×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Researchers Discover Irresistible Dance Moves

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the gene-gene-the-dancing-machine dept.

Idle 215

sciencehabit writes "To find out if certain dance moves are more attractive to women than others, researchers recruited a bunch of college guys and used motion-capture to create avatars of them dancing. When women watched the avatars (2 videos included in story), the men they found most attractive were those who kept their heads and torsos moving without flailing their arms and legs. The researchers say dancing is thus an honest signal to women of the man's strength and health, just as it is in crabs and hummingbirds, who also move in special ways to attract mates."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

215 comments

Science! (1, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508416)

the men they found most attractive were those who kept their heads and torsos moving without flailing their arms and legs

Discovering what common sense knew years ago, Today!

Re:Science! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33508490)

In the face of real science, so-called common sense is often wrong.

Re:Science! (0, Flamebait)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508716)

What are you talking about? Everyone's known for years that guys who dance like they're a frog in a blender don't make the cut.

This is NOT news. Except maybe to nerds, who often look like a frog in a blender whenever they get near a woman.

Re:Science! (2, Funny)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508740)

What are you talking about? Everyone's known for years that guys who dance like they're a frog in a blender don't make the cut.

This is NOT news. Except maybe to nerds, [...]

... which is why /. links to the whole article, for your convenience.

Re:Science! (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509030)

I didn't, I thought that the key was to look confident by sticking your arms in the air, which I get extremely embarrassed about. This whole torso and neck thing is right up my spinal alley.

Re:Science! (5, Insightful)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508538)

Common sense is neither common nor sensical. Common sense says that heavier objects fall faster. Common sense says that a son of an islamic black diplomat must be islamic and can't be american. Common sense says that man can't be descended from apes. Science is as much about proving common sense to be wrong as it is about discovering the rare occurences it is correct.

Re:Science! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33508714)

Brilliant! Common sense says that slashdotters don't dance, yet here it is. Simply amazing.

Re:Science! (0)

TheWanderingHermit (513872) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509254)

I dance.

I have a wall crammed with plaques and trophies I've won as a competitive ballroom dancer.

And, to top it off, I'm a full-fledged nerd/geek who ran his own business for years, based on software he wrote and did well enough with his own programming he retired at 45.

And, before trolls start in with other comments, yes, I have a girlfriend and she does well at ballroom competitions, too.

Re:Science! (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508800)

Perhaps where you are from that is the common sense, but where I am from, none of that is common sense.

I mean, my definition of common sense is the "Look both ways before crossing the road" - kind of stuff.

I was merely jabbing that it didn't take a bunch of research scientists creating a bunch of avatars to determine that women don't find flailing arms attractive.

Perhaps Common sense in this scenario would have been to simply ASK women what they find attractive in male dancing.

Re:Science! (1)

xouumalperxe (815707) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509094)

Perhaps Common sense in this scenario would have been to simply ASK women what they find attractive in male dancing.

Which is exactly what they did. Except they removed the actual male who's doing the dancing from the equation by using those avatars. In case, you know, something about the male himself changed the females' evaluation of his dancing.

Re:Science! (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509108)

Perhaps Common sense in this scenario would have been to simply ASK women what they find attractive in [anything]

I'd love to see the results for this compared to experimental results.. I suspect they will be quite different.

Re:Science! (1)

Krahar (1655029) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509432)

Not only does it take "a bunch of research scientists creating a bunch of avatars to determine that women don't find flailing arms attractive," it even still isn't established having done that! This is just one data point and in future we might find a different way to interpret it. You are confusing on one hand having an expectation (we've all got that) and on the other hand having confirmation of that expectation (much more difficult).

E.g. if I showed you a study saying that being cold causes you to have a cold, would you say that nothing new had been discovered? If you said yes, you'd be wrong (and for argument's sake suppose you did say yes, even if you already knew this), because in fact the research has been done and being cold does not cause a cold! That people tend to get more colds in winter is due to other factors that are indeed caused by the colder weather, but not by way of cold directly making you more susceptible to getting infected. So avoiding being cold will do nothing to help you not get a cold. So in this case your expectation was shown to be wrong (we are assuming for the sake of argument), and in this instance we can agree that you learned something new. Now what if the study had shown that being cold causes a cold? Since it is abundantly clear that you didn't actually know that being cold causes a cold (since in reality it doesn't), you would have learned something new from this information - you would have learned information that increases your confidence in what you already suspected to be true. So when research comes out saying something you already suspected, you will now know, I hope, that you are still learning something new.

