I thought so. Okay, now how many
>people remember who won the Invitational J&J?
I see, your measure of competition level is about how many of the
audience remember the results and for how long.
I'll assert again that the measure of seriousness and competition
level is in the mind of the competitor.
>
>P.S. Jo Thompson did a very nice Classic routine with Parker Dearborn
>at the US Open last November.
We stand corrected. Love ya, Jo. :-)
Icono Clast
> When I was in high school, my guidance counselor had a poster that
> said: "If you are very careful, nothing bad or good will happen to you."
>
> I believe that over-protecting is just as damaging as under-protecting
> in maybe more so in some circumstances.
Then you would have liked, as I did, a woman I used to see once a week
at the Golden Gate Park bandshell. She showed up with a baby, probably
younger than a year, who crawled on dogpiss lawn, up and down cement
steps, through gravel, and over ashpalt. Birds kept their distance but
dogs, from time to time, would give a lick or a nudge. That woman just
sat there, watching for a danger that never appeared.
The following year, she showed up with another baby along with the
first year's toddler, and the year after that with her third, and
last, child.
I could not praise her highly enough for letting her children discover
the world on their own without unnecessary interference no doubt
causing them to synapse into a great gaglionic gaggle of great
intelligence.
_____________________________________________________________________
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 http://geocities.com/dancefest
ICONO CLAST - A San Franciscan in San Francisco - IClast at SFbay Net
Andy Bouman
[lots and lots of stuff]
Rather than respond to you point by point, Mike, which would make this
an incredibly long reply, let me just make a few points of my own.
1. Sensuality, novelty, flirtatious interaction, height differences,
etc., etc., are side issues. If those are the elements that win a J&J
competition, then the judges aren't doing their job properly. None of
the above have any relationship to the three T's (timing, teamwork,
technique) or to musical interpretation -- the fundamentals of every
WCS dance competition. Putting on a good show may be entertaining, but
it's not a substitute for good dancing. Good judges may smile if you
entertain them, but they give their highest scores to the couples that
show the best fundamentals underneath the show.
2. Inappropriate sensuality isn't just an issue with teen dancers.
Many adult J&J competitors (mostly women) don't like having "the
sensuality tool" used by their partner (mostly men) in a competition
either. The way to deal with that is good judging -- i.e., take away
the incentive to misbehave by rewarding the couples who rely on solid
dancing rather than on "tricks" to win the contest.
3. I respect what good J&J competitors do, and I acknowledge how hard
it can be to do it well. But there is no reason why you can't
"visualize" how you would adjust to a teenage partner in a J&J final
just as you would for any adult partner. In both cases, some partners
will be better than others at spins and turns, musical interpretation,
footwork, etc. Again, you're not doing any DANCING in a J&J
competition that you wouldn't do on the social dance floor. It's all
lead-follow moves. So there's no reason you can't have a good
lead-follow dance with a capable teenage J&J partner.
4. Teenage competitors are a "novelty" only if you aren't used to
seeing them in competitions. In our area, where the teens compete
regularly with the adults, it isn't a novelty. The teens are judged by
the same standards (can they dance well?) as anyone else. Most of our
teens are novice-level competitors, and they wouldn't advance past the
preliminary round at a national-level weekend event like BbB. The few
who do well in J&J competitions are the ones who have practiced very
hard to get good. Their J&J partners like drawing them not because of
the "novelty" but because they are outstanding dancers.
5. "Junior" is not a level of dance.
Andy Bouman
SF Bay Area
Mike Corbett
wrote:
>Mike Corbett wrote:
>[lots and lots of stuff]
>
>Rather than respond to you point by point, Mike, which would make this
>an incredibly long reply, let me just make a few points of my own.
Ok, how about addressing just the following?
Mike Corbett - Carrollton, TX
Mike Corbett
wrote:
>Mike Corbett wrote:
>[lots and lots of stuff]
>
>Rather than respond to you point by point, Mike, which would make this
>an incredibly long reply, let me just make a few points of my own.
>
>1. Sensuality, novelty, flirtatious interaction, height differences,
>etc., etc., are side issues. If those are the elements that win a J&J
>competition, then the judges aren't doing their job properly.
So, criticize the judges for not doing their job properly. The above
are elements that each can and do contribute to the overall result. I
wouldn't think of suggesting that any alone would be THE element that
"wins" a competition.
>None of
>the above have any relationship to the three T's (timing, teamwork,
>technique) or to musical interpretation -- the fundamentals of every
>WCS dance competition.
I beg to differ. Each and every one of the above relates to all three
T's. For instance, for any "interaction" on the dance floor to add
value to a performance, that interaction must be properly timed by
both partners (teamwork) and executed with appropriate technique.
>Putting on a good show may be entertaining, but
>it's not a substitute for good dancing. Good judges may smile if you
>entertain them, but they give their highest scores to the couples that
>show the best fundamentals underneath the show.
I'm not suggesting substitutes but rather enhancements. Without the
enhancements, I doubt many events would attract enough attendees to
survive. Enhancements to basic technique and execution are what makes
things interesting.
>
>2. Inappropriate sensuality isn't just an issue with teen dancers.
>Many adult J&J competitors (mostly women) don't like having "the
>sensuality tool" used by their partner (mostly men) in a competition
>either. The way to deal with that is good judging -- i.e., take away
>the incentive to misbehave by rewarding the couples who rely on solid
>dancing rather than on "tricks" to win the contest.
Misbehavior is a subjective value judgement that is wisely exercised
differently between consenting adults than between adults and
children. You get the judges to stop rewarding behavior that only
offends the most prudish of the WCS community and you'll stifle the
interest of the majority of those who provide the financial support
that makes National competition possible.
>
>3. I respect what good J&J competitors do, and I acknowledge how hard
>it can be to do it well. But there is no reason why you can't
>"visualize" how you would adjust to a teenage partner in a J&J final
>just as you would for any adult partner.
As I've mentioned before. Can and can't aren't the issue. It's a
value judgement. Of course, if I enter a competition and draw a child
partner, I'll make the needed adjustments. The question is whether
it's a better idea to set up those conditions or to avoid them.
>In both cases, some partners
>will be better than others at spins and turns, musical interpretation,
>footwork, etc. Again, you're not doing any DANCING in a J&J
>competition that you wouldn't do on the social dance floor. It's all
>lead-follow moves. So there's no reason you can't have a good
>lead-follow dance with a capable teenage J&J partner.
No reason at all. I "dance" to have good dances. I "compete" for
different reasons altogether. How many competitors above the lower
half of the Novice level do you think prepare themselves mentally for
National competitions by telling themselves "have a good lead-follow
dance". "Competitors" are "competitive". They look to have the best
dance possible on as level a playing field as possible.
>
>4. Teenage competitors are a "novelty" only if you aren't used to
>seeing them in competitions. In our area, where the teens compete
>regularly with the adults, it isn't a novelty.
No, it's not in some local areas and with some exceptional youngsters
but it IS a novelty in general, or would be, if allowed.
>The teens are judged by
>the same standards (can they dance well?) as anyone else. Most of our
>teens are novice-level competitors, and they wouldn't advance past the
>preliminary round at a national-level weekend event like BbB. The few
>who do well in J&J competitions are the ones who have practiced very
>hard to get good. Their J&J partners like drawing them not because of
>the "novelty" but because they are outstanding dancers.
At the level of "wouldn't advance past the preliminary round at a
national-level weekend event like BbB" I don't see the novelty as a
problem at all but I'm not limiting my comments to that context. In
the finals of and Intermediate contest or above, the novelty IS or
WOULD BE an issue. Anticipation of this and other factors is the
motivation behind such National age requirements.
