Ballroom Dancing: A Lost Artform - General

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32086949]My grandmother has told me the names of about four, two of which she dumped because they groped her. And by her word everyone she knew was far more promiscuous than that, culminating in College, which was, by her account, nothing more than a pointlessly cruel and inclusive club of drinkers and adulterers. Not that I think that's an [I]entirely[/I] bad thing of course, but take it as you wish. [editline]3rd September 2011[/editline] Yes, rich people can be bigoted scum. As can the poor. The hell does that have to do with putting production in the hands of the workers? [editline]3rd September 2011[/editline] though if you don't wish to follow my grandmothers testimony at face value you can always just check out the teen pregnancy rates for that decade[/QUOTE] Well, it doesn't really matter since my argument rests on chastity at public, but fine. Percent Of Adolescents Who Have Had Sex, Before The Age Of Sixteen [13] Year Boys Girls 1964 14% 5% 1974 31% 12% 1991 28% 19% 2001 30% 26% 2008 34% 38% And don't forget contraceptives.

Ballroom dance is classy. I do it.

I would love to take a girl ballroom dancing, like where everyone is doing the somewhat same dance in a giant room. The interaction not only between a couple, but the other couples as well (not running into each other) is just so interesting and I love that kind of unison.

[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32090788]Well, it doesn't really matter since my argument rests on chastity at public, but fine. Percent Of Adolescents Who Have Had Sex, Before The Age Of Sixteen [13] Year Boys Girls 1964 14% 5% 1974 31% 12% 1991 28% 19% 2001 30% 26% 2008 34% 38% And don't forget contraceptives.[/QUOTE] Before I say anything, I'd like to know. Who the hell thinks that the sixties was the chastest age for any country? Because if you think that you are completely mad. Just saying. Second, I would like to say that the source for those statistics is Youthnet. A UK based charity focused on giving counsel to teenagers. When they state their study methods, they say this: [quote]Our research methods Surveys on youth culture and trends, focus groups, user panels and TheSite.org’s discussion boards all provide YouthNet with a regular on and offline dialogue with young people and volunteers.[/quote] In short, Youthnet isn't a scientific journal, it's a website for teenagers. It's studies aren't done by statisticians to understand the ebb and flow of society, it's done by forum administrators to understand it's user base.

Must be an old website to survey internet users from the 60's. The sixties were just the start of the sexual revolution, besides, it only tells us how many people had sex before they hit 16, now with how many people, not how often, not with whom.

[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32093765]Must be an old website to survey internet users from the 60's. The sixties were just the start of the sexual revolution, besides, it only tells us how many people had sex before they hit 16, now with how many people, not how often, not with whom.[/QUOTE] [quote]Our research methods Surveys on youth culture and trends, focus groups, user panels and TheSite.org’s discussion boards all provide YouthNet with a [B]regular on and [U]offline[/U] dialogue[/B] with young people and volunteers.[/quote] Are you trying to discredit your own information by pointing out how shallow the study was? [editline]3rd September 2011[/editline] How about this. [img]http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2011/02/02/PH2011020203802.jpg[/img] [editline]3rd September 2011[/editline] The point is, it's clear that people weren't "chaste" in the last century. That's what I'm trying to get across. Regardless of what people write, or what people say, or what is kept out of public dialogue, people are horny fuckers who have sex. Always have, always will, and it has nothing to do with the degradation of society.

I'm not saying society has been degraded, I, for one, welcome out lusty overlords. And that can easily be solved with contraception, the pill popped up in the early 60's. Besides the high birth rates compared to the low number of births show that there were only a couple of women having sex like mad. Not to mention that the number of births in 1940 is smaller than today's, even though we have proper contraceptives and much easier abortions. And no, I'm saying they probably pulled that data from some other website.

[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32094378]I'm not saying society has been degraded, I, for one, welcome out lusty overlords. And that can easily be solved with contraception, the pill popped up in the early 60's. Besides the high birth rates compared to the low number of births show that there were only a couple of women having sex like mad. Not to mention that the number of births in 1940 is smaller than today's, even though we have proper contraceptives and much easier abortions. And no, I'm saying they probably pulled that data from some other website.[/QUOTE] except that's not the number of women having children, that's the number of women aged 15-19 having children. I'm not sure what you mean by us having more children now, the green line is the average birth rate, and it's in a quite clear and steady decline. And I'm afraid I can't comment on unsourced statistics. If they really did pull those statistics from somewhere else, you would wonder why they're sourced and not the people they pulled the information from. Again, do you concede that society was not, by any common definition of the term, chaste at the point in time at which you claim it to be?

