By the Rev. Dr. WALTER A. MAIER, Ph.D., St. Louis, U.S.A.
ONE of the most persistent and devastating assaults on the ideals of morality and marriage is captained by the promiscuous dance. Ask one hundred earnest evangelical clergymen for their opinion on the effects of the promiscuous dance, and one hundred pastoral voices will unite in branding it as one of the most insidious oppositions to their best efforts. If you think that this type of clergyman is biased and out of touch with modern trends, ask a group of experienced social workers for their verdict, and again many will agree that there is no single social factor that has led more girls to ruin than the temptations of the public dance-hall. Interview girls who have dropped so far below the minimum of morality demanded by complacent society that they have been segregated in institutions of correction; ask them what factors have contributed to
*This article, though dealing mainly with the public-hall dances of America, throws a lurid light on the evil results of dancing in general. The Satanic-suggested jibe that it is only men of impure minds that think ill of dancing while its supporters have minds of virgin purity will not do. The testimony of those whose experience has brought them face to face with its evils is not to be ignored and is too damaging to be set aside by such a flimsy defence. The fact that thousands indulge in it and delight in it does not make it a force working for righteousness nor for the good of those who indulge in it.—Editor.
their delinquency, and with tell-tale frequency the dance-hall and tragedies subsequent to the sensual dance will figure decisively in their answers.
Now, all this may sound bigoted and puritanical in this day of Terpsichore’s rule in gilded pomp and lavish circumstance, when her devotees do honour to her in dance palaces that recall the luxury of the Trianon or mimic rococo of the most lavish Louis. It may appear futile to raise a dissonant voice or to lift a protesting pen, yet the fear of futility should never be a deterrent. The masses have committed many mob mistakes.
In surveying the dangerous influences of the modern dance, it should be admitted, as scientific observers have conceded, that dancing is a stimulus to certain physical impulses. The Medical Review of Reviews, which cannot be impugned on the charge of bias, declares: “There can scarcely be any doubt that dancing came about as an adjunct to sexual stimulation. As such it still exists, undisguised among primitive peoples of antiquity. It still retains this original purpose among us to-day, but it is not avowed as such openly.” Dr. A. H. Bigelow finds this consequence of dancing: “Sex stimulation may be consciously recognised by normal men, but probably is not identified as other than general excitement by most women.”
Professional dancers, whose opinion is particularly noteworthy have assailed the sensual dance on this score in outspoken criticism. Irene Castle, as quoted by the Associated Press, declares: “I am horrified at the manner of dancing, not alone in New York, but in the Central West. It is simply unspeakable. It is a shame and disgrace that police have to be retained by hotels to supervise dancing, yet that is what is being done nightly in New York.” Dancing-master William P. Rivers says: “The modern dances are nothing but public petting parties.” Raymond Duncan told the readers of the Detroit Times: “Modern dances are merely sensual exhibitions, devoid of taste. Many people no longer dance for the joy of dancing; they dance because it is an excuse for hugging each other in public.”
Visitors from foreign parts stand aghast at the liberties licensed by some of our dances. Maude Taylor Sarvis, in the Christian Century (October 31, 1931), presents a quotation from a letter written by a Chinese student who had just come to America to study: “Last night I went to first American dance. I got very great shock. In China, as you know, all students very much admire Western methods of courtship and free mingling of young people, so they can choose their own mates without interference of parents or middle-man. But as I watched the young men and young ladies tightly hugging in one another’s arms, and moving about the room to distracting music playing loudly, I must feel very strongly that the psychology produced could not be in the least suitable for the state of mind in which to choose a life-companion. For the first time I felt our Chinese method of arranging marriages is superior to America one.”
It is not a delectable commentary on the American dance when our newspapers bring these dispatches:—”Moscow, January 3rd. The American dances were forbidden to-day by the Soviet Supreme Council for Physical Education as unfit for Russia’s proletariat youth. Dr. Semashko, Commissar of Health, denounced the dances as indecent products of the fat American bourgeoisie.” “Tokyo, 16th March. American dances have aroused the local police. These dances are now barred in all except licensed dance-halls, and in the latter none of the American steps are allowed after ten o’clock. The police claimed the dances tended to be immoral.”
This suggestiveness of the dance, so protruding that self-respecting Reds and Confucianists have thrown up their mental hands in horror, is no where more evident than in the shocking influence of the dance-hall, whether this be of the garish, blatant type or the select club that caters to a private restricted clientele. Particularly obnoxious are the roadhouses just outside of the city limits. A “United-States Children’s Bureau Bulletin,” after an investigation of dance-halls in twenty-five States, calls these resorts “our greatest menace” and describes the dangers that lurk there, where everything prohibited in the city runs its
unrestricted course. This does not exonerate the larger halls governed by municipal regulations of course, and a graphic picture of the moral hazards found in these breeding places of impurity is presented in the “Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the Committee of Fourteen,” New York City, published on July 19, 1931. After showing that commercialised vice is “now greater in volume and more brazenly open” in the nation’s metropolis than at any other time within the last fifteen years, the bulk of the report, which predicts that conditions will get worse before they improve, deals with the chain dance-halls operated by a syndicate. The report claims:—”This chain is rumoured to have the protection of certain licence inspectors and other employees of that department, certain plain-clothes policemen and women, and a city magistrate. The magistrate was rumoured to have an indirect financial interest. He has a consistent record of discharging defendants in dance-hall cases prosecuted by the police.” With this vile corruption of justice, these halls are described in the report as “acute moral hazards.” “Dancing of the most lascivious type is permitted. There seems to be no supervision at all. What happens after liquor has flowed freely, as it regularly does?” But there is no question as to the occurrences in the taxi dance-hall or at the hostess dances, which doubtless represent the lowest level in the degeneration of the dance.