Surely you would encourage the youth you know to expand their
capabilities beyond the "wouldn't make the first cut in Novice" level.
>
>5. "Junior" is not a level of dance.
Good. You recognize that "youth" (age) and "level" of dance are
separate issues. Congratulations! Now we're making some real
progress. :-)
DavKopp
>5. "Junior" is not a level of dance.
>
Not permitting minors to compete in Adult divisions has absolutely nothing to
do with their ability level. It has to do with their age! Would you say that
a 13 year old who can drive a car should be given a licence? A 14 year old who
can smoke should be allowed to buy cigarettes? A 15 year old who can hold his
liquor should be able to buy alcohol? We make age distinctions having nothing
to do with "ability" all the time. The issue is not "ability", it is what is
in the best interest of minors.
David Koppelman
Mike Corbett
Exactly but in this instance we also consider what is best for the
dance community, other competitors and each individual event, when
appropriate.
I know some "wish" or "prefer" things to be a certain way. That's all
fine and I respect it. However, when debating or evaluating the
merits of an issue, a common error is to start with a preference or a
current practice and attempt to argue to justify it rather than to
evaluate as much of the issue as possible and weigh the pro and con
objectively before deciding the best course of action. Often when
issues are objectively evaluated, we find the best course of action is
contrary to our own preferences, current practice or even our personal
interest/agenda.
Wise leaders make decisions based on the best interest of the group
they represent only after evaluating options objectively.
On this particular issue I'm seeing lots of wishes and shoulds, can
and can't and very little objective evaluation by those who wish to
justify their own preferences or practices. "I want it this way and
can see that it CAN be, so damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead."
Those who wish to allow children to compete with adults in National
WCS events appear to seek to elevate the desires of few to a position
where the many must adjust their practices to accommodate those few
because "they can" without evaluating the needs and consequences.
Sometimes objective evaluation of issues results in those kinds of
decisions but wishes and shoulds and can and can't just don't provide
compelling reasons for change.
Another justification tactic is the "context foul". For instance,
Andy asked...
>Tell us what you do in a National
>Level J&J Contest that you don't do in social dancing.
Part of my answer referred to my practice of preparing for a Jack and
Jill final by visualizing how I would dance differently with each
follower.
Andy commits the context foul when he responds...
> But there is no reason why you can't
>"visualize" how you would adjust to a teenage partner in a J&J final
>just as you would for any adult partner.
because he asked about differences in what I do in competition and
social dancing but responds as if the comparison was preparing to
dance with an adult as opposed to a teenager. Notice the "no reason
you can't". Of course there's no reason I can't. The issue has never
been about can or can't. As much as I despise the term, it's always
been about "should". In this case, I interpret "Should age matter?"
to mean "Is it in the best interest of the National WCS community to
continue to enforce minimum age requirements for general competition
categories?"
My answer would still be yes, no matter what my personal agenda or
preference might be.
For instance, should the day arrive that I want to compete with the
big dogs in National Jack and Jill divisions, do you think I'll be
sorry I argued so strongly against separating Professionals from
Amateurs (as in "Professional is not a level of dance.") when I figure
out that if I had kept my mouth shut, all I would have to do to move
up is to start teaching dance lessons? Not!
The fact is I always knew that success in my crusade would limit my
future options but made what I thought was the correct choice anyway.
In the same vein, I think the future will along with the past, testify
to the wisdom of minimum age requirements for National WCS competition
with adults, even if a few youthful participants have their
opportunities limited and/or a few instructors have to delay the
publicity benefit of touting the success of their youthful students in
competition with adults.
What we "want" is not always a good thing to get. :-)
Christopher C. Stacy
DavKopp> Not permitting minors to compete in Adult divisions has
DavKopp> absolutely nothing to do with their ability level. It has
DavKopp> to do with their age! Would you say that a 13 year old who
DavKopp> can drive a car should be given a licence?
I think the lowest age that states used to have for a full drivers
licens was 14, but now it's 15. (In some states, you can only get
a restricted permit at that age, which requires a fully licensed
driver to be the in car with you.) This is not for the protection
of the children, though -- it's for protection of the other drivers!
Even children younger than 14 commonly drive vehicles and equipment
on private property.
So I would say that this doesn't apply very much to dancing.
Asya Kamsky
Mike Corbett <mi...@corbettweb.com> wrote to Andy:
>>2. Inappropriate sensuality isn't just an issue with teen dancers.
>>Many adult J&J competitors (mostly women) don't like having "the
>>sensuality tool" used by their partner (mostly men) in a competition
>differently between consenting adults than between adults and
>children. You get the judges to stop rewarding behavior that only
>offends the most prudish of the WCS community and you'll stifle the
>interest of the majority of those who provide the financial support
>that makes National competition possible.
Sorry Mike, you just went *way* overboard. To suggest that those
who don't like "sensual" things done to them on the dance floor
non-consentually by their partners are prudes is offensive.
Inappropriate sensuality means it is not "between consenting adults".
And to suggest that stopping this behavior would "stifle the interest
of the majority of" dancers at National competitions (essencially) --
well, I'd rather those dancers stay away and *I* will spend extra
money to support these competitions.
Mike Corbett
wrote:
>In article <pk1ilu8aa0slpgjll...@4ax.com>,
>Mike Corbett <mi...@corbettweb.com> wrote to Andy:
>>>2. Inappropriate sensuality isn't just an issue with teen dancers.
>>>Many adult J&J competitors (mostly women) don't like having "the
>>>sensuality tool" used by their partner (mostly men) in a competition
>>Misbehavior is a subjective value judgement that is wisely exercised
>>differently between consenting adults than between adults and
>>children. You get the judges to stop rewarding behavior that only
>>offends the most prudish of the WCS community and you'll stifle the
>>interest of the majority of those who provide the financial support
>>that makes National competition possible.
>
>Sorry Mike, you just went *way* overboard. To suggest that those
>who don't like "sensual" things done to them on the dance floor
>non-consentually by their partners are prudes is offensive.
I didn't say or suggest anything of the kind. I referred only to
consensual behavior that might offend only the most prudish of the
community. If it's consensual, then only the onlookers can be
offended. Right?
>
>Inappropriate sensuality means it is not "between consenting adults".
Of course! Andy refers to inappropriate sensuality and those "mostly
women" who don't like...
>
>And to suggest that stopping this behavior would "stifle the interest
>of the majority of" dancers at National competitions (essencially) --
>well, I'd rather those dancers stay away and *I* will spend extra
>money to support these competitions.
You misread again. First the behavior I refer to is consensual AND I
wrote about judges ceasing to reward such consensual behavior between
adults in competition.
Although I said nothing about it in the post you misunderstood, I
completely agree that inappropriate non-consentual behavior of any
kind, anywhere is to be discouraged and where appropriate, PUNISHED.
As such, what is appropriate in National WCS competition between
consenting adults is often inappropriate between an adult and a child,
anywhere, regardless of consent.
Are we on the same page?
Asya Kamsky
Mike Corbett <mi...@corbettweb.com> wrote:
>>>>Many adult J&J competitors (mostly women) don't like having "the
>>>>sensuality tool" used by their partner (mostly men) in a competition
>>who don't like "sensual" things done to them on the dance floor
>>non-consentually by their partners are prudes is offensive.
>I didn't say or suggest anything of the kind. I referred only to
>consensual behavior that might offend only the most prudish of the
>community. If it's consensual, then only the onlookers can be
>offended. Right?