Back on the concrete topic: asking women what they find attractive in male dancing is a perfectly reasonable thing to also do. It is a good way to generate hypotheses about the subject, and it can corroborate information gained in other ways. Yet what if what women say don't match what this experiment comes out with? I know that I certainly place much more stock in this kind of research than I would a questionnaire. The point is to approach a matter in as many different directions as possible, because in that way you can get a much higher confidence about what is actually true, instead of just discovering what people's expectations are. That's good science. It's not common sense, because common sense is about just assuming that your expectations are true. Surely being cold causes colds, right? It is common sense not to investigate "obvious" things, and that is why science trumps common sense.

Re:Science! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33508818)

Common sense says that heavier objects fall faster.

No. Some people thought it did though. Most people didn't think about it at all.

Common sense says that a son of an islamic black diplomat must be islamic

Most children take up their parents' religion. That is extremely common across all faiths.

and can't be american.

The USA does not have a state religion. That goes waaaaay back to the founding of the USA. Maybe you should read a bit.

Re:Science! (3, Informative)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508842)

Common sense says that a son of an islamic black diplomat must be islamic and can't be american.

Huh? Common sense isn't supposed to be illogical.

Common sense says that heavier objects fall faster.

It depends on whether your commoner uses Newtonian or quantum physics [iop.org] .

Re:Science! (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509086)

Uh.. heavier objects do fall faster (as they exert a gravitational pull of their own which will give them a very very very slight increase in acceleration over a lighter object when both are falling towards earth - of course the difference is negligible when compared to the gravitational pull of the earth so you can ignore it in most cases). I don't see what religion has to do with race so that doesn't make sense. Why doesn't it make sense that man descended from apes? It makes more sense than men being created by magic IMO.

Re:Science! (1)

jcochran (309950) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509238)

Hmm. Seems to me that with 2 objects, one with twice the mass of the other, both being dropped at the same time, the following would happen:

The more massive object would have twice the force being used to accelerate it than the less massive object. But, in order to accelerate the more massive object, it would take twice as much force to cause the same acceleration. So the actual acceleration for both objects would be the same. Of course this isn't taking into consideration any time dilation effect due to the spacetime distortion caused by the masses.
 

Re:Science! (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509658)

Uh.. heavier objects do fall faster (as they exert a gravitational pull of their own which will give them a very very very slight increase in acceleration over a lighter object when both are falling towards earth - of course the difference is negligible when compared to the gravitational pull of the earth so you can ignore it in most cases).

Un... no. In a vacuum, all object fall at the exact same acceleration regardless of their mass.

In the real world, friction caused by moving through the air mucks things up a bit.

First post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33508424)

First!

Metalheads (1)

Theoboley (1226542) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508438)

Apparently Fail at attracting mates then.

Re:Metalheads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33508588)

those who kept their heads and torsos moving without flailing their arms and legs.

Sounds like headbanging to me.

this is /. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33508474)

we live in our basements. no one will ever see us dance. :)

Re:this is /. (5, Funny)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508602)

"Kept their heads and torsos moving without flailing their arms and legs" seems useful in adapting our ways to attracting mates, though. Seems like the moves might be quite doable while sitting on a couch.

that picture! (1)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508478)

Where is that picture from? That's just awesome, I clicked on this just to see that photo, the two guys in the background look absolutely horrified at that girl.

Re:that picture! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33508864)

Mosh Girl. look around and you'll find no shortage of photoshops etc from it.

Re:that picture! (1)

AdamThor (995520) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509540)

the two guys in the background look absolutely horrified at that girl.

It's because of how she flails her arms and legs! Thanks, Science!

So, remember nerds.... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33508496)

...make sure your avatar dances like the example on the bottom. Otherwise, you're never going to pretend to get laid.

Re:So, remember nerds.... (1)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509228)

It's online advertisers who are going to pick up on this report, modifying all those dancing figures in their verdammt animated ads to do more head-and-torso wobbling.

Second purpose of my dance (5, Funny)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508498)

> without flailing their arms and legs

That's all well and good for impressing the ladies, but how then am I supposed to scare of my competition?

