Blues event organisation in the context of concerns about sexualisation
Wednesday, January 15, 2014 at 8:58 Blues dancing has a problem: many dancers, even within the swing scene, see it as creepy and overly sexual. This used to baffle me until I danced outside Melbourne and discovered that quite a number of blues scenes are creepy and overly sexual. Not all, certainly: the Berlin Blues Explosion, for example, was fine. The Herräng blues room, on the other hand, was all sorts of wrong.
Melbourne has a pretty ‘clean’ blues scene. This is due to deliberate efforts by the scene’s founders and its senior teachers over the years. I value this, both because I am more comfortable dancing with more people if the dance is not creepy or sexual, and also because other people are more comfortable if the dance is not creepy or sexual, which increases the pool of people for me to dance with and generally improves the health of the scene. Partially, I believe, Melbourne’s successful blues dancing scene rests on it being an open, inclusive, safe, non-sexual experience. While dances can certainly be intimate, they are not sexual, and that’s a key distinction.
There are dancers who do not share these attitudes. For them, a sexual element in blues dancing is acceptable – indeed, it may be part of the attraction. There is a tacit conflict in the Melbourne blues scene between these ‘anything goes’ dancers and the ‘establishment’ dancers (both minorities), but I don’t intend to address that here.
What I will address is an example of how this conflict and concern about sexual elements can manifest itself, and how (not) to deal with it.
There is a blues dancing event about to occur in Melbourne: Cider House Blues. The event organisers are, as far as I know, not part of either sub-group (anything goes/establishment), but are independently running their first major blues dancing event. Good on them! As a keen blues dancer I am excited to see events like this being run, especially when they involve overseas instructors; Justin Riley, in this case. I don’t know him from Adam, but the event blurb tells me he’s one of the USA’s best. Good enough for me!
That’s a lie: it’s not good enough for me. I don’t know Justin, nor do I know the organisers beyond vaguely recognising their faces. And before I commit to driving several hours from Melbourne and spending all night at an apple orchard with few people I know, I need more information. So I relied on the class descriptions to understand what’s on offer. One class description reads:
WORKSHOP 4: DANCER POLYAMORY
Protestant values aside, this class explores the essentials and eccentricities of being “Poly”: communication, compromise, and strong personal foundations. This class will help develop the essential partnering skills used to dance and connect with one, two, three… or fifty partners at once.
Err – what?
polyamory, noun: the practice of engaging in multiple sexual relationships with the consent of all the people involved.
Hmmm.
Am I going to Cider House Blues?, I’m asked. “No”, I reply:
MARTIN:
The ‘polyamory’ session description weirds me out. I don’t think blues is the place for amorousness. If you want to fondle somebody, fine, but that’s not a part of the dance (even if they occur at the same time). Perhaps it’s just a poorly named and/or worded session, but it (heh) turns me off the class.FRIEND:
How interesting. You’re not the only person who reacted that way. I should point out - it is a dance workshop. There is absolutely zero teaching or encouraging of fondling/amorous behaviour! The class is about learning to dance with multiple persons. The naming has as naughty a connotation as calling triples dancing “threesomes” (or calling swing dancers “swingers”) but has no more actual inappropriateness behind it.<SNIP>
I don’t want to be argumentative but I’m still surprised at the interpretation that polyamory relationships would be taught at a dance event. The idea - ugh. It’d be the epitome of inappropriate/creepy, an invitation for a lawsuit, all sorts of wrong. Don’t we give organisers and instructors a little more credit then that?
MARTIN:
“I’m surprised at the interpretation that polyamory relationships would be taught at a dance event.”That’s not what I meant. That would be all the things you listed. However, some people teach (and many more dance) blues with the attitude that there is a sexual component to it. I’m fairly strongly opposed to this attitude; I want to do blues dancing that’s intimate, not sexual. The ‘poly’ class description implicitly accepts the presence of sex in blues dancing through its language.
That’s as far as my interest in the matter went: it was a weird class description, with language that suggested the blues dancing there would be sexualised, so I wasn’t going. At this point a clarification was made on the Cider House page. Katherine is not one of the organisers, as far as I know, but is close to them.
KATHERINE:
Hey there cider house world. I hear some buzz out there and some of it’s ‘what is with this polyamory business - I’m not going to a workshop to fool around with people, eeewwww!’
