10 ms·
The Etiquette of the Victorian Ballroom: Twenty Tips for Single Gentlemen
- aaronharnly 9y ago#1 (“When you receive an invitation to a ball, answer it immediately.”) is really important. I can't tell you how many relationships (friendship, professional, or romantic) I've screwed up simply by not being a prompt responder. In the times, places, and relationships I've made prompt-responding a priority, everything goes better.
- 2muchcoffeeman 9y agoSurprising how relevant most of that still is.
- matt4077 9y agoYes, some of them happen to align with behaviour that makes life easier for others, such as answering an invitation early. 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
- lisper 9y agoI have no idea why you're getting down voted. I thought you presented a very cogent argument.
- matt4077 9y agoThanks! I noticed it only started after I added the last paragraph, which contains the word a man shall not use on HN, not even in discussing gender etiquette of Victorian Fucking England.
- hluska 9y agoNo, that part was fine. Your 'surely you're joking' is extremely passive aggressive and severely weakens your entire comment.
- Mendenhall 9y agoI down voted because of the "surely youre joking" comment. Its a petty passive aggressive insult to the parent, like the parent post was so obtuse that they must be joking. Ironic to me in an etiquette post.
- matt4077 9y agoOh, but it was just an allusion to him, the venerated (and venereal) God of violating etiquette, Richard Feynman.
- mseebach 9y agoThe art here is separating the baby and the bath water. 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).
- usrusr 9y agoWell, it's a contemporary digest of a body of rules "far too numerous to cover in a single article", so there's surely a bit of survivorship bias at play here. Still some nice finds there, some of those that are still valid could deserve more recognition.
- awjr 9y agoI would go further than this. If a task would take less than 5 minutes, do that task now. Do not put it off. Seriously, just DO IT. It saves you so much time and hassle down the line.
- ghaff 9y agoI'm not a particular fan of GTD (or time management systems in general). However, that was one thing from David Allen's book that stuck with me. You can waste a huge amount of energy or attention procrastinating about some simple item that's fast and straightforward to just do. I'm not perfect about it, but it's good advice.
- Swizec 9y agoWhenever I try this approach, I end up spending most of the day on meaningless 5 minute tasks and replies to communications. No real work ever gets done. 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
- Jtsummers 9y agoYou still need to put the "5 minute tasks" into a priority queue. Of course if you only prioritize by time to completion long running tasks will rarely, if ever, get done. If it takes 5 minutes, but doesn't need to be done for a month, record the actual deadline and put it in a queue. When you need a break from more laborious or longer running tasks, check that queue of short tasks (prioritized by deadline) for things you can do right now to fill out the next few minutes before ducking out for lunch or whatever. I mean, we don't do this with our OS schedulers? Why would we use a dogmatic "shortest task first" approach for everything else?
- Swizec 9y ago> 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.
- squarefoot 9y agoThat advice was written when immediate answer meant writing a letter by hand and give it to someone who would ride his horse to the host. These days an immediate answer can be 10 seconds or less, so I'm not sure being really immediate would be a good practice. Fast yes, immediate... not sure.
- jdironman 9y agoI think one should weight his answer, but answer promptly. There serves no purpose of leaving question of your interest.
- joezydeco 9y agoAn answer can be had in 10 seconds or less, but you still need to pull teeth to get people to respond to an invitation. Email, evite, SMS, whatever. You will still get a certain % of people that won't reply until you nag them for the fourth time. And then you'll still get a % of no-replies that show up at the event unannounced.
- Jaruzel 9y agoThis is really something that annoys me in the 21st century; that despite a formal invite (FB Event, email, even olde-worldy paper invite) people feel it's still OK to either hedge their bets right up to the last minute, or simply not show up even if they had previously rsvp'd to the contrary. Most people these days simply have no manners.
- monksy 9y agoCut them out of your life.
- Jtsummers 9y agoI just stopped inviting people to things when they failed to respond or failed to abide by their response without reasonable notice. They still get invited to certain events, but since I tend to be the person charged with organizing all social events for my group I was inviting people to things on a weekly basis. The non-responders and the yes-but-don't-show folks only get invited to monthly and other less frequent events (usually big ones, like someone's 40th birthday). At best, I count their responses as 1/2 responses. Every one that has the habit of not showing after saying yes has a 50/50 shot of getting a seat if they all manage to show up.
- aantix 9y agoSo... relationships have dissolved because you weren't a prompt responder? Nothing else to sustain them? Maybe you were thoughtful in conversation? Maybe you actually asked about their family/parents/career, and gave more than a superficial listen? Maybe you actually remember their birthday? Or you always tune the radio station to whatever music they prefer when riding in the car? These "relationships" sound pretty fucking flimsy to begin with.
- sctb 9y agoWould you please not leap to such personal nastiness? It breaks the guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- maaaats 9y agoI'm a bit the same. Never committing fully. It doesn't have to be immediate in today's age, but I want to be better at not waiting until the last minute to say I wont come. I know how annoying that is when I'm the one taking initiative to a get-together.