We are talking about the person who is dancing being offended.
>>Inappropriate sensuality means it is not "between consenting adults".
>Of course! Andy refers to inappropriate sensuality and those "mostly
>women" who don't like...
Who don't it being done to them. I left his original statement
up there. If you think it's the prudish spectators that he was
talking about then you are the one who misunderstood.
>You misread again. First the behavior I refer to is consensual AND I
>wrote about judges ceasing to reward such consensual behavior between
>adults in competition.
How do you know it's consensual? How would the judges know?
I'd rather they err on the side of _not_ assuming that.
Andy Bouman
> You get the judges to stop rewarding behavior that only offends
> the most prudish of the WCS community and you'll stifle the
> interest of the majority of those who provide the financial
> support that makes National competition possible.
Come on. I'm not talking about humorous interplay between two
partners, which I enjoy as much as anyone, nor do I want the judges to
be prudes. What I'm talking about is when one partner (usually male)
assumes that his partner wants to create some kind of "sensuality"
that is NOT consensual. A clue that it is not consensual is that the
female has a fake, frozen smile during the dance, and complains
privately to her friends afterwards about what a creep her partner
was. I don't think that kind of behavior should be rewarded, and most
judges I know wouldn't reward it.
> How many competitors above the lower half of the Novice level do you
> think prepare themselves mentally for National competitions by telling
> themselves "have a good lead-follow dance".
For the purposes of this debate, I'm not interested in what you do
mentally to prepare. That's your business. Other competitors can and
do prepare differently. Just because you and some other competitors
prepare that way doesn't give any weight to your contention that a J&J
at a national level event is significantly different from a local or
regional J&J. I don't buy it. For all I know, you would take a local
contest just as seriously and do the exact same mental preparation. In
both cases what we are still talking about is a lead-follow dance,
with choreography on the fly, not a routine. And in both cases, there
is still the element of luck in a J&J which could trump all your
efforts to prepare mentally in advance.
> "Competitors" are "competitive". They look to have the best
> dance possible on as level a playing field as possible.
Except when you try to increase your competitive advantage by
advocating the exclusion of other competitors who might beat you, just
because they are under 18. That's not creating a level playing field,
it's stacking the deck in your favor before the cards are dealt. Go
ahead and stack them, if you want, but don't try to convince us it's
for the good of those you won't let play.
> In the finals of and Intermediate contest or above, the novelty IS or
> WOULD BE an issue.
I beg to differ. :-)
It hasn't been a significant factor for the teens from our area who
have competed in Intermediate and Advanced J&Js at regional and
national level events when the rules allowed them to do so. If they
make the finals, they do so on ability. They don't always win or place
if they do make the finals, so "novelty" isn't any advantage.
At one time, it was a "novelty" for people of different races to dance
together. I don't think anyone would accept that now as an argument
for why people of one race should be excluded from entering the
competition.
> Surely you would encourage the youth you know to expand their
> capabilities beyond the "wouldn't make the first cut in Novice" level.
Yes, we do. We encourage them to compete at the skill level for which
they qualify. The question is, how would YOU encourage them? See my
next point.
> >5. "Junior" is not a level of dance.
>
> Good. You recognize that "youth" (age) and "level" of dance are
> separate issues. Congratulations! Now we're making some real
> progress. :-)
Actually, point to me, not to you, Mike. Unless you set up two or more
levels of Junior J&J (which is never going to happen, and you know
it), you would force novice, intermediated, advanced, and
champion-level juniors to compete with one another in one division.
The result of that, whenever it has been tried, is that only the
novice level juniors willingly compete. The more advanced dancers
typically sit out the competition altogether rather than being made a
"novelty" in a Junior J&J.
If it's wrong to create a category not based on "level" of dance in
the case of "Professionals" (as you've said many times, Mike), then
why would it be okay in the case of "Juniors"?
Mike Corbett
wrote:
>In article <lenilusmstiqugcs5...@4ax.com>,
>Mike Corbett <mi...@corbettweb.com> wrote:
>>>>>Many adult J&J competitors (mostly women) don't like having "the
>>>>>sensuality tool" used by their partner (mostly men) in a competition
>>>Sorry Mike, you just went *way* overboard. To suggest that those
>>>who don't like "sensual" things done to them on the dance floor
>>>non-consentually by their partners are prudes is offensive.
>>I didn't say or suggest anything of the kind. I referred only to
>>consensual behavior that might offend only the most prudish of the
>>community. If it's consensual, then only the onlookers can be
>>offended. Right?
>
>We are talking about the person who is dancing being offended.
Andy referred to that but the context is still youth and competition.
Andy refers as well to judges ceasing to reward behavior that is
currently acceptable because it is between consenting ADULTS but would
need to be eliminated when dancing with teenagers. I responded in the
context of his post rather than to apply a separate context to a
single sentence, part of a paragraph, part of a full post, that was
part of a long discussion.
How one is supposed to know who is a teenager when dancing with a
stranger in a Novice contest is beyond me. Oops, wait, if you require
competitors to be 18 when competing in National events with adults,
you don't have to worry about that, do you? :-)
>
>>>Inappropriate sensuality means it is not "between consenting adults".
>>Of course! Andy refers to inappropriate sensuality and those "mostly
>>women" who don't like...
>
>Who don't it being done to them. I left his original statement
>up there. If you think it's the prudish spectators that he was
>talking about then you are the one who misunderstood.
I remained in the context of age requirements and addressed my
comments to consensual adult behavior.
>>You misread again. First the behavior I refer to is consensual AND I
>>wrote about judges ceasing to reward such consensual behavior between
>>adults in competition.
>
>How do you know it's consensual? How would the judges know?
>I'd rather they err on the side of _not_ assuming that.
To "not assume" is hardly to err. "How do you know?", you ask. The
way I "know" as a participant, judge or observer that behavior is
consensual is by observing that it is also reciprocal. That the
actions interpret the music is key to the issue as well.
Are you suggesting that any sensual behavior be assumed to be
non-consensual and be penalized? How do you suggest the judges make
this determination in competition?
West Coast Swing is a flirtatious dance, not because I say so but
primarily because of the music and "attitude" that go along with it.
Most folks know it's just dancing, a part of this particular dance
that appeals to them when first introduced to it.
I have no bone to pick with those who just want to dance "steps" or
patterns and execute them well and I've assisted many women over the
years with techniques to avoid unwelcome body contact. This isn't a
"groping" thread, so that's not specifically what I'm talking about.
I'm pretty sure you and most other followers with a little experience,
know how to let your partners know through your connection and body
language, in advance, just what kind of dance is appropriate for your
taste. Any competitor unable to do so, isn't ready to compete yet.
Lest somebody interpret my remarks to mean I'm some dirty old man who
insists on getting down and dirty on the competition floor and doesn't
want the responsibility of determining with whom it's legal, let me
remind you that my greater concern is the youth novelty factor.
The above, really only applies to Jack and Jill competition. The age
restriction rule issue applies to all WCS competition formats,
including those where partners are chosen, music is selected and
choreography is specifically created.
What I said about the sensuality tool is that when the contest is for
adults only, the tool is available to all on a consensual basis. When
children are competing with adults in a Jack and Jill format, things
must necessarily change.
Mike Corbett
wrote:
>Mike Corbett wrote:
>> You get the judges to stop rewarding behavior that only offends
>> the most prudish of the WCS community and you'll stifle the
>> interest of the majority of those who provide the financial
>> support that makes National competition possible.
