The Etiquette of the Victorian Ballroom: Twenty Tips for Single Gentlemen
mimimatthews.com
mimimatthews.com
But, taken as collection, they are inaccurate in what they leave out: The very idea of women having the same agency as men does not make an appearance. Sure, they can reject your "invitation to dance", but without such an invitation, they are, apparently, relegated to "wallflower"-status, soon to be relegated to "old and ugly".
"Going home with you" also doesn't make her a _____ anymore than it makes you a _____ to go home with her. From experience and observation, "going home with" someone tends to make people _happy_, and occasionally _a couple_.
It's also a textbook example how sexism hurts men as well as women: assuming that a relationship's success depends on her attraction to him as much as his attraction to her, these etiquette fail by using an inefficient search algorithm. He will sort the women according to attractiveness to him and "go home" with the first that is willing to sneak out the back with him. That leaves part of the search space unexplored. Specifically, there could be another woman he is only marginally less attracted to, but that is completely infatuated with him. Unfortunately, she actually believed these rules and failed to get his attention :(
Edit: removed Feynman reference
If you replace "man" and "woman" in the text with "person with high social capital" and "person with low social capital", the present day relevance reveals itself. If you have high social capital, you have a duty to an every effort to raise those around you who have low social capital, to not draw attention to yourself, and most certainly to be very careful that you're not making anyone feel uncomfortable (infinitely more so if you're the host).
Yes, victorian society automatically assigned high capital to men and low capital to women, but they assigned significant duties to the holders of this capital. It's this ethos of duty going with privilege that resonates a lot (with me, at least).
As for "going home", there are some pretty straight forward reasons for that: reliable birth control, pre or post conception, was not a thing, and the cost of unwanted pregnancy was disproportionally (to the point of being entirely one sided) on the woman (and, by extension, her family). So, a strong social imperative to avoid this situation existed - but, notably, there is as much a duty on part of the man to not even ask, as there is for the woman to reject it. This constraint has almost entirely gone away, but we still have rather analogous discussions around consent (and rather hyperbolically IMO, but touching on the same notes, rape culture).
But I felt it's important to point out how they are actually-not-so-subtly producing the tiered society you mention, if only for the fact that this thread is already filling with comments of how uncanny it is that they are still so relevant.
And, yes, that is true in so far as you won't attract much negative attention if you behave as prescribed. But note that the reasons these may have been useful in the past have long since disappeared, so I'm expecting you all to follow that no-gossip rule even if I happen to "go home with" her , or him, or them.
It's an environment where primogeniture and inheritance are extremely important, where women can have no income independent of a man (and may have their ability to own property independently curtailed as well). Marriage in that context requires virginity. Sleeping around is potentially life-ruining for a woman. (Not quite so much for a man, although still indecorous; more sexism)
Nobody in that context is going to be exploring the search space though any means other than polite conversation. Men might be sleeping around, but only with women of lower social status who can be paid off or can't refuse (or have their refusal taken seriously: "rape culture").
Women could only acquire agency in this context because the risk of pregnancy was mitigated, so the lifetime costs and medical risks (4% maternal fatality rate!) of a child would not fall on them. In that environment, unmarried wombs were treated like barrels of gunpowder: keep away from naked flames.
> Surprising how relevant most of that still is.
...and how some of these rules, even if they were established in reaction to possible real-world consequences, can be perpetuated long after better methods have been invented to protect against harm.
This BBC documentary ("The Secret Rules of Modern Living Algorithms") had a bit about this: https://youtu.be/T1os88EvPc4?t=19m11s
It saves you so much time and hassle down the line.
I'm not perfect about it, but it's good advice.
My most productive days are when all 5min tasks are ignored until the last possible moment when their importance grows so much that they must be done. 90% of them turn out to not need doing at all.
As a result many say I'm among the most prolific people they know, and I am nobody's idea of "who to call in emergency". ymmv
I mean, we don't do this with our OS schedulers? Why would we use a dogmatic "shortest task first" approach for everything else?
Because that's what the GTD mantra says? "If it takes less than 5 minutes, just do it immediately"
I'm pointing out why in my experience that mantra doesn't work. And I've never read the actual book, so it's very likely I'm taking the mantra too literally and that's why it doesn't work.
Even if you do treat that as a mantra, another part of GTD is prioritization. If you aren't getting your real obligations done because of all these 5-minute tasks, then you're not prioritizing properly.
http://gettingthingsdone.com/fivesteps/
That's a good distillation of the concept. The idea of doing the quick stuff immediately is to prevent a massive backlog later that drains you even more. Even things like checking your email can be done less frequently to prevent unnecessary context switches. Check your email 2-5 times a day instead of leaving it open all the time. When you open it and see a bunch of short tasks, do them or schedule them (with a preference to doing to prevent that accidental backlog), then resume your work. If it's taken you 30 minutes (or some arbitrary, personal limit), switch back to your main tasks and get back to the email again later.