Re:Second purpose of my dance (1)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508650)

I think wildly flailing your arms does seem to do the trick. A pity it scares off everyone. The nice thing is that this discovery also says how to be a really bad dancer when you want it. This can come in handy...

Re:Second purpose of my dance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33508968)

That's all well and good for impressing the ladies, but how then am I supposed to scare of my competition?

Did you not look at the accompanying picture ? That sure scares me.

Re:Second purpose of my dance (4, Insightful)

TeethWhitener (1625259) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509058)

If you watch the two videos, the good dancer is moving his arms and legs much more than the bad dancer is. He even starts with the running man! I'm not exactly sure what the quantitative definition of "flailing" is, but the bad dancer definitely isn't flailing if the good dancer isn't.

It'd really be nice to see the rest of the videos. While I think it's a really big leap to go from good dancer to attractive mate, it could be something as simple as the fact that the bad dancer keeps his head down and looks much more defensive and withdrawn than the good dancer. My suspicion is that judging someone to be a good dancer or not has much more to do with the standard body language we already intuitively understand than with any sort of display of strength or fitness. Think about it: you could be the best dancer on earth, but if you're dancing around with your arms crossed in a defensive position, people probably aren't going to be too impressed. On the other hand, if you're dancing with your arms not obstructing your body and you keep your head level but don't really do much else, maybe no one will say you're a great dancer, but I doubt anyone will say you're a bad dancer. I dunno; I just think this study is another case of psychologists trying to prove too much with a limited amount of evidence.

Avatars (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508552)

Whatever. I watched the Avatars too. I was attracted to neither. The one with the blue cat people gave me a headache, and the one with the emo bald kid was just sad.

What is wrong with the 'bad dancer'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33508556)

Frankly, I would probably talk to a guy who can pass his hands through his hips. Granted, it is more of a "WTF?" or "How did you do that?" then an actual trying to get to know them.

What is love? (5, Interesting)

Millennium (2451) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508586)

If this article is any indication, it sounds like Will Farrell and Chris Kattan should be the most irresistible men on the planet.

Baby, don't hurt me
Don't hurt me no more

To (4, Insightful)

cptnapalm (120276) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508606)

Neave says pilot studies by his group found that asking women who's a good dancer is the same as asking who's attractive.

Does this not undermine their argument? When actual men are involved, it boils down to who is better looking. So how he moves is of little importance as long as the women find him attractive.

Re:To (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33508748)

You must be a man

Re:To (4, Interesting)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508882)

Neave says pilot studies by his group found that asking women who's a good dancer is the same as asking who's attractive.

Does this not undermine their argument? When actual men are involved, it boils down to who is better looking. So how he moves is of little importance as long as the women find him attractive.

You... you don't actually think that male attractiveness is directly related to physical appearance, do you? That would be very sad, that you'd genuinely know so very little about women. I mean, it's one of the variables involved, but it's far from being the leading factor (the big three are Money, Assertiveness and Muscles, in that order). I've had girls tell me the lead singers of Aerosmith and the Rolling Stones are very attractive, and you know those guys look like road kill, but they are rich and famous, and so they are very attractive.

Also, women seem to believe that how a man dances is a proxy for his sexual prowess. Which I know for a fact to be a false belief because the dance classes I took had a very big impact on how I dance but no impact on how I screw (it had an effect on 'how often', but not on 'how').

Re:To (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509116)

I dont know if you were trying to be funny or not. I think Spock's head would explode if he tried to analyze female 'logic' of attractiveness.

Re:To (3, Interesting)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509326)

I think Spock's head would explode if he tried to analyze female 'logic'

I hypothesize that women are instinctually driven to cryptic behavior in order to promote high social intelligence in their mates: They're confusing for the good of the species.

As for the two types of dances shown in TFA, one was a submissive pose (shoulders hunched, head down, slow and predictable centripetal movement), the other was dominant behavior (open stance, chin up, unpredictable high-amplitude movements, isotropic gaze).

Re:To (1)

cptnapalm (120276) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509418)

you don't actually think that male attractiveness is directly related to physical appearance, do you?

For short term interest, yes it is. And if we are talking dance clubs, then short term is order of the day. As long as you are not spastic and "flailing [your] arms and legs" then you have a huge advantage because it gets you noticed. You are on the radar.

Assertiveness does matter more. If you are attractive and assertive, then you are golden.

Money is mostly only important for exciting long term interest.