>
>Come on. I'm not talking about humorous interplay between two
>partners, which I enjoy as much as anyone, nor do I want the judges to
>be prudes. What I'm talking about is when one partner (usually male)
>assumes that his partner wants to create some kind of "sensuality"
>that is NOT consensual. A clue that it is not consensual is that the
>female has a fake, frozen smile during the dance, and complains
>privately to her friends afterwards about what a creep her partner
>was. I don't think that kind of behavior should be rewarded, and most
>judges I know wouldn't reward it.
I don't know any that would. Judges see that fake, frozen smile as
well as you do. :-) If it's not consensual, it's offensive to most
folks I know.
>
>> How many competitors above the lower half of the Novice level do you
>> think prepare themselves mentally for National competitions by telling
>> themselves "have a good lead-follow dance".
>
>For the purposes of this debate, I'm not interested in what you do
>mentally to prepare. That's your business. Other competitors can and
>do prepare differently. Just because you and some other competitors
>prepare that way doesn't give any weight to your contention that a J&J
>at a national level event is significantly different from a local or
>regional J&J.
The subject of "different" was in the context of "serious". I used
preparation along with several other items to demonstrate the
difference in "seriousness". I don't deny the similarities but you
asked about differences.
>
>> "Competitors" are "competitive". They look to have the best
>> dance possible on as level a playing field as possible.
>
>Except when you try to increase your competitive advantage by
>advocating the exclusion of other competitors who might beat you, just
>because they are under 18. That's not creating a level playing field,
>it's stacking the deck in your favor before the cards are dealt. Go
>ahead and stack them, if you want, but don't try to convince us it's
>for the good of those you won't let play.
That's one way to look at it. I'm sure it's how some look at it. Not
me.
>
>> >5. "Junior" is not a level of dance.
>>
>> Good. You recognize that "youth" (age) and "level" of dance are
>> separate issues. Congratulations! Now we're making some real
>> progress. :-)
>
>Actually, point to me, not to you, Mike. Unless you set up two or more
>levels of Junior J&J (which is never going to happen, and you know
>it), you would force novice, intermediated, advanced, and
>champion-level juniors to compete with one another in one division.
>The result of that, whenever it has been tried, is that only the
>novice level juniors willingly compete. The more advanced dancers
>typically sit out the competition altogether rather than being made a
>"novelty" in a Junior J&J.
That's correct. The decision boils down to a value judgement we
happen find ourselves on different points in the spectrum. Your
mistake, IMO is to focus on the issues one at a time, as if each issue
alone must justify the decision. Because there are multiple issues to
evaluate, we can only arrive at the best decision by considering the
issues together.
>
>If it's wrong to create a category not based on "level" of dance in
>the case of "Professionals" (as you've said many times, Mike), then
>why would it be okay in the case of "Juniors"?
Let's leave right and wrong out of this particular question. I
focused on the results of "separating" professionals from amateurs as
an exception to the way we establish other dance level divisions.
I recognize that it isn't practical to provide appropriate skill level
divisions for multiple age groups for WCS, like is attempted in the
UCWDC etc. and that age requirements will result in few if any
National competition opportunities for children. That's one of the
issues in the decision process that you and I weigh differently. It's
also why I support any group that encourages local opportunities for
their local youth.
Asya Kamsky
Melvalena <Xmelv...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>So I would say that this doesn't apply very much to dancing.
>adults only.
And dancing *isn't* restricted to adults. What some people are
advocating is segregating dancing by age. If anyone is actually
saying we shouldn't let under-1x dance I haven't noticed (or
even not let them compete, I think all arguments were against
letting them compete _with_ or against adults)
Randi Cohen
Dave, the three examples you've mentioned are all things that can (and
do) result in *death* when done by anyone (even when done responsibly
by adults). Dancing doesn't exactly fall into the same category of
dangerousness.
The earlier example you used was playing an instrument, which is
certainly closer to social dancing. And regardless of whether you
accepted the competitive strictures placed on you as a minor, there
are those who believe that you ought to have been allowed to compete
against adults if you wished to in that venue. Just as in WCS.
RC
Asya Kamsky
Mike Corbett <mi...@corbettweb.com> wrote:
>>>>>>Many adult J&J competitors (mostly women) don't like having "the
>>>>>>sensuality tool" used by their partner (mostly men) in a competition
The context is competition, and the point was that there are
things that are unacceptable to do with youths and undesirable
to do with adults either -- except when you have explicit permission.
>Andy refers as well to judges ceasing to reward behavior that is
>currently acceptable because it is between consenting ADULTS but would
>need to be eliminated when dancing with teenagers.
I think they should be eliminated in most cases. I remember a J&J
final where the leader led a move that caused his follower to be
terribly embarrassed. She blushed and looked very uncomfortable.
I'd say lots of people in the audience were uncomfortable too.
Was it okay because technically she was an adult? (22 I'd guess)
I don't think so. Was is okay because they won? I don't think
so. Btw this was the top division at a not-quite National level
weekend comp.
>How one is supposed to know who is a teenager when dancing with a
>stranger in a Novice contest is beyond me. Oops, wait, if you require
>competitors to be 18 when competing in National events with adults,
>you don't have to worry about that, do you? :-)
First of all, 18 and 19 year olds are teenagers.
Second of all, "when in doubt, leave it out". I think Kelly Buckwalter
said that, maybe it was Annie Hirsch. If this person is a stranger
to you, why would you be considering moves that might be questionable
with someone under 18???
>way I "know" as a participant, judge or observer that behavior is
>consensual is by observing that it is also reciprocal. That the
>actions interpret the music is key to the issue as well.
Can you give me an example of some contest songs that require
sensual dancing to interpret them? (I know about social songs,
I'm specifically asking about ones selected for contests).
>West Coast Swing is a flirtatious dance, not because I say so but
>primarily because of the music and "attitude" that go along with it.
>Most folks know it's just dancing, a part of this particular dance
>that appeals to them when first introduced to it.
And there are more and less subtle ways to flirt. And there is
a big difference between flirt and sleaze.
Randi Cohen
> On 13 Aug 2002 03:03:05 -0700, andyb...@yahoo.com (Andy Bouman)
> wrote:
> >1. Sensuality, novelty, flirtatious interaction, height differences,
> >etc., etc., are side issues. If those are the elements that win a J&J
> >competition, then the judges aren't doing their job properly.
>
> So, criticize the judges for not doing their job properly. The above
> are elements that each can and do contribute to the overall result. I
> wouldn't think of suggesting that any alone would be THE element that
> "wins" a competition.
>
I have a relevant story to tell here. I was talking to a young teen
friend of mine who had just won *third* place in a local competition.
He said to me, "The only reason I placed is because I'm young and
cute." I hadn't seen the comp, and it had been judged by the
audience. I said "Do you think that if there were real judges the
same thing would have happened?". He said, "No."
I then was speaking to another friend of mine whose judging abilities
I really respect. My friend said he had watched the comp and he had
put my teen friend in *second* place because most of the other couples
had been even more totally disconnected.
Moral? Teens have less of a "novelty advantage" than even they
themselves might think.
(And, I agree with you, Mike, if judges *are* rewarding points for
novelty they ought certainly to be criticized. But I don't agree that
they habitually do.)
> >Putting on a good show may be entertaining, but
> >it's not a substitute for good dancing. Good judges may smile if you
> >entertain them, but they give their highest scores to the couples that
> >show the best fundamentals underneath the show.
>
> I'm not suggesting substitutes but rather enhancements. Without the
> enhancements, I doubt many events would attract enough attendees to
> survive. Enhancements to basic technique and execution are what makes
> things interesting.