Please don’t be put off by the slightly salacious title. It’s a dance class exploring ways to connect and communicate in dance, with any number of dance partners. It is not a class on how to be inappropriate on the dance floor.Blues dance often operates in a intimate space in which we all need to feel safe with each other. Trust and mutual respect is of utmost importantance. I can promise you that your organisers and the amazing instructor on his way believe this.
Another friend of mine commented. Tim Jones (no relation) is a very experienced swing/blues dancer, event organiser, and DJ. He has also taught blues classes. Tim is one of the nicest, most polite, least threatening people I know. He is widely liked in the Melbourne scene, and was Swing Patrol’s “2013 Legend of the Year.” Tim is even more concerned about the sexualisation of blues dancing than I am.
TIM:
Are you sure? (Sorry, it’s not clear who’s organising this workshop). The description seems pretty clear to me:“DANCER POLYAMORY: Protestant values aside, this class explores the essentials and eccentricities of being “Poly”.”
MAYBE this is just a tongue in cheek class name, but it certainly doesn’t read like it from the description. Going only on the description (I don’t know this instructor), I think this class is about bringing lessons from a polyamorous lifestyle into the dance. Sure, there’ll (probably) be no “now hook up” part of the class, and the class will be about dancing with multiple partners at once. (That last part is probably going to be awesome!) But, it sounds like the background for the class is in a particular type of intimate lifestyle choice. I think that’s unnecessary in this context, and is also (I believe) actively harmful to the scene.
I think people need to think carefully about how their blues classes are named and promoted. As an intimate dance, blues is *already* seen as creepy by some newcomers. Having class names like this doesn’t help.
I have spent a lot of time trying to ensure that the blues spaces that I’m involved with (organising, DJing and more recently teaching) are safe environments, where the focus is on the dance and the music. I don’t want to see our scene devolve into a meat market or hookup culture like I have seen elsewhere in the world. And I certainly want to create a space where newcomers feel comfortable. That’s how you grow the scene!
Blues is an intimate, wonderful dance between you, your dance partners, and the music. There’s nothing wrong with going home with someone from a dance, or dating in the scene, or indeed dating multiple people at once (as long as everyone is on board), BUT, I believe the focus of the scene should be on the dance and the music. Not in sex and relationships. And, this focus should be represented in classes, events and their descriptions.
I can’t speak for others, but this is where my negative reaction to this class description comes from. Not because I don’t like “poly” people (honestly, who cares?), but because I don’t think discussion of relationship life choices has a place in a blues scene.
Tim is also bad at being concise, so I’ve emphasised what I think is the key point. An organiser replied:
JOEL:
Hi Tim,
Thanks for the comments. The organisers (Nancy, Sam and myself) really share your thoughts on scene safety, issues of consent and a focus on dance and music. Perhaps because we know Justin [the instructor], and have heard the phrase poly-dancing thrown around very innocently by dancers from the US scene, it didn’t occur to us that this would be interpreted as a sexualised class.We’re really excited to be doing this class, as it focuses on connection and communication, outside of a traditional lead/follow paradigm. This opens up lots of new possibilities on the dance floor, and gives new options to dancers outside of their learned “role”. I really see it as an extension of the “Making Dancing a Conversation” class.
We’re hoping that CHB will be seen as a really safe and welcoming event which helps bring the Melbourne Blues scene closer together. By clearing up this issue, you’ve probably helped as get a little closer to that goal.
I’m not tremendously impressed by this response. Tim has concerns (that I share), and has expressed them reasonably clearly. Joel’s response is to state that the organisers share Tim’s attitudes (good), but that his concerns didn’t occur to them (not good, but it happens).
So far, this is fairly standard public relations stuff. What should happen next is that, having recognised a punter’s concern and emphasised with them, the organisation eliminates the problem. What instead happens is that Joel affirms the organisers excitement about the class, and declares the issue to have been resolved.
Nothing has changed about the class description. The problem still exists. Tim’s concerns were acknowledged – but not acted upon.
I waited a little to see whether the class description would change, and when it became clear that it wasn’t, I waded in. I will admit that my post was coloured by annoyance at the initial, poor response.