Re:To (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509550)

Money is mostly only important for exciting long term interest.

Who gets more pussy at the bar: The guy with the Ferrari keychain or the guy with the bus pass?

Re:To (4, Insightful)

cptnapalm (120276) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509596)

So ugly, pussy rich guy vs. good looking, assertive poorer guy? Rich dude's wife will be blowing the poor guy in the bathroom.

Re:To (1)

batquux (323697) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509050)

It's been shown time and time again that the sexiest thing women see in men is confidence. It's no different here. If you watch the videos in the article, the 'bad' dancer is staring at the floor, while the 'good' dancer is clearly confident in his ridiculous gyrations. I'm not so convinced this has as much to do with the actual dance moves as the display of confidence through posture.

Except (1)

samael (12612) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509146)

As TFA says, they didn't show them the actual people, they showed them a CGI version of the dance moves that the people had carried out, put together using motion capture.

Re:Except (1)

cptnapalm (120276) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509456)

My quote is from TFA. In a preliminary study they couldn't get women to separate who was a good dancer from who they thought was attractive. That seems to be why they made the CGI versions in the first place.

Our generation and dance (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33508608)

My mother asked me why our generation never came up with any dances. Her generation had the Twist, the Mashed Potato, etc.

I replied that Micheal Jackson killed dance. Nobody else could move like him, so we all gave up and just mosh and twitch randomly.

Re:Our generation and dance (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508972)

The real answer is that choreographed dances suck. Move however feels good, that's all that matters.

Re:Our generation and dance (3, Informative)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509134)

Real dance isn't choreographed. A good swing dancer is making up the dance to fit the mood and the music as they go along.
The female is constantly being surprised, touched, brushed and it's all part of the dance.

I am not a good swing dancer- at best I got to be average but women like good dancers so I took lessons.

Fortunately, I'm tall, make good money, have muscles, and good dental hygiene.

The last is a lot more important that most guys realize to keeping her once you catch her.

I suspect regular dancers are in better physical condition for sex once they get it.

Re:Our generation and dance (1)

D Ninja (825055) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509322)

Actually, swing dancing is somewhat unique in that it's typically not choreographed (at least the social aspect of swing dancing). However, I have seen Lindy Hoppers who had choreographed dances that were absolutely amazing. And, much of other types of dancing (ballet, ballroom, modern, jazz) is choreographed.

With that said, yes, swing dancing is very fun in the sense that you kind of make it up as you go along. However, there are a core set of moves and basics that every dancer must know for the "making stuff up" thing to work (the swing out comes to mind for example).

Re:Our generation and dance (3, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509524)

wing dancing is very fun in the sense that you kind of make it up as you go along. However, there are a core set of moves and basics that every dancer must know for the "making stuff up" thing to work (the swing out comes to mind for example).

Dancing is like programming, there's a few basic moves and techniques you have to learn, and then you make of them what you can.
Dancing is NOT like programming in that the more you dance, the healthier you get. ;-)

Re:Our generation and dance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33509098)

If you go back, a lot of the random twitching and moshing owes a ton to the Lindy Hop and the Charleston, especially the faster styles.

Re:Our generation and dance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33509320)

Karamelldansen?

Ironically... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33508636)

> without flailing their arms and legs

The avatar in the video with the "Nice Moves!" caption is flailing his arms and legs.

An another assumption of universality... (5, Insightful)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508670)

This sort of study might be interesting but it seems clear that the article and one of the quoted anthropologists are assuming that this is a human universal or close to that. But this study was done in a single country with a small group of people. Without a lot more detail it isn't possible to tell if this is an ingrained preference or is culturally driven. Overarching conclusions from interesting but not broad studies like this give ev psych and anthropology a bad name.

Re:An another assumption of universality... (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508954)

Overarching conclusions from interesting but not broad studies like this give ev psych and anthropology a bad name.

So, what you're saying is: A shot to the heart, this study's lame. It gives love a bad name.

Re:An another assumption of universality... (3, Informative)

PatrickThomson (712694) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509316)

Claiming that research done with realistic budget limitations shames us all is asinine bullshit. You have this result, or you have nothing. This is intriguing, perhaps it merits further study, perhaps behavioural psychologists in other nations will study the locals there. Perhaps not. The only overarching conclusions were written by the five word headline, or by your own built-in summariser.