Well, I'm just thinking about the people I like to watch most on the
dance floor. Off the top of my head, four people spring to the top of
the list. Two are juniors, and two de-emphasize flirtation in their
dancing, perhaps due to their strong religious sensibilities. They
use musicality, charisma, creativity, humor, and physical agility to
create interest. Sensuality may be used by some as an enhancement as
well, but to suggest that it is necessary to do WCS in any way, to
create audience interest or a "level playing field" or anything else,
is to ignore the achievements of many fine dancers, including some of
the best there are, without its use.
Lest you think I'm alone in this opinion: Sunday night at a local
dance, there was one dance between two people which unmistakably drew
the attention of everyone in the room, and was the most entertaining
dance of the evening for people to watch. It occurred between two
very excellent dancers both of whom do not enjoy flirting on the dance
floor.
Moral? It is absolutely unnecessary to have the option of flirting
available in order to have an extremely *excellent* dance, in
competition or out of it.
cheers,
RC
PS- To respond to Swingpoop's and Jon Leech's earlier exchange, I'm
not sure I really consider myself an "achievement" of rec.arts.dance -
especially listed underneath Mike, ha ha!
But, I do persist in writing in to this newsgroup. So I must think it
serves some useful purpose to do so (and it's not that I think I'll
ever convince Mike of anything!). So, why? Because
(1) *Many* more people read this newsgroup than post to it, including
newcomers to the dance community. I think it's important for them to
hear lots of sides of the issues that are discussed so they can form
their opinions with the maximum information available.
(2) Some people do find it useful for stuff like exchanging
tickets/roomshares/dance info.
(3) It helps me to form my own opinions to talk about them with
others, even if we disagree.
(4) I experience people in ways that I don't on the dance floor. I
have seen new sides of people here, particularly Andy, Chris, Trish,
and Mark Scheuffle, that enrich how I view them.
(5) When I'm doing astronophysics, I need to fill the down-time
between runs, and I can only study so much neuroanatomy in one day!
Mike Corbett
wrote:
>In article <impilug0t00qgjt12...@4ax.com>,
>Mike Corbett <mi...@corbettweb.com> wrote:
>>Andy refers as well to judges ceasing to reward behavior that is
>>currently acceptable because it is between consenting ADULTS but would
>>need to be eliminated when dancing with teenagers.
>
>I think they should be eliminated in most cases.
Your (in my experience small minority) opinion is noted. I suspect
most of those who agree with you would support the elimination of
minimum age requirements.
Anyway, there we go with one person's "should" again. It just doesn't
work to make decisions that way. This "should" is a personal
preference or wish. I can respect that but real evaluation of all the
issues is needed to take rules change kinds of actions.
>Second of all, "when in doubt, leave it out". I think Kelly Buckwalter
>said that, maybe it was Annie Hirsch. If this person is a stranger
>to you, why would you be considering moves that might be questionable
>with someone under 18???
Well, I can see that many beginners do and need to avoid such
considerations because the communication/connection skills needed to
know in advance what might be welcomed by your partner are not yet
developed. However, this discussion is about all levels, not just
beginners. If you let the kids dance at the lower levels of
competition they certainly would be expecting to do so at any level.
>
>>way I "know" as a participant, judge or observer that behavior is
>>consensual is by observing that it is also reciprocal. That the
>>actions interpret the music is key to the issue as well.
>
>Can you give me an example of some contest songs that require
>sensual dancing to interpret them? (I know about social songs,
>I'm specifically asking about ones selected for contests).
Nothing is "required". You'll not trap me into any have-to's or other
absolutes. I'm not suggesting anything has to be done. I'm saying
don't take the tools out of the toolbox. I see lots of room between
unacceptable behavior in the extreme and what is appropriate between
adults and children.
>
>>West Coast Swing is a flirtatious dance, not because I say so but
>>primarily because of the music and "attitude" that go along with it.
>>Most folks know it's just dancing, a part of this particular dance
>>that appeals to them when first introduced to it.
>
>And there are more and less subtle ways to flirt. And there is
>a big difference between flirt and sleaze.
And, several definitions of sleaze, some of which describe completely
appropriate dancing between consenting adults. There's a range, not a
black and white definition of acceptability.
Yes, some adults have danced in competition in ways that made even me
uncomfortable, not with me but with others. It's a matter of
judgement but one person's "doubt" is another's "appropriate".
Ed Jay
>I have a relevant story to tell here. I was talking to a young teen
>friend of mine who had just won *third* place in a local competition.
>He said to me, "The only reason I placed is because I'm young and
>cute." I hadn't seen the comp, and it had been judged by the
>audience. I said "Do you think that if there were real judges the
>same thing would have happened?". He said, "No."
There you have it...the voice of authority speaks. :-) Why does some
unknown teen's uninformed answer have any relevance to this subject.
I once asked my 14-year old son if he thought it was OK for kids to drink
alcohol. He said yes. :-))
>
>I then was speaking to another friend of mine whose judging abilities
>I really respect. My friend said he had watched the comp and he had
>put my teen friend in *second* place because most of the other couples
>had been even more totally disconnected.
>
>Moral? Teens have less of a "novelty advantage" than even they
>themselves might think.
LOL! C'mon, Randi, that's got to be the single greatest leap of logic yet.
Pure nonsense. :-)
(I'm glad your judge friend didn't find the teen guy cute.)
>
>...I agree..if judges *are* rewarding points for
>novelty they ought certainly to be criticized....
We agree.
>
>...Sunday night at a local
>dance, there was one dance between two people which unmistakably drew
>the attention of everyone in the room, and was the most entertaining
>dance of the evening for people to watch. It occurred between two
>very excellent dancers both of whom do not enjoy flirting on the dance
>floor.
>
>Moral?
Nope.
>It is absolutely unnecessary to have the option of flirting
>available in order to have an extremely *excellent* dance, in
>competition or out of it.
I agree with your conclusion, but I hardly think it would be thought of as
the moral to a story.
Asya Kamsky
Melvalena <Xmelv...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>There are many events that DO have age restrictions on their
>contests. Which is way I prefer those events over others.
Yes. NASDE events have the same restriction for NASDE contest.
Most other events have some restrictions for the rest (J&J, etc).
I think the disagreement is where to draw that restriction for
contests like J&J.
I've heard 21, I've heard 18, I've heard 16, and I've heard 13.
Since there are contests with _no_ age restrictions I think
it's safe to assume that even that position has its advocates.
>I am an adult. This is a social past time for me. I prefer and chose
>to spend my time/money/energy/company with other adults.
>I prefer to not spend it with underage minors.
And that's your choice, of course. I don't think you advocate
that minors shouldn't be allowed into dance venues though, right?
>I'd rather not see them in adult dance contests either.
>So sue me.
You're entitled to your opinion. I don't see why I would need
to sue to, or even want for you to change your mind.
Dez
> WCS events appear to seek to elevate the desires of few to a position
> where the many must adjust their practices to accommodate those few
> because "they can" without evaluating the needs and consequences.
> Sometimes objective evaluation of issues results in those kinds of
> decisions but wishes and shoulds and can and can't just don't provide
> compelling reasons for change.
>
What need or consequence are you having to adjust to? You sit, they
call your name, you draw, and then you have about ten seconds to
figure out your game plan. The music starts...you dance. If that
person "teenager" makes it to finals, then your only concern is the
same with any other partner. I hope we get a good song and I hope we
dance good together. I've been dancing for 11 years in the swing
world. I as never concerned with what age my partner was. It was I
hope we connect, hear and feel the music the same way.
