However for the purposes of this thread, that is not the norm. The norm for most of us here is to have interactions with people of both sexes.

So it's not valid to bring up the fact that just because our (liberal) conventional wisdom is that gay people will not hit on every person of the same sex because straight people don't hit on every person of the opposite sex, other "conventional wisdoms" exist and have existed that men and women indeed can not be trusted to foster completely platonic relationships with one another?

It's not necessarily my view, but I can see where people may draw the conclusion, especially if they believe men and women cannot have platonic frienships. Whether they prescribe to a culture/society/or religion that tells them to remain separate doesn't really matter at that point.

Sure, bring it up...it just doesn't really apply to what was being discussed, that's all. Besides, I don't buy that there is a spot in the world where all men will hit on every woman they interact with and vice versa if kept completely seperate. I believe it has more to do with not letting them be alone with one another/in situations which could foster sexual interactions which doesn't even need to apply to relationships...just hormones.

woosh

This is what YOU believe. Which is fine. I believe it, too.

That being said, I can understand where people may (or may not) be coming from when they think that gay people are constantly hitting on everyone in their same sex because they like to have sex with people of their same sex.

It's very similar to the thought that men and women cannot have a truly platonic friendship.

People that prescribe to the When Harry Met Sally view of relationships.

I fail to see how that's not relevant to the conversation, and how the conventional wisdom in the United States even was once that men and women could not have platonic relationships (and for a long time were kept separate by society because of it).

I mean, sure, I mentioned other cultures/religions, but I also don't think that the culture/society of the US during the victorian period is the same as the culture/society of the US now.

I'll put it this way...I have some very self satisfied friends and I still don't know a woman that thinks every single man that meets her is attracted to her.

So how is that disproving that there are people who believe that men and women cannot have platonic relationships with one another?

I mean, the concept shouldn't even be that foreign - it's actually a very common school of thought. It's the basic premise of pretty much every romantic comedy ever made.

There's a whole series of articles on Slate.com about it recently. Male-female friendships are actually relatively new as far as our society goes.

Think about it this way, if someone's in a romantic (heterosexual) relationship, is it appropriate for them to share a hotel room with a friend of the opposite sex? What about the same sex?

Why do you think that 9/10 times the answer is different?

I actually was thinking of that series. It's not ended yet, right?

Even though I don't expect that every man is attracted to me, I would not share a bedroom with one and change my clothes in front of him, even if he's a platonic friend (and my own jury about platonic friendships is definitely out.. I don't think I've experienced a platonic friendship with a man... if I'm close enough to be his friend, I secretly want more).

Don't think so, there's one up today I think.

Changing your clothes is one thing (outside of a locker room, I wouldn't change clothes in front of anyone -- it's not really appropriate), but a lot of these folks are scared in neutral situations.

THIS is my point. Bowing down to k_s. :)

Well, that takes me back to the thought that they'd prefer to be hit on by someone of the opposite sex than someone of the same sex.

This is an excuse for being scared?

ETA: I would prefer that no one "hit on" me. I'm still not going to be scared of all heterosexual men or all lesbian women.

Did I ever say it was?

Just because I can see a possible logical thought process doesn't mean it's not homophobic.

I get what you're saying, but I just think people with those views are being irrational.

I've been around people who will threaten to leave restaurants and stores because they see a homosexual walk in. Sharing a space with someone does not automatically mean that the person is going to try to spit game.

These people also seem to forget that a lot of the people they're encountering are on the 'flamboyant' end of the spectrum, and that not everyone is at that extreme.

Well, "rational" depends on your starting point.

Besides, this is obviously not the view of all homophobes. I highly doubt that Fred Phelps fits in this model.

I'm talking about the more subtle - the "I don't want to give her a bid because I'm afraid she'll hit on me" rather than the "I don't want to be in the same restaurant because I'm afraid she'll hit on me." In a chapter, the assumption (although we know this is not true) is that you're all friends, you all have a relationship with one another.

If a person doesn't think a straight man and woman can have a relationship with one another that is strictly platonic, they might also think that they can't be friends with a member of the same sex who is gay and have that be strictly platonic, either.

It's not "I don't want to work with you in a group project for 20 minutes during class because you're gay and you'll hit on me."

People who follow the When Harry Met Sally mentality may still socialize and persue friendships with the opposite sex, it's just that they don't expect even the possibility that it will remain neutral. If that's your starting point, I think it's completely rational that someone would think the same of a lesbian potential new member.

So because they belong to the same sorority as you, they'll hit on you? Ok...then don't make them your new best friend. This is what I'm talking about.