Wrong question (4, Interesting)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508680)

What they have established is who is considered a better dancer. I doubt anyone finds a blue figure "attractive" so they a judging who is the better dancer.

In real life the guy who moves the least is considered more attractive but a poor dancer. The reason is that the less you can get away with moving while dancing the more it will look like the girl is dancing "for you" and not "with you", demonstrating you have values worth fighting for even if you are a terrible dancer.

Re:Wrong question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33508856)

Moving less when you're a bad dancer, and moving more when you are a good dancer is a good idea. Just like talking less if you're stupid and talking more if you have something to say is a good idea.

Uhh... (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508988)

Just like talking less if you're stupid and talking more if you have something to say is a good idea.

Stupid people usually have a lot to say.

Re:Uhh... (1)

robot256 (1635039) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509148)

And why do they bother to say it? Because they're too stupid to realize it's stupid. If they realized that they should really shut up for a bit and listen to someone else, they wouldn't be so stupid, now would they?

Re:Wrong question (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509122)

Economy of movement is still a good idea for a good dancer, and pulling off entertaining your dancepartner and looking good yourself, while moving very little is not easy. This is why many dance-school teachers men to keep their upperbody and head still and moving the rest of the body. This looks both like good dancing and gives off alpha male presence.

Re:Wrong question (1)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509368)

If you've learned ballroom dancing you may have heard this one: "You are the frame. She is the picture in the frame. Everything you do is to make her look good."

The only dance move you really need to know is... (1)

kungfugleek (1314949) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508682)

A jump to the left, and then a step to the right. With your hands on your hips, bring your knees in tight...

What about non-solo dancing? (2, Funny)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508684)

What, no analysis of social dancing? Ya know, dancing with girls? With a lead and a follow?

I guess that kind of research will have to wait for a scientist willing to ask a girl to dance... might take a while.

Being an avatar, this is very useful to me (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508694)

Researchers recruited a bunch of college guys and used motion-capture to create avatars of them dancing. When women watched the avatars (2 videos included in story), the men they found most attractive were those who kept their heads and torsos moving without flailing their arms and legs.

Being a trendy virtual avatar, this will be very useful to me. Maybe sometime they'll have the women looking at actual guys, so the humans can get some benefit from this too.

How to score chicks (2, Funny)

The Clockwork Troll (655321) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508742)

How to score chicks

1) Cut off own arms and legs; leave head connected.
2) Flail
3) Commence to tapping ass

Re:How to score chicks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33508858)

Just like Bob and Pickles.

"Most" Attractive (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508844)

So, every woman in the group found the dull head-bob most attractive, or most of the women found it attractive? All it takes is one woman for it to be attractive to for passing on the genes.

Hardware or software? (2, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508852)

How much of that is in our genes vs how much is in fact cultural? The dance of 500, 1000 or 10000 years ago was probably considered irresistible at their own time and boring now.

Probably is just culture what makes things (dance moves, clothing, hair styles or whatever) irresistible or not. Maybe is not just physical fitness what is being seen there, but also ability to perform or create a meme. "Functional" attractiveness of the opposite sex has changed with culture too

Re:Hardware or software? (1)

darkstar949 (697933) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508980)

Burning mod points, but I would argue that dancing is extremely cultural. If you go back 100 years or so then ballroom dancing was a lot more popular than it is now and both genders were judged on the basis of how they danced. Now ballroom dancing is something that you need to go looking for and what makes someone a good dancer at a club in one part of the world might be completely different than another part of the world.

Porn (2, Funny)

Joebert (946227) | more than 3 years ago | (#33508940)

Imagine for a second that you're a woman getting drilled away by a perfect mate, how much of that guy are you going to see? Pretty much just his torso, head, and arms, right? That would explain why the legs are unimportant in teh decision making process.

Re:Porn (3, Funny)

Geeky (90998) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509430)

Imagine for a second that you're a woman getting drilled away by a perfect mate, how much of that guy are you going to see? Pretty much just his torso, head, and arms, right? That would explain why the legs are unimportant in teh decision making process.

Depends what position you're doing it in. Sometimes you'd see nothing. Except maybe the pillow.

Guess I don't know what flailing means (1)

sunking2 (521698) | more than 3 years ago | (#33509196)

The good dancer is all over the place. Obviously a better dancer. Couldn't this be summed up by saying women like men who don't suck at dancing?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...