I've drawn much older partners and have gotten a funky song. All i
think is, let's see what she can do and I don't want to get carried
away. I've drawn people who were so opposite my style I couldn't do
anything to save the dance. There are no new needs and consequences.
It's the same. I just want to make sure that, I'm dancing with people
who are worthy of being in the finals.
Some of the earlier post about drinking and driving have nothing to do
with dancing. There are a lot of people who are younger than most and
older than most who are better dancers than the "average adult". I
hope not to get the average adult but someone who excels more at the
dance.
Here's a question. The person I started all of this about will
graduate high school very early. Should they not be allowed to go to
college because they aren't 18. They can't just sit around for 2
years and pick their nose, although it sounds like some of you would
rather see them do that then excel and move ahead if they are capable.
But we are just talking about dancing. This is not a life or death
situation and for most people it is not a career threatening
situation. It's just dancing.
So if there are those who excel at a young age why wouldn't we want
them to pursue happiness and allow them to participate in something
they have earned and deserve.
Let them dance.
Dez
CordobaSzekely
well said!!!
Deborah Szekely
mag...@rahul.net
<mi...@corbettweb.com> said:
>To "not assume" is hardly to err. "How do you know?", you ask. The
>way I "know" as a participant, judge or observer that behavior is
>consensual is by observing that it is also reciprocal. That the
>actions interpret the music is key to the issue as well.
Just because someone in a dance competition smiles and makes the
most of the situation to try to salvage the competition doesn't
mean that they *liked* inappropriate behavior.
jc
CordobaSzekely
as social does not make!!! Remember Classic and Showcase are choreographed
routines to music that You choose as well as a partner that you choose. It's
easy to do well in that if you practice. But that does not neccessarily make
you a good candidate for Strictly or Jack and Jill. I have danced with some top
level classic and showcase people in strictly as well and Jack and Jill and
they were not so fab.
DS
Mike Corbett
>
>Moral? It is absolutely unnecessary to have the option of flirting
>available in order to have an extremely *excellent* dance, in
>competition or out of it.
Of course. Nobody I know asserts otherwise. It's also absolutely
unnecessary to take that option off the table, unless adults are
allowed to compete with children.
It's a judgement call. I don't see the judgement changing for
National events in general.
Again, these decisions about age requirements are not based on single
issues. There are multiple issues to weigh, including the desires of
the majority of those who support the events with their ticket
purchases and room nights, etc.
Changing the atmosphere from "Adult" to "Family" just won't fly.
Mike Corbett
Exactly. Who indicated that "reciprocity" was indicated by a smile or
that a smile was motivated by a desire to "salvage"?
Icono Clast
> Putting on a good show may be entertaining, but it's not a substitute
> for good dancing. Good judges may smile if you entertain them, but
> they give their highest scores to the couples that show the best
> fundamentals underneath the show.
That is precisely why -A-I usually come in last when I compete but
-B-audience members tell me I should have done better. When it comes
to my dancing, the judges are doing their job.
> there's no reason you can't have a good lead-follow dance with a
> capable teenage J&J partner.
> The few [teen-agers] who do well in J&J competitions are the ones who
> have practiced very hard to get good. Their J&J partners like drawing
> them not because of the "novelty" but because they are outstanding
> dancers.
________________________________________________________________
A San Franciscan who never says "No!" to an invitation to dance!
ICONO CLAST http://geocities.com/dancefest/ IClast at SFbay Net
Icono Clast
> Andy says:
> >5. "Junior" is not a level of dance.
>
> Not permitting minors to compete in Adult divisions has absolutely nothing to
> do with their ability level. It has to do with their age! Would you say
> that a 13 year old who can drive a car should be given a licence? A 14 year
> old who can smoke should be allowed to buy cigarettes? A 15 year old who can
> hold his liquor should be able to buy alcohol? We make age distinctions
> having nothing to do with "ability" all the time. The issue is not "ability",
> it is what is in the best interest of minors.
First my head nodded in agreement. But then what you said penetrated
the thickness compelling me to challenge you to come up with things
that do not have a direct effect upon the health and safety of not
just developing adults but the rest of us, too.
Perhaps you'd care to argue that minors should not participate in
running sprints against adults? Perhaps engage in Chess matches?
Possibly row? Or dive? Or race on skis or skates or bicycles? You get
the idea.
as...@bayarea.net (Asya Kamsky) wrote
> First of all, 18 and 19 year olds are teenagers.
> Second of all, "when in doubt, leave it out". I think Kelly Buckwalter
> said that
Kelly once did a shimmy at me that I followed up with a grind. "I
guess I asked for that, didn't I?" she said with a
hesitant-but-flirtatious smile.
> If this person is a stranger to you, why would you be considering moves that
> might be questionable with someone under 18???
There's a very shapely youngster who's becoming quite well known who
does things to me to drive me nuts. "They'd bust me if I responded,
you sadistic bitch!" say I. She's come up with things of which I've
never dreamed. A cuppla years hence, we'll have a lot of fun. But,
damn!, she sure knows how t'do a number on me who's more than "just"
old enough to be her grandparent.
> Can you give me an example of some contest songs that require
> sensual dancing to interpret them?
"Require?" No. But the one with the "kiss my ass" line to which
reference was made earlier seems to. I wish I could time that as well
as the competitor (who I'm not naming 'cause of the context) did.
> >Most folks know it's just dancing
>
> And there are more and less subtle ways to flirt. And there is
> a big difference between flirt and sleaze.
Indeed there is. As one who hesitates to include sleaze in a dance, I
never fail to do so when I perceive an invitation to do so. Sometimes
my perception is wrong and that's just fine as long as my partner
isn't too offended. Most of my dances contain nothing that might be
considered to be sleazy.
That's a whole 'nuther subject, by the way. You would be amazed at
what's done to me on the dance floor by the people from whom you'd
least expect such behaviour and the resistance to Follow from those
you'd also not expect. There are a few Followers who actually say
"Aren't you going to . . ?" Oh, yeah. You bet I am! I'll do whatever's
necessary t'keep m'partners happy.
Mike Corbett
>dav...@aol.com (DavKopp) wrote:
>> Andy says:
>> >5. "Junior" is not a level of dance.
>>
>> Not permitting minors to compete in Adult divisions has absolutely nothing to
>> do with their ability level. It has to do with their age! Would you say
>> that a 13 year old who can drive a car should be given a licence? A 14 year
>> old who can smoke should be allowed to buy cigarettes? A 15 year old who can
>> hold his liquor should be able to buy alcohol? We make age distinctions
>> having nothing to do with "ability" all the time. The issue is not "ability",
>> it is what is in the best interest of minors.
>
>First my head nodded in agreement. But then what you said penetrated
>the thickness compelling me to challenge you to come up with things
>that do not have a direct effect upon the health and safety of not
>just developing adults but the rest of us, too.
In each case David cites above there are multiple issues that
influence decisions about minimum age requirements. The
issues/reasons differ and one can always point to exceptions.
For driving licenses these are the issues that come to my mind. There
may well be more.
1. Maturity to handle the responsibility whether financial or safe
driving. Insurance rates are higher up to age 25 with regard to
accident statistics but there's also the issue of financial
responsibility.
2. Additional mobility achieved by being permitted to operate a
vehicle alone, takes children far away from their parent's control and
influence before many are ready.
Cigarettes: This one is a bit more abstract.
1. Take the legal decision to purchase and use tobacco from the
immature child until time additional parental influence, education and
societal influence provides the child with sufficient frame of
reference to make an educated decision.
Alcohol (not just purchasing but in most states, admittance to
facilities serving alcohol.