Now, it may be contended that the cheap dancing-halls come under the condemnation from which the more refined and fashionable amusement-place escapes. But listen to Mrs. Nina C. Van Winkle, Washington, D.C., police-matron and President of the International Association of Police-women: “Visit a roof garden or cabaret. There you will see boys and girls drinking and dancing in a way to arouse thoroughly all the sexual impulses. By the time the dance is over many of the girls, as well as the boys, are drunk. Then you see them in their automobiles, driving out into the country, where there will be no interruption to anything they may do.”
If the circle is drawn more closely and the protest is raised that at least the more selected dance socials are innocent, then listen to Mrs. Henrietta Hunt, Superintendent of the Springfield, Illinois, Redemption Home: “Dancing drags down more girls than anything else. Fully half of those who came to us last year went wrong at the public school dances right here at Springfield. I believe it is high time some one was coming out against the evil.”
Clara J. Jones, field worker for the North Dakota House of Mercy, declares that:—”Seventy-five to ninety per cent. of those who have slipped over the edge and slid into the pitfall of sex sin and entered unmarried motherhood at the North Dakota House of Mercy tell one story—the dance.” In her recorded experiences, entitled:—”Shall we dance,” she submits the following case material from her files, each an actual statement, of course under an assumed name—Lucy:—”My mother used to warn me, but we think of our mothers as old-fashioned. I smoked to be sociable, and the reason I drank I cannot say. I started to dance at sixteen, and used to dance almost all Saturday night. If I only had not gone into that company in my small home town I am sure things would have been different. I am the only one in the family who has gone astray, and it is going to be hard to face it all. I am glad now that my mother is old-fashioned,” she said with tears in her eyes. Teckla:—”I think the biggest reason for fallen men and women is the dance. Most of them go wrong at the dance. I have been called ‘a stick-in-the-mud’ many times for not smoking and drinking, but I danced and that had much to do with my downfall.” Jane:—”I met the father of my illegitimate child at a dancing and drinking party, I am ashamed to say. I used to say that a nice dance, well chaperoned, was all right, but I have changed my mind.” Nancy:—”I resent any familiarity on the part of a stranger, but when I dance with some one I like, the feelings come. The modern wild dances are more likely to do so than the old-fashioned ones, except the waltz. Jazz just stirs me up so I am ready for almost anything, but
the soft, dreamy, gliding waltz, affects me the most.” Susie:—“There is too much drinking being done, especially at small town dances, and there is an atmosphere of looseness and the I-don’t-care attitude. It will affect the dancers on the ride home, and when parking in the yard, if not before. It takes so little at times to let you slide into sin.”
Now, many will readily grant that the dance-hall is a public menace, and that the promiscuous dance wherever it is danced deserves censure. But it will be urged that the statements of fallen girls present only a very lurid side of a situation in which others have had entirely different reactions. These rescue-home girls, it may be asserted, are of the type which would have succumbed to other temptations in different forms. For, we are told, to the pure all things are pure, and Christians may be trusted to dance without the danger of suggestiveness.
Yet, even if a woman may dance for the sheer joy of the rhythm, this pastime, naturally innocent perhaps for her, may have an altogether different appeal to her dancing companion. I believe that the postures, the seductive appeal of much of the modern dance music, the concomitants of many dances, make every dance a danger. Young people who know the repeated warnings of Scripture will hear their Saviour’s voice raised in this warning that condemns even sinful glances and carnal desires:—“I say unto you that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew, v. 28). Impressed by their own weakness and susceptibilities, they should, above all, be open and honest with themselves and face squarely the moral dangers which few intelligent advocates of the dance will deny. They should ask themselves whether their prayer: “Lead us not into temptation” can be spoken with the hope of a divine answer when they deliberately lead themselves into the most dangerous of modern foolish amusements, where concessions to unholy desires are repeatedly demanded.
The dance causes the Church much heartache. Because Christ has put the souls of His children on the conscience of the Church,
and because the line of demarcation that separates the Christless world from the Christ-blessed Church must be conspicuously drawn, the Church cannot escape its divinely-imposed duty. Even though modern Churches throw open their parlours for dances (disappointing though they invariably are); even though it is true that “more than a million were estimated in 1931 to be studying, more or less seriously, ball-room dancing” (quotation in Leisure, p. 298), even though the White House issues appeals for more dancing centres, the Church’s voice of firm friendly warning dare not be silenced.