MARTIN:
“It didn’t occur to us that [the phrase poly-dancing] would be interpreted as a sexualised class”That would make sense but for the fact you(1) didn’t use “poly dancing”: you used “polyamory”. Polyamory has a well established – sexual – meaning; it is very different from polydancing; and it is clear that you understood its different meaning by referencing “Protestant values”.
I don’t want to be mean, but claiming you didn’t understand the sexual reference of using “polyamory” is to suggest you are either astoundingly naive, incredibly bad at language, or a dissembler.
I agree with everything Tim said, including his attitudes towards polyamory as a lifestyle choice. And I am willing to give you and this workshop the benefit of the doubt – but “the benefit of the doubt”, in this case, merely means believing you’re idiots rather than liars, because I just can’t see any better explanations. That’s pretty blunt, and I’ll understand if you’re offended, but, look: after having ‘cleared up this issue’, you’re still advertising a class about having multiple lovers for a dance that is plagued by the general perception that it’s overly sexual and creepy.
Fix that shit.
Fn1: you = plural; whoever wrote the class description. Applies throughout.
Nancy is another organiser.
NANCY:
Hi guys- it’s not often that I brag about my prudish, religious-type credentials, but I know not many people know us yet, so as one of the organisers of this event I can assure you that the class will be completely above board.I am a prude. I have done this workshop. I thought it rocked, and it inspired my dancing.
We chose these classes because we thought you guys would benefit as blues dancers and enjoy them as well.
This is a fun, playful class. It crosses no personal boundaries.
You can all relax now- Mama Prude gotcha back.MARTIN:
Awesome: fix your language
At this point Joel sent me a private message. He asked me not to take the tone I did, and to make my point politely or abuse him privately. He also offered me a refund if I were planning to attend the event. I replied, “Perhaps it’s best if you call me?”, and gave him my mobile phone number. He did not call, nor otherwise respond to me.
40 minutes later, Nancy sent me a private message. (To my understanding, Joel and Nancy are a couple, as well as co-organisers.) Nancy observed that I was not attending the event, and asked me to stop trolling them. She then deleted my posts from the Cider House Blues page (the last two, above). Ignoring the deletions, I sent both Nancy and Joel this message:
MARTIN:
Trolling you implies I am antagonising you and/or your colleagues to promote an emotional response. This is not the case. I truly believe you have made a big mistake in how you described your class; a mistake that affects primarily your event, but also the way blues dancing in seen generally.The effect is has on your event is that I’m not attending. That’s not the entire reason, but it’s a large part: I don’t know very much about you or the instructor, so I relied on the descriptions. That particular description suggested you and/or the instructor thought sex was/is a part of blues dancing, which is a stance I am opposed to and which made me not want to attend this event. I am far from alone in my position, but do not claim to speak for anyone but myself.
However, the reason I commented was the effect on the image of blues dancing generally: I don’t want it viewed as a sexual dance. The language of your class description encourages such a view. In follow-up comments you claim this is not the case, and at this point I refer you to the arguments from my original post.
I don’t want to make you mad. I want you to recognise that you have made a mistake, change the class description, and be aware of what sort of attitudes to blues dancing you implicitly and explicitly encourage. I don’t care if you apologise or even admit to making a mistake. Just improve things. I’ll send a copy of this to Joel, too, since he has contacted me. You are also free to ring me if you want to discuss it further. [Phone Number]
Regards,
Martin
Things didn’t get much better from there. One dancer posted, “If I get to make out with a random, that’s worth $60.” That was deleted – and rightly so – but that comment is the perfect example of the kind of attitude that I don’t want to see in blues dancing, but that is encouraged by describing a class as “polyamory” and turning a blind eye to its sexual connotations.
Another dancer pointed out that the description was copied from the instructor’s page, and that the organisers perhaps couldn’t change it without consulting with him. That raises several points:
- As an event organiser you own the description. You put it up, and you should have vetted it before doing so.
- If you don’t like the description, you have the power to change it. Even it’s been used 100 times before – if it draws complaints on your event, you own it. That’s how it works.
- Why on earth wasn’t that information included in the initial response(s)?
Further discussion on the Cider House Blues page has been severely curtailed through a mixture of deleting posts and encouraging people contact the organisers directly. Every approach I have made to contact the organisers directly has been ignored. Pointing this out on the event page was deleted.