1. Maturity to control consumption
2. Financial responsibility for results of behavior under while
intoxicated.
3. Delay exposure to adult behavior and bar culture.
4. Protection from the behavior of intoxicated adults.
Many of the same issues, particularly the adult decision related ones
apply with regard to National WCS competition but the key point I'm
making is that with these and other issues as well as with dance
competition there are multiple issues that influence the decision to
install minimum age requirements. Only when these issues are
evaluated together do they justify the current decisions. Seldom will
any single issue stand alone to justify such age requirements.
So, those who argue that any single issue isn't sufficient are correct
in their assertion but incorrect in their strategy to convince those
looking at the multiple issues, to change their minds.
Most of the arguments sound a bit like many of the arguments for
government programs. For instance, federal prescription drug programs
sound like a good idea until you see it as one group upset that their
neighbors won't buy their prescription drugs for them. The arguments
here sound like...
"I want it and you CAN do it, so do it for me."
>There's a very shapely youngster who's becoming quite well known who
>does things to me to drive me nuts. "They'd bust me if I responded,
>you sadistic bitch!" say I. She's come up with things of which I've
>never dreamed. A cuppla years hence, we'll have a lot of fun. But,
>damn!, she sure knows how t'do a number on me who's more than "just"
>old enough to be her grandparent.
Mostly, we've been focusing on protecting the children from the adults
or the potential discomfort/embarassment of the child. This is a two
way street. How many of our youngsters do we apply the "She's 14
going on 35." comment. I prefer to let them be children as long as is
practical or possible. There's also the influence the children see
that tells them not only that the adult behavior is ok for them but
necessary for them to be competitive with adults.
Some may use the above as an argument to make the WCS community more
family oriented, so it's more attractive to parents allowing their
children to participate. It's a valid argument but must be weighed
against the desires of the majority of customers, who remain on the
side that prefers the "adult" environment.
Any individual event that chooses to be more family oriented will not
get any criticism from me for doing so. That's their choice as long
as they don't violate rules they have already agreed to. Whether I
attend or not is, of course, my choice.
Randi Cohen
> ra...@ucolick.org (Randi Cohen) wrote:
>
> >I have a relevant story to tell here. I was talking to a young teen
> >friend of mine who had just won *third* place in a local competition.
> There you have it...the voice of authority speaks. :-) Why does some
> unknown teen's uninformed answer have any relevance to this subject.
The point is, the teen guy's answer was *wrong*. he thought he was
winning on cuteness when actually he wasn't. Anyway, I just added the
part about what he thought because it made the story more interesting.
Why so critical?
>
> (I'm glad your judge friend didn't find the teen guy cute.)
My friend has known the teen friend for a long time, and has certainly
gotten over whatever cuteness factor may exist. He knew most of the
other couples in the contest pretty well too.
> >It is absolutely unnecessary to have the option of flirting
> >available in order to have an extremely *excellent* dance, in
> >competition or out of it.
>
> I agree with your conclusion, but I hardly think it would be thought of as
> the moral to a story.
Moral = the lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable,
story, or event.
But whatever, if you don't agree with the word choice you can pick a
different one, fighting over vocabulary really is a time-waster...
RC
RC
Mike Corbett
>Ed Jay <Xe...@aes-intl.com> wrote in message news:<782jlucv0ihtb2h3l...@4ax.com>...
>> ra...@ucolick.org (Randi Cohen) wrote:
>>
>> >I have a relevant story to tell here. I was talking to a young teen
>> >friend of mine who had just won *third* place in a local competition.
>
>> There you have it...the voice of authority speaks. :-) Why does some
>> unknown teen's uninformed answer have any relevance to this subject.
>
>The point is, the teen guy's answer was *wrong*. he thought he was
>winning on cuteness when actually he wasn't. Anyway, I just added the
>part about what he thought because it made the story more interesting.
> Why so critical?
And this is relevant how? I don't remember anybody asserting that
youthful competitors recognize the novelty/cute factor. Whether they
do or don't isn't relevant to the issue. What matters is the extent
to which novelty/cute DOES effect the outcome of contests. The extent
varies with each judge, each contest and each situation. Sometimes
the effect is minuscule and sometimes huge but mostly far from either
extreme. It's still a single issue among several.
>
>>
>> (I'm glad your judge friend didn't find the teen guy cute.)
>
>My friend has known the teen friend for a long time, and has certainly
>gotten over whatever cuteness factor may exist. He knew most of the
>other couples in the contest pretty well too.
No that is relevant information you left out the first time. :-)
>
>> >It is absolutely unnecessary to have the option of flirting
>> >available in order to have an extremely *excellent* dance, in
>> >competition or out of it.
>>
>> I agree with your conclusion, but I hardly think it would be thought of as
>> the moral to a story.
>
>Moral = the lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable,
>story, or event.
>
>But whatever, if you don't agree with the word choice you can pick a
>different one, fighting over vocabulary really is a time-waster...
Vocabulary provides both context and meaning. When discussing
"values", a clear understanding of context and meaning are critical,
as is complete information. Your choice of vocabulary and which
information to include or leave out effects one's ability to
accurately and honestly evaluate your asserted position.
Ed Jay
>Ed Jay wrote...
>> Randi Cohen wrote:
>
>The point is, the teen guy's answer was *wrong*...
I got that part. :-)
> Why so critical?
>
I'm sorry. I didn't mean for my comments to come across as critical of you.
I am critical of extrapolating a single event to reach a conclusion that
should be based on a large sampling. That's how I read your post, i.e.,
"Some kid said something incorrect. Therefore, his premise is always
invalid."
>
>...fighting over vocabulary really is a time-waster...
>
Not necessarily so. If incorrect vocabulary results in lack of proper
communication, then arguing over vocabulary may be the only option
available to resolve the misunderstanding.
Art Arnold
strictly or J & J. From what I see a choreographed routine can be practiced
to hit every note, beat, accent in a song and if you practice enough you
will know your partner enough to make it work. A strictly or J & J on the
other hand consist of two people who may or may not know each other, maybe
dancing to a song they may have heard before a good dancer (0ne who
understands the dance) should be able to listen to their partner and adjust
based on music and changes from that partner..a good dancer can feel the
connection between each other. Can that be felt based on age? Is it
something that is learned or understood depending on age? I may be way off
base but oh well.
ASA
"CordobaSzekely" <cordoba...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020813204150...@mb-fo.aol.com...
Mike Corbett
<artar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>DS....I agree...although I am not a competitor, Classic/Showcase or even
>strictly or J & J. From what I see a choreographed routine can be practiced
>to hit every note, beat, accent in a song and if you practice enough you
>will know your partner enough to make it work. A strictly or J & J on the
>other hand consist of two people who may or may not know each other, maybe
>dancing to a song they may have heard before a good dancer (0ne who
>understands the dance) should be able to listen to their partner and adjust
>based on music and changes from that partner..a good dancer can feel the
>connection between each other. Can that be felt based on age? Is it
>something that is learned or understood depending on age? I may be way off
>base but oh well.
In this particular post, Deborah said nothing about "age". Nobody
here is arguing that ability is directly related to age. The issue
isn't whether young people have sufficient ability to be competitive.
What Deborah was responding to was Andy Bouman's assertion that
"Really Serious" WCS dancers would do routines.
>
>ASA
>
>"CordobaSzekely" <cordoba...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20020813204150...@mb-fo.aol.com...
>> Competing In Showcase or Classic good strictly or jack and Jill dancer as
>well
>> as social does not make!!! Remember Classic and Showcase are choreographed
>> routines to music that You choose as well as a partner that you choose.
