I have no issue whatsoever with Frank's fury regarding the lack of respect for a dance heritage. None -- I feel entirely the same way, and I'm betting that most of us here do as well.

I am a member of two troupes, one of them a re-enactment based troupe wherein we attempt to recreate dances of the Renaissance (as we perceive them through art works and written works). We dance in our clothes, e.g., what we wear to dance in are recreations of clothing that would have been worn in, say, 16th century Turkey, or 14th century Egypt. The other troupe is a contemporary dance troupe, much like any other troupe out there, and we do raqs sharqi, tribal fusion and folkloric types of dances, in large groups, small groups and solos. We wear appropriate contemporary costumes for these dances.

The amazing thing I've experienced is that the "historical" dance troupe (not professional) gets a nod from people as being a *serious* pursuit of an art form, and many of the women in the other troupe get : </Butthead/> "Huhuhuhuhuhhhh...bellydancers....</Butthead/>.

Uh....WTF?? Is it because the women in the *historical* troupe are covered completely in correct historical clothing, and you see much more flesh on the women in the other troupe? It certainly can't be the dancing....many, many of the moves are the same, and the women in my historical troupe can shake it in a "cabaret" manner with the best of them. (As can I -- in a boy-kind-of-way -- but I digress....)

I can only assume that it's clothing -- and an erroneous air of respectability tied in with historical pursuit -- that makes the difference. So, yes, I agree that I prefer dancers to be seen in clothing that doesn't reveal so much flesh . I think that an overt display of skin can stand in the way of you being respected as a serious dancer, and give people the wrong idea. NB: I also believe that this concept *is* the wrong idea -- judging someone's dance ability and attitude because of what they're wearing while they dance is about as stupid as it gets -- but we are stuck with these misconceptions.

I also cringe when I see scantily-clad dancers on floats, and I *really* don't need to see your junk. Honestly. I think it confuses people when they hear that I'm a bellydancer and I certainly don't remind *anyone* of a writhing ecdysiast -- I seriously doubt that I will ever even dance in public without a shirt. However, these are the mindsets we have to deal with.

But, then, this was not the issue with Frank's post that I had a problem with.

I think the underlying huge problem is, WHAT IS THAT GUY TELLING THE STRAIGHT CONSERVATIVE COMMUNTY? It would be a lot easier for some people to except gays if there weren't men ANd women like that who's point at a Pride Parade is "Look at me! I'm gay and naked! Like it! Get used to it! In your Face!" kind of antics.

I am not implying in anyway that these people are the reason gays are hated, but they really don't help our situation at all. Any more than goths who get stoned and scream obscenities in public, pop-culture people who incite shootings . . . the list of people who really fuck up the face of subcultures goes on and on.

But if this man wants to be able to marry his boyfriend, not get kicked out of church, or get lynched, he should tone it down, he's putting attitudes in the wrong direction, and I agree with frank.