- robinjfisher 9y agoThe key is being able to respond promptly and being committed to the answer one has given which aligns with the point you raise on timeliness. There are two discourtesies: 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.
- JustSomeNobody 9y agoIn summation: Be respectful. Don't make assumptions. An interesting read, nevertheless.
- DanielBMarkham 9y agoAlso: it is your responsibility not to make other people look bad. 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.
- hammock 9y agoThat's the core of etiquette... Making others in your presence feel comfortable even at your own expense. Respect is a separate matter (as anyone who has experienced someone who doesn't like them in the south can attest)
- DanielBMarkham 9y agoAgreed. It is also easily forgotten (or perhaps never taught) in the modern world. 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.
- hammock 9y agoYes. Even in the dinner setting case, the forks have a place so that you can feel confident in what you're doing no matter whose house you sit down in. But good hosts also know, if they see their guest start drinking the contents of the finger bowl, the host does the same :)
- DanielBMarkham 9y agogood hosts also know, if they see their guest start drinking the contents of the finger bowl, the host does the same :) I'm stealing that one.
- 11thEarlOfMar 9y agoReminds me of this tidbit on etiquette from the 1940s, "Junior Prom". "Let's follow these students as they go on a date and see if their manners have anything to do with their fun." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7sHCAG69Wg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7sHCAG69Wg
- mmjaa 9y agoA lot of sexist nonsense in this list - I hope it won't be overlooked. We have most definitely moved on from these primitive days as a species ..
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- aklemm 9y agoSurely we all understand what you're pointing out, but the idea of looking back at this is to see what we've forgotten and to learn something of value from the past, which surely does have a lot to offer. If we ignore the wisdom of the past because there are so many mistakes included, we throw the baby out with the bath water.
- viewer5 9y agoI'd like to suggest that anyone who hasn't tried it, try and find beginner-level ballroom classes nearby. It's a ton of fun.
- 4ad 9y agoWhy?
- bookmarkacc 9y ago"It's a ton of fun" -viewer5
- 4ad 9y agoHow is it a ton of fun? To me it seems to be one of the most boring things I could ever conceive. I am sure it's fun to people who do it however, and I am trying to understand why. Who knows, maybe once I understand it I will want to do it myself. I don't think this is an unreasonable question. 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.
- Sharlin 9y agoI presume you have a certain mental image of "ballroom dancing" that might not be entirely accurate, or at least is needlessly narrow. Many social partner dances put a heavy emphasis on self-expression, musical intepretation, improvisation, and partner communication. It might not be for everyone but it certainly can't be said to be boring.
- mdda 9y agoAt a typical 'Ballroom beginners class', there will be no-one there who can already dance (i.e. if they were already great then they'd be in the next class up, etc). But also most people will have two left feet : Happy klutzes all around, without needing the excuse of alcohol to feel liberated. And there's always something to talk about... People are there just to have some fun, but don't feel the need to go 'CRAZY'. It's a nice atmosphere. Perhaps go for an icecream afterwards :-)
- riazrizvi 9y ago> “At a public ball, it is exceptional for a gentleman to offer to escort a lady home: she is pretty sure to refuse, unless ____ but we need not supply that blank!” On the contrary, you need.
- pjc50 9y agoIn that climate (and frankly still present in a lot of places), it's a major character slur to imply an unmarried woman going home with strange men. (as mentioned at #11, this is the time when the waltz was still a bit racey and mildly controversial)
- SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago123, 123, 123. The thing Victorian teenage day dreams were made of.
- viewer5 9y agoI'll bet you're just thinking of the box-step (the super basic step where you basically walk in a box shape). 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.
- SimbaOnSteroids 9y agoI believe one of the defining characteristics of the Waltz is that its done in 3/4 time.
- viewer5 9y agoRight, I just mean that the way you phrased it sounded like you were picturing a super vanilla, middle-school-dance-esque box-stepping couple (in 3/4 time). 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.
- draw_down 9y agoMake sure to dance quietly! Sounds like a blast.
- bacongobbler 9y agoStill happens today on modern social dance floors (read: not the nightclub). You don't want to be stomping your feet on every step unless it's intentional (such as an inflection on a certain part of a song). Otherwise, you're quiet with the feet. It's actually a lot of fun to be graceful! Quiet with the feet, loud with the dance.
- keehun 9y ago#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.” Nowadays, don't most people find whispering in a loud setting a kind of intimate thing from partner to partner? I personally find it has the effect of making a big event smaller, more about "us."
- chmod775 9y agoIt's more about shouting directly into each others ears over loud music.
- jdironman 9y agoDo that thing I like... "DO YOU WANNA GET A DRINK!?"
- throwaway18917 9y agoFun fact: if it's ridiculously loud somewhere, just cover your ears (and have your conversation partner cover theirs), and you'll be able to speak to each other at a fairly normal volume. Works great for concerts and clubs especially.