And then you'll still get a % of no-replies that show up at the event unannounced.
Most people these days simply have no manners.
Someone may be on Facebook just to keep a contact list, not to use it. Someone may not have turned up because their mother was in hospital. Maybe they were about to RSVP but then their kid fell over, then it was dinner time etc. Maybe some people just to prefer not to pre-plan everything in advance.
You could be an ass and say "sorry, no RSVP, no entry", but most people will try to show a modicum of etiquette more than the guests and accommodate the fools somehow.
But if you're being asked for a reply by a certain date and you miss it, you should reasonably expect not to be allowed to the event. And, if you do show up anyways, you might get in and you might end up being accommodated by the hosts/organizers regardless. But that wouldn't make you any less of an ass.
These are exceptional conditions, not norms. Many people have taken to simply not RSVPing or RSVPing in the positive and not showing up as their norm. It's not an exceptional thing. Someone with a particularly hectic life is consistently unreliable, fine. Someone who's usually reliable but is unreliable a few times, give them the benefit of the doubt. People who aren't leading hectic lives (or are actively hiding that fact, it's usually hard to do so) that are consistently unreliable, they're just rude.
I wouldn't put too much thought into this.
Just be empathetic to the sender. If I would send an invite, I'd love a quick response. But would be forgiving if it's delayed.
1) Not providing a committed answer until the last minute; and 2) Reneging on a previous commitment, particularly at the last moment.
Responding promptly is important if only to say, "I cannot commit at the moment but I will let you know for definite by [date]", where date is sufficiently in advance of the event in question.
Most of the upper-class people I know would sooner go to the club and dry-hump a stranger than throw a cocktail/dinner party (much less waltz). I'm all for having fun and using a salad fork to eat dessert, but I'd be interested to see the world with like 25% less depravity.
In other words, come down off your high horse; let people like what they like.
You really got me wrong. I was trying to open a dialogue on shifting norms, not assume a position of moral superiority.
Why can't you just LARP for fun? People do stuff like civil war encampments and renn faires because they're huge fun. A LARP club that gets dressed up and dances to the waltz sounds like an unusual, interesting time.
(Edited to add, I've not been to a SCA event but would I be correct in predicting there might be a waltz at a SCA event?)
Did I now?
> Most of the upper-class people I know would sooner go to the club and dry-hump a stranger than throw a cocktail/dinner party (much less waltz).
Quelle horreur!
> I'm all for having fun and using a salad fork to eat dessert...
Here's where you portray yourself as someone who likes to break the mold just a little bit...
> but I'd be interested to see the world with like 25% less depravity.
...and here's where you suggest that current norms are too much and that people who don't conform to your idea of wholesome, "classy" fun are depraved.
We must have different definitions of moral superiority.
They're just as free to pass judgment as you are to make choices that would alienate you from the others.
I don't think it reflects poorly on either party, but is just an inalienable component of human nature. It's a balance of personal choice/freedom vs societal acceptance. People fall on different parts of the spectrum and it's ok.
Well of course one would have to be rather depraved and unconventional to do so; but I take it that this is huehehue's example of the sort of fun and depravity the having of which he is "all for," while still wishing for a general reduction in the broader depravities of modern living.
I'm having a lot of fun grinding mirrors for hours of a time. I am sure most people would not consider that to be fun, but boring menial work, but I am having lots of fun. I won't try to sell this activity to anyone else "because it's fun" as I am sure they just won't get it since they aren't into it already. It requires more careful explanation.
It's not a rigid thing. There are certain movements that everyone learns to start with, the basic waltz and foxtrot and such. Then you learn to combine different movements but still staying within the confines of the waltz. You learn how to add flair to it. It's like musical improvisation if you've ever played an instrument or sung, but physical, with your whole body. There are rules and constraints (really, conventions and guidelines). The restrictions impose challenges that can be fun to work within and around (a typical waltz is a 3/4 time piece, the dance is often done in a circle around the room, but what twirls and such you add are yours to choose and at the right time). Every dance will be different and unique.
I have to ask, do you actually have fun grinding mirrors for hours? Like, you actually experience joy and glee from the activity proper? Or is it the end product you enjoy or the challenges of finding the right way to achieve the qualities/properties you desire from a mirror with the tools and techniques at hand? Or is it, like running for me, meditative in its repetition, but still novel enough at each turn to not be mind numbing?