Gentlemen. Why the fuck have you turned my thread into a political quagmire.

[QUOTE=ewitwins;32096132]Gentlemen. Why the fuck have you turned my thread into a political quagmire.[/QUOTE] Because you made political statements in the OP. And probably because not that many people really care about ballroom dancing, but I could be wrong on that one.

[QUOTE=Carnotite;32087809]In the spirit of being classy as balls, I do believe you'd call her a lady.[/QUOTE] I would quite enjoy asking a lady to accompany myself to one of these Ballroom outings.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32094625]except that's not the number of women having children, that's the number of women aged 15-19 having children. I'm not sure what you mean by us having more children now, the green line is the average birth rate, and it's in a quite clear and steady decline. And I'm afraid I can't comment on unsourced statistics. If they really did pull those statistics from somewhere else, you would wonder why they're sourced and not the people they pulled the information from. Again, do you concede that society was not, by any common definition of the term, chaste at the point in time at which you claim it to be?[/QUOTE] We're not having more children now, we're having more sex. If our sex levels remained constant, we'd see a drop in birth because of contraceptives, and yet, at 1940, we had less babies than we do now.

Bad title, how can it be a lost artform is millions of people still do it.

[QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32097025]We're not having more children now, we're having more sex. If our sex levels remained constant, we'd see a drop in birth because of contraceptives, and yet, at 1940, we had less babies than we do now.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure where exactly you get your information on "sex levels", but that's entirely besides the point. Point is society has never been chaste.

I've started going to Jive classes with a few friends. I had my first session last Monday, I know 4 steps so far, not enough to properly lead the dance. Hopefully I'll have learnt enough before I leave for University.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32097114]I'm not sure where exactly you get your information on "sex levels", but that's entirely besides the point. Point is society has never been chaste.[/QUOTE] Chastity is just a low sex score. Consider the sex score the number of times sex is had on a determined stretch of time. If the sex score of the 40's were the same as today's, our birth score would be much smaller, because the percentage of sex ending in babby is much smaller. And yet, our birth score is the same as 1940's, which means our sex score must be higher. B = S x I Birth score = sex score x percentage of impregnation, For B1 = B2, S1 x I1 = S2 x I2. if I2 is smaller than I1, S2 must be higher than S1

Society has never been chaste.

My grandpa used to go down to the Schwabenhof near us when he was younger and danced to Polkas with girls he met there. Yeah, we've really lost part of an old culture. Of course, "clubbing" is going to be retro in a 30 years.

[QUOTE=Chezhead;32100794]My grandpa used to go down to the Schwabenhof near us when he was younger and danced to Polkas with girls he met there. Yeah, we've really lost part of an old culture. Of course, "clubbing" is going to be retro in a 30 years.[/QUOTE] It feels like we really romanticize the past as well, but you have to admit, romance was a hell of a different beast that far back. Of course, it feels like courtship was a more delicate thing to handle as well, and I think that's probably the best aspect of ballroom dancing. It feels like you're developing more of a connection with your partner than you would if you just went, well, clubbing or what have you. Sure, clubbing and things like that are fun, but where's the elegance? Where's the beauty? Where's the swirling of dresses, the gentlemen in suits, the music? [editline]4th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=MountainWatcher;32098521]Chastity is just a low sex score. Consider the sex score the number of times sex is had on a determined stretch of time. If the sex score of the 40's were the same as today's, our birth score would be much smaller, because the percentage of sex ending in babby is much smaller. And yet, our birth score is the same as 1940's, which means our sex score must be higher. B = S x I Birth score = sex score x percentage of impregnation, For B1 = B2, S1 x I1 = S2 x I2. if I2 is smaller than I1, S2 must be higher than S1[/QUOTE] I'm slightly confused as to why chastity has anything to do with this.