Liquid lead: Negotiating the ‘First Dance’ as a queer wedding ritual
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 2012 Pat the Dog Playwright Centre held a two-day workshop for First Dance, a devised theatre and dance piece that explored the rituals of queer marriage through the protagonist, as he endeavoured to select the first dance to be performed at his wedding. Reflecting on the workshop process, this article examines the traditions of the first dance, in terms of both the appropriation of a heterosexual ritual, and the role dance has played in the queer community, as a means of designating queer space and belonging. Recognizing the ‘first dance’ as a Eurocentric, heteronormative, performative ritual, expected within a white, western wedding, the necessity and expectation of a first dance in a ‘queer’ space is interrogated. The fundamental question that is addressed is then: are members of the queer community performing the rituals of heterosexual weddings in order to gain inclusion, assimilate and conform to dominant cultural values, or are they appropriating these rituals in order to subvert them and recodify them as acts of resistance against homophobic bigotry and heterosexist cultural practices? I am currently dramaturging a play entitled, First Dance. It is a devised piece of theatre loosely based around a gay man trying to decide what dance to perform with his partner for the first dance at his wedding. On 5–6 March 2012 I attended a development workshop for the play with Pat the Dog Theatre Creation2 in Kitchener, Ontario. The piece is being co-created by Trevor Copp and Jeff Fox, who are performing the piece, and Lisa O’Connell who is writing it alongside them. Trevor is a ballroom dancer. He is a performer and this story is very much his own. It is not a play about him and his husband, but him and his dance partner, preparing for the wedding. While the play is not based directly in real events, it is clear that he is closely connected to the subject matter.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".