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KevQxr-saFw
[2] https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/well/walk-stretch-or-d...
I really like this advice. You dance and you leave. No phone number exchange, no text messages, no selfies, no follow ups.
Some of my fellow nerds tried to do the same thing but they made this big mistake: they'd think just because the girl danced with them, they could try for a phone number. It would make the girls really uncomfortable. Other people would see that, and it made it harder to get another girl to dance with.
I took a different strategy: I danced with any girl, made them smile (I was good at dancing with beginners and I recycled the same few jokes over and over), and then move on. Sometimes the girl would show interest and that's when I'd go for a phone number.
And if the girl wasn't interested (vast majority of the time), they'd still tell their friends how fun I am, or other people would see the whole interaction and I'd quickly feel like a rockstar.
Here's the thing - most activities that expand your social circle are not actually focused on finding a date, because most people are paired up and.or otherwise aren't looking for a date. As a result, you need to engage sincerely in the activity itself, and not try to romanticize (which is the mildest form of what you shouldn't do) every encounter.
Ballroom dancing, tennis leagues (such as mixed doubles), and other activities that mix men and women are good choices. But yes, in most of these cases, the people involved not only won't be looking for a date, and it's extremely important not to treat them as events where people are looking for a date. They aren't, and people involved in them may in fact resent the implication that this is the primary purpose for their participation.
Ironically, that's why they work so well for expanding your social circle. If they were about dating, 90% of the people involved in them wouldn't be involved, and the network effect would collapse.
Also - once people know and like you, of course they don't mind that you are single and would are interested in meeting single people in the same spot. There is a time honored tradition of introducing people to each other under exactly these circumstances.
If however you aren't looking to gain anything w/ the interaction other than enjoying the interaction itself, you will get a positive response nearly every time.
Sometimes people might be unresponsive due to a bad mood or general unhappiness, but who cares? You had no agenda, so you have nothing invested. If you let it roll off and move along you literally lose nothing.
Hasn't changed.
But its also about a context that may not be common anymore. Our standards of behavior are much more laid back. I suspect its very rare for most people now be among strangers in a formal-informal context without friends in tow and in groups this reduces the overall level of formality. The risk of overt graciousness out of context is it might come off as affected.
On the contrary, you need.
(as mentioned at #11, this is the time when the waltz was still a bit racey and mildly controversial)
The thing Victorian teenage day dreams were made of.
If I'm not misremembering my lessons--to do some of the turns properly, the woman has to be essentially straddling the man's upper leg. It was a pain to do some of those with partners who weren't comfortable with that kind of contact.
All's I meant is I can see how waltz was considered risque; as a sheltered guy, I was caught really off-guard when our instructor positioned my partner and I in the way I described.
#8 Don’t Whisper to the Ladies.
“To affect an air of secrecy or mystery when conversing
in a ballroom is a piece of impertinence for which no
lady of delicacy will thank you.”
"DO YOU WANNA GET A DRINK!?"
The concern isn't that it's personally unpleasant but an indelicacy - it creates an appearance of indecency in a culture where excessive familiarity could seriously harm a woman's reputation.
One of the most interesting artifacts of the time is this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_card
Women had to keep a careful list of the men that they would dance with during that night, each lasting about five minutes.
Be respectful.
Don't make assumptions.
An interesting read, nevertheless.
I found that interesting. Much of what was recommended was telling the young man to be very careful not to accidentally make anybody feel embarrassed or shamed.
Respect is a separate matter (as anyone who has experienced someone who doesn't like them in the south can attest)
Somebody with good manners always make you feel special and takes care of your needs ahead of theirs. Somehow or another, a ton of people grew up thinking manners and etiquette were about where the forks go at a formal dinner.
I'm stealing that one.
(But interestingly, I also discovered they're quite useful. The meal featured a bit of a messy seafood course which required eating with your hands, and they allowed a bit of a wash up at the table.)
I was very pleased, the first time I ate at a similar restaurant, to be given all kinds of tools with which to attack the large pile of seafood.
(This was in Copenhagen, but two anecdotes isn't enough to generalize.)
Once I learned (some of) the actual rules around dinner settings, that sort of etiquette made far more sense to me. Using dinner forks isn't hard, even in high class settings: you start from the furthest-out fork and move in. But setting them requires knowing what you're doing so that your guests don't need to know - the goal of politeness being that you ensure no one else is ill at ease.
It's actually a lot of fun to be graceful! Quiet with the feet, loud with the dance.
Yes you can!
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14291182 and marked it off-topic.