>It's
>> easy to do well in that if you practice. But that does not neccessarily
>make
>> you a good candidate for Strictly or Jack and Jill. I have danced with
>some top
>> level classic and showcase people in strictly as well and Jack and Jill
>and
>> they were not so fab.
>>
>> DS
>
Mike Corbett - Carrollton, TX
Randi Cohen
>
> > Why so critical?
> >
> I'm sorry. I didn't mean for my comments to come across as critical of you.
Regrets accepted. Who says usenet's not civilized? :)
>
> I am critical of extrapolating a single event to reach a conclusion that
> should be based on a large sampling. That's how I read your post, i.e.,
> "Some kid said something incorrect. Therefore, his premise is always
> invalid."
The story was used for illustration, not proof, which is actually why
I used the term "moral". I agree the story does not prove the moral,
any more than the "fox-grapes" parable proves that people will always
despise what they can't have.
> >
> >...fighting over vocabulary really is a time-waster...
> >
> Not necessarily so. If incorrect vocabulary results in lack of proper
> communication, then arguing over vocabulary may be the only option
> available to resolve the misunderstanding.
I simply find that meta-argumentation is often a tactic to distract
from the actual debate, and it can also last forever. Anyway, you
didn't say why you disagreed with my use of the term moral, so there
wasn't much I could respond to anyhow...
RC
Art Arnold
matter?"...based on that I responded to DS comments with my own and as a
final thought added the subject of the thread. Is there anything wrong with
that???? As I have my new group rules set to not show post already read the
only item that I saw was DS post...not what she was responding to..so what I
did was comment on her thoughts and because of the subject added the final
thoughts. God.....why is it so hard to post comments on this news group? We
are not saving the world only discussing different topics and not every post
deserves or requires a comment. I don't need a lesson on what someone was
commenting on or posting. My thoughts were exactly what was written
regardless of what DS wrote.
ASA
"Mike Corbett" <mi...@corbettweb.com> wrote in message
news:4qtllu8dm8mf8ek45...@4ax.com...
Mike Corbett
<artar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>And your point????? The subject of this thread is "Should age
>matter?"...based on that I responded to DS comments with my own and as a
>final thought added the subject of the thread. Is there anything wrong with
>that???? As I have my new group rules set to not show post already read the
>only item that I saw was DS post...not what she was responding to..so what I
>did was comment on her thoughts and because of the subject added the final
>thoughts. God.....why is it so hard to post comments on this news group? We
>are not saving the world only discussing different topics and not every post
>deserves or requires a comment. I don't need a lesson on what someone was
>commenting on or posting. My thoughts were exactly what was written
>regardless of what DS wrote.
Art,
I simply provided the context you evidently didn't see. Why would you
take that as criticism of you? "Why is it so hard to post comments on
this news group?" Are your rules different for me? If you can change
the context, surely I can provide the original. Must you take
everything personally? :-)
Chill.
Mike Corbett
<artar...@comcast.net> wrote:
You ask, "And your point?" It's just as good a question of you. You
post anything you want, in context or out and that's ok but I post a
clarification of context and that's out of line? You take it
personally?
Certainly you can post your thoughts no matter what somebody else
wrote. Did you also expect nobody to respond to what you wrote? Why?
What's up?
Mike
trish_connery
> Now, I feel like eating some ice cream and pickles and watching a tear
> jerker. LOL heheheheheh
Chuck, if you're craving ice cream and pickles, then you got too in
touch with your feminine side, LOL!
Trish
Randi Cohen
>
> Art,
>
> I simply provided the context you evidently didn't see. Why would you
> take that as criticism of you? "Why is it so hard to post comments on
> this news group?" Are your rules different for me? If you can change
> the context, surely I can provide the original. Must you take
> everything personally? :-)
>
> Chill.
>
Mike,
Not to get into a meta-argument here, but I believe that Art took your
post as an attempt to seize control of his contribution to the
discussion by defining it in your own terms, as not relevant. Which
is a tactic you employ alot. It does make it hard for people who are
not so thick-skinned as yours truly to participate, which is perhaps
why most posts on here are by the same 10 people.
If we wish to truly make this into a forum that is inclusive,
representative of the dance community, and a "safe" place for
discussion, perhaps we should all take a deep breath before we post
and ask ourselves if what we are posting will truly be helpful to the
usenet community, or if it will simply result in negativity/driving
away people who might have interesting points to make.
In conclusion, I'd like to encourage Art to keep posting, because I'm
convinced that despite appearances, more than 10 people actually read
this newsgroup. :)
RC
Mike Corbett
>Mike Corbett <mi...@corbettweb.com> wrote in message news:<806nluk2e5ts99k1k...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> Art,
>>
>> I simply provided the context you evidently didn't see. Why would you
>> take that as criticism of you? "Why is it so hard to post comments on
>> this news group?" Are your rules different for me? If you can change
>> the context, surely I can provide the original. Must you take
>> everything personally? :-)
>>
>> Chill.
>>
>
>Mike,
>
>Not to get into a meta-argument here, but I believe that Art took your
>post as an attempt to seize control of his contribution to the
>discussion by defining it in your own terms, as not relevant.
Your belief appears to be an emotional reaction without basis in fact.
> Which is a tactic you employ alot.
I thought you were studying medicine, not clairvoyance.
> It does make it hard for people who are
>not so thick-skinned as yours truly to participate, which is perhaps
>why most posts on here are by the same 10 people.
Usenet is difficult for the thin skinned. We only have words. Wise
usenet participants realize it's dangerous to leap to conclusions
about motives or intended offense and learn to protect themselves from
their own emotions.
>
>In conclusion, I'd like to encourage Art to keep posting, because I'm
>convinced that despite appearances, more than 10 people actually read
>this newsgroup. :)
I'd like to encourage Art not only to continue to participate but to
become a good student of usenet participation. It's not for
everybody.
mag...@rahul.net
<mi...@corbettweb.com> said:
>>Not to get into a meta-argument here, but I believe that Art took your
>>post as an attempt to seize control of his contribution to the
>>discussion by defining it in your own terms, as not relevant.
>
>Your belief appears to be an emotional reaction without basis in fact.
>
>> Which is a tactic you employ alot.
>
>I thought you were studying medicine, not clairvoyance.
One need not be clairvoyant to deduce this, one need only be
observant. Randi noted what I have also (independently)
observed.
jc
Mike Corbett
You are stating your interpretation of what you observed. The
clairvoyance is in the devining of my motive.
"Seize control" indicates motive or intent. I stated my intent
clearly in my reply to Art's post. I recently received an email with
the following tag line included with the signature. Perhaps it will
illustrate what I mean.
Attitude :
Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond to it.
Cheers,
John...@bellsouth.net
You may rest assured you two are not the only ones who have observed
this.....
Mikalai
<John...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:jpbolus9lcqlqai3c...@4ax.com...
a-One, a-Two, a-Three!..
Cannot help but jump in:
You three are not he only ones who have observed this...
The first question is whether this is this is this.
The second question is whether "this" is good or bad.
Not long time ago someone hinted here as to the fruitlessness of usenet
discussions.
It is long known that any prolonged discussion is useless without a
*moderator*.
If someone takes this burden onto himself, each one of the rest has a free
choice:
- Either say thanks and try to focus,
- Or happily ignore and post anything your like (that's what I am doing
right now :-),
including Viagra ads ("Should the age matter?" - fully on-topic, isn't it?)
So... what shall I take before a WCS party, in my age?
;Mikalai
''''