When Tim – Mr. Polite – approached the organisers directly they called him rude, pedantic, overbearing, out of line, and told him to piss off. In return, Tim said he was “disappointed” and “unimpressed.”
I’m sure the class be fine. I’m sure the organisers don’t want it to be a “hook-up” class. But, organisers: recognise the context you’re operating in. If it’s blues, recognise that you’re in a scene in which people worry about creepiness and sexualisation. Be clear about your values, and reflect them in your actions. Saying, “we share your concerns about X” is meaningless unless you act on those concerns. Don’t ignore problems or seek to censor their discussion. (Again – basic PR.) Take responsibility. Because if you can’t take criticism, then you’re saying, “You’re only welcome in this group if you agree with us.”
MCJ
The original version of this post named the dancer who commented, “If I get to make out with a random, that’s worth $60.”
I have deleted the reference, as naming the person does not add to the argument.
Reader Comments (11)
Hello please check your privilege :)
Wow way to get your knickers in a twist over a silly (and funny) class description, crap on the hard work of the organisers, publish private comments by people on a public page, and when you don't get your way throw a tantrum like a 4 year old to make sure you selfishiy ruin it for everyone else, nice going!
I know you probably think you're making the swing dancing scene a better place with blogs like this, but you're doing it wrong.
Hey, Martin! Just wanted to thank you for linking my post on PR Crisis - How to Handle Mistakes as a reference in your post. From what I can read, it seems that the organizers were less than sensitive to their target audience OR, they had a different target audience in mind. Cheers!
Hey Melbourne, I am so excited that your scene is so impassioned in issues of consent, sexualization of dance, and the creation of safer spaces in your community. I have over 10 year of experience in community organizing around community empowerment in the creation of safe space. For those of you interested in this topic, this Monday I am going to hold a special session in Melbourne on "Creating A Safe Space In Dance: Acting on Issues of Sexualization and Consent In Our Own Community." It will run from 7pm until 9pm at Dancehouse (150 Princes St, Carlton North) in Melbourne this Monday after Cider House Blues. Bring Please $10 to help pay for the space rental. I will be teaching a workshop on "Begging The Question: Projecting Sexualization and Issues of Consent In Dance" and then will facilitate a discussion on how you as the Melbourne community can take action to help create the community you all deserve. I will post the website for the special event here very shortly. The event that I organize and teach at annually in The States is the Recess Gender Bender. You will be able to see the event at: http://genderbenderrecess.weebly.com/
Hey Melbourne, I am so excited that your scene is so impassioned in issues of consent, sexualization of dance, and the creation of safer spaces in your community. I have over 10 year of experience in community organizing around community empowerment in the creation of safe space. For those of you interested in this topic, this Monday I am going to hold a special session in Melbourne on "Creating A Safe Space In Dance: Acting on Issues of Sexualization and Consent In Our Own Community." It will run from 7pm until 9pm at Dancehouse (150 Princes St, Carlton North) in Melbourne this Monday after Cider House Blues. Bring Please $10 to help pay for the space rental. I will be teaching a workshop on "Begging The Question: Projecting Sexualization and Issues of Consent In Dance" and then will facilitate a discussion on how you as the Melbourne community can take action to help create the community you all deserve. I will post the website for the special event here very shortly. The event that I organize and teach at annually in The States is the Recess Gender Bender. You will be able to see the event at: http://genderbenderrecess.weebly.com/
Also, just to comment on this whole situation. I think that the issues of consent and sexualization are very very VERY important to all dance scenes and communities in general. They are not issues to be taken lightly nor just thrown around, they are issues to ACT on. This is why I have decided to host an event to help facilitate your scene to help plan and act on these important issues. I am impressed by the importance given to these issues by the Melbourne community. However, I am very disappointed and unimpressed by the divisiveness and mudslinging I am seeing on these threads regarding them. These issues are so important to everyone involved and should bring people together, not be the ammunition to divide or dissempower new organizers in the community from taking action. The way that you stop sexualization and breeches of consent in your community is not by an anti-harassment policy or decree from an organizer, that only creates a false vail for people to say "oh, we don't have a problem because we have an anti-harassment policy." The way you create a safe space as an organizer or as a community member is to empower every single person in your community that they can take action when these issues are breached, not telling them that they are incapable and should let the 'real' organizers take care of it. I expect my workshops on Monday to be filled. And for every person who has posted on this thread that does not show up, I want a personal message written to me as to why you feel like it was not important that you were there. This is me calling you into accountability Melbourne. My email is Rileyjus@gmail.com
FB Page made for the event: https://www.facebook.com/events/425449347558549/
Yo, Martin.