- jdironman 9y agoNoise Reduction, closer range. Makes sense I guess.
- Bartweiss 9y agoI think that was also the case when this advice was written, but with different social norms around that intimacy. 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.
- deepGem 9y agoDon’t Presume on an Acquaintance I really like this advice. You dance and you leave. No phone number exchange, no text messages, no selfies, no follow ups.
- thedevil 9y agoIn my early 20s, I used to meet girls at a country swing dancing place. I was really nerdy and this gave me a chance to practice interacting with women and I got quite a few dates off of it. 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.
- geebee 9y agoThat's a good observation. A lot of guys ask how to meet women (well everyone asks how to meet everyone). The key is to engage in social activities where you expand your social circle. 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.
- pjmlp 9y agoI would say some of the tips are still relevant in modern dance halls (Tango, Walz, Salsa, ....).
- hashkb 9y ago> At a public ball, it is exceptional for a gentleman to offer to escort a lady home: she is pretty sure to refuse, unless ____ but we need not supply that blank! Hasn't changed.
- SimbaOnSteroids 9y ago>Just do it Yes you can!
- dang 9y agoWould you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to HN? We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14291182 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14291182 and marked it off-topic.
- exabrial 9y agoIronically... these all apply to the modern dance floor at most places you can two-step or swing these days (yes we two-step out in the midwest)
- huehehue 9y agoMan, I think it'd be so cool if etiquette was a core class in grade school (perhaps stripped of some 1850s sensibilities). 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.
- throwaway18917 9y agoI see this a lot on Hacker News and I really don't understand why. Who cares if people "go to the club and dry-hump a stranger"? What if I like cocktail parties AND clubs? Where do I fall in your moral binary? Furthermore, what's wrong with your so-called depravity? You do realize that you just said you wanted manners without 1850s sensibilities and then proceeded to invoke those same 1850s sensibilities, right? In other words, come down off your high horse; let people like what they like.
- huehehue 9y agoWoah I was not trying to make a personal attack, so I don't think hating on me from a throwaway is really called for. I know that a lot of people like doing those things because I hang out with them and often do them too. You really got me wrong. I was trying to open a dialogue on shifting norms, not assume a position of moral superiority.
- VLM 9y ago"I was trying to open a dialogue on shifting norms" 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?)
- vlasev 9y agoWe already dress up in ballroom dancing, whether it's for social dancing or for competition.
- jordigh 9y agoSpeed dating in the 19th century. :-) One of the most interesting artifacts of the time is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_card 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.
- Odenwaelder 9y agoM'lady! tips fedora
- teh_klev 9y agoFor a slightly more modern and irreverent take on social customs I can thoroughly recommend obtaining a copy of J.P. Donleavy's "The Unexpurgated Code: A Complete Manual of Survival & Manners": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unexpurgated_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unexpurgated_Code
- tdkl 9y agoI care when a fat feminist screams in my face about "manspreading" and "rape culture". That's where we landed from "basic etiquette".
- cowpewter 9y agoAnd it would be okay if it was a skinny feminist? Don't see what her weight has to do with her rudeness.
- tdkl 9y agoAnd _this_ is the point in my sentence that's questionable ? The indoctrination is complete, no wonder the etiquette as above seems ancient and lack of modern values don't include it in education as parent wondered.
- cowpewter 9y agoHave you ever actually had a feminist literally scream in your face? I was trying to only address the part of your post that seemed to be blatantly undermining your own point. You talk of etiquette, yet you respond with kneejerk, stereotypical insults (that she's a screaming feminist because she's fat and can't get laid, is that how it goes?) towards people you have a disagreement with. You may want to look to your own manners first.
- dang 9y agoPlease don't feed trolls. That makes the thread still worse. Instead, you can flag an egregious comment. To do this, click on its timestamp to go to its page, then click 'flag' at the top. (There's a small karma threshold, currently 30, before flag links appear.)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- RogtamBar 9y agoIf they were skinny they wouldn't be so rude, on the off chance someone they might fancy might be around. Someone whose future only holds cats and a happy pill prescription has no reason to hold back.
- dmckeon 9y agoConsider how many of these tips might apply to the dance of entrepreneurs looking for funding, and VCs looking for their next investment.
- throw2016 9y agoI love these pieces that give an insight into another time. There is a certain old world charm to this. There is a lot of encouragement to to be thoughtful and put others first. This is what gracious means. And that's timeless. 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.
- noobermin 9y agoHow true half of this is today. And thank god how I had to follow near to zero of it to end up happy with my SO.
- ElijahLynn 9y agoThis soo reminds me of Don in The Rosie Project. It is what Don what have read and followed to perfection.
- ggggtez 9y agoIt's important to remember that these sources are still only advice/self-help books. The authors may have had limited practical experience, for all we know.
- beefman 9y agoReading historical advice, I find I must continually remind myself that it isn't descriptive. All these things happened with some regularly or they wouldn't have needed the advice!