I read your post and heavily agree with you. As a blues dancer and being relatively young, I am very conscious as to whom I dance with. In the Melbourne blues scene, I do feel comfortable around and dancing with others, although am very cautious when making decisions regarding events; taking into consideration how the organisers have chosen to word their information.
Reading the comments that you pointed out, and the replies that the organisers have sent, I am very unimpressed by their attitude towards the situation.
I feel, from my point of view, that by using such a term in their description (although I cannot make the event regardless), I am rather excluded from the workshops as it seems to restrict their classes to adults, completely turning me off the entire event.
I may possibly be on my own in thinking this, however I thought it might be a point worth making.
Regards,
Rosie.
Rosie,
Thanks for posting. It's good to hear your thoughts, and there are several other dancers who feel the same way.
Cheers,
Martin
Hey Martin,
I was linked this by a fellow scene organiser who knows I like thinking about dancey stuff like this.
My main question is this: Are you also against other playful class titles that use relationship models? If I ran a class called "A happy marriage - (building stronger lead/follow connection)", or "In Sickness and in Health - (adapting your dance for your partner's injuries)" would you still raise similar objections?
If you would, then fair play - you are being consistent. I don't agree, I think we can afford to be a little less po-faced, but I respect your viewpoint.
If you wouldn't, I'd urge you to look in to polyamoury before objecting so strongly. I have several poly friends, and the idea that their relationship choices should be so censored compared to a two person marriage is pretty problematic. Similarly the idea that their choices are somehow inherently more sexual than a "normal" marriage looks like a misunderstanding of the word, to me.
That said, of course it's also about perception - maybe you are quite knowledgable about polyamoury, and objected more to the fact you knew it would put people off attending. I guess that's a valid objection, given several people seem to have been put off. In that case it would have been helpful for you, as well as seeking clarification from the organisers, to explain to other people that talking about polyamoury isn't sexualising the dance any more than talking about marriage would be - but I do agree this is the ultimate responsibility of the organisers. It's clear maybe the lack of that understanding put some people off, which is a shame, because everyone should dance blues all of the time.
(I-don't-think-it's-relevant-note: I knew Joel and Nancy before they deserted the UK, know Sam from being awesome in various places, and think Justin is pretty awesome. Also they totally stole their event name from me, but no hard feelings :D. That could all colour what I say here - though I don't think it does)
Hi Tris,
Q: Are you also against other playful class titles that use relationship models?
A: That's a leading question, so I'll deconstruct it: I am against class titles that are insensitive to the local context and could harm the scene. Whether or not the titles refer to relationship models is irrelevant. A "playful" title would be sensitive to the local context and I would thus have no problem with it.
Let me dispel the idea that I disapprove of polyamorous relationship: that is not the case. I don't give two hoots what kind of relationship (/religion/medicine/etc) people engage in if it works for them and doesn't harm anyone else. I think polyamory is a perfectly valid relationship choice and I have no problem with it. Some of my friends yadda yadda.
But! Tris, you recognise that this is also about perception. And while you say that polyamory is no more sexual than traditional marriage, I contend that this isn't the prevailing perception in the English-speaking world generally, nor indeed in the Melbourne swing dance scene specifically. Thus the problem with a 'polyamory' class.
While I perhaps could have 'explained' polyamory to others, this battle is far from the top of my list. I do a lot of advocacy, both professionally and privately, and having a dance scene that welcomes polyamory isn't something I care strongly about. I'd welcome it, but I'd be far happier if everyone supported effective action on climate change or humane treatment of asylum seekers.
As you say, explaining an organisation's message is the ultimate responsibility of the organisers. Faced with a scene whose perceptions didn't accord with theirs, they re-stated their perceptions, then pretended the problem was resolved. That's a woefully inadequate response.
Triggered.
Hi Socially Justified,
Could you expand on that? The list of topics that potentially trigger people is as long as my arm, so without more specific information I'm not sure I can do much for you.