@ the bold, that's why I prefaced it with "I think" ;)

I have heard of and seen several GLBT GLO members come out to their brothers/sisters after graduating. Those members didn't hit on members while they were active -- otherwise, they would have been outed sooner.

I'm not going to assume to know how everyone else handles MS, but I'd think that if a GLBT aspirant is being discussed, SOMEONE should be around to say "Well, Jimmy from Fall 2005 was gay and didn't hit on anyone. Why do you all think Johnny would?" or something along those lines.

This^.

I do personally know two sorority members who came out after becoming alums because they were afraid of judgment were they to come out during their time as an active. One had a quiet relationship with a woman at a different college that few people know about and one simply didn't talk about her sexuality. They didn't "hit on" anyone. (In other words, same example as yours, just reinforcing it with another true-life anecdote).

Sally thinks that men and women cannot have platonic friendships. She's willing to have friendships with men, but she just knows that it's either going to lead to a romantic relationship or one of them is going to have unrequited feelings for the other. The more and more Sally and any male interact, the higher the likelihood that one of them is going to develop feelings for the other. She feels this way about male coworkers as well, that the more and more they work together someone is going to develop feelings. Particularly since she's single and all of her coworkers and male friends are single, except for her bosses.

Sally is also in a sorority. She always wanted to be in a sorority, and is so happy to be building relationships with all of her sisters. Sure, she doesn't know them that well, but she took an executive board position and has been interacting with her sisters more and more lately, especially on a one-on-one basis.

Hannah is a potential new member who happens to be an out-of-the-closet lesbian. Sally just knows that even if she doesn't want to be friends with Hannah, she's going to have to interact with her. She's willing to take the risk that she develops feelings for one of her male coworkers because she's straight. Besides, she's dealt with that before, since men and women can't be platonic. She doesn't know how she would handle a female coworker or sister hitting on her, and she's a little scared to find out. She just knows that if Hannah gets a bid, they're going to have to interact so much and build such a relationship that Hannah will eventually develop feelings for her - just like Sally would if she worked closely for a long time with Tim, the reasonably attractive bouncer at the bar she works at. So, she would just prefer not to give a bid to Hannah at all, so she knows she'll never have to deal with it.

Obviously this isn't the case with every homophobe - but in this case it's not a completely illogical jump.

Good example.

While it's not illogical, it's irrational IMO. Sally is making some HUGE assumptions:

1) Hannah is going to be attracted to her
2) Hannah will ignore the fact that Sally is heterosexual and will pursue her anyway, as if she can't separate "business" (sorority) from "pleasure" (romantic relationships)
3) Hannah is single

In my NM class, two girls came out but there was never any weirdness. We had a long talk about it and they told us that, though they like women, they rarely (if ever) fall for heterosexual girls because the vibe is very different, there is no mutual attraction or flirtation.

It's also not an illogical jump to consider that any woman belonging to your sorority may also end up sharing a bedroom with you or a community shower. Since you wouldn't undress or share a bedroom with a heterosexual member of the opposite sex, you also may not want to share a bedroom or shower with a homosexual of your own gender.

So the options would look like this (for a woman):
A) Share bedroom/shower with homosexual man: Sure
B) Share bedroom/shower with heterosexual man: No way
C) Share bedroom/shower with homosexual woman: No way
D) Share bedroom/shower with heterosexual woman: Sure

You guys are arguing while agreeing with each other. Agzg is not saying that the homophobe's point is right or rational just that it makes sense to the homophobe. And it is 'logical' but it is based on a flawed premise. Just because we can understand it doesn't mean we're excusing or condoning it.

People justify a lot of things using faulty logic, this is just another one of them.

No arguing here. Just discussing my viewpoints.

You weren't ;) But it seemed like wires were getting crossed.

Did you drop your feminist baton? :p

Course not. But I don't have a comfortable replacement colloquialism ;)

I need to move south so "y'all" is acceptable.

You all?

Doesn't flow. Eh I'm far from perfect ;) Anyway I'd argue for the gender neutralization of "guys" even if that makes me a bad feminist.

/it doesn't, that's not how it works :p

You are officially in feminist time-out until further review from the feminism board.

Oh shit. I'm going to have to write "I will not shave my legs" 200 times on the board. At least.

In on topic news, the Assistant AG Asshat is now on a "leave of absence"

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/0...ve-of-absence/

Is this a *doink doink* moment?

Yinz? Yous?

You never met BlueAngel.

Damn my midwestern upbringing, those don't work either ;)
I'm glad I wasn't drinking or my laptop would be damp.

I'm still waiting for *doink chung* to catch on.

I was going to say both of those, but I didn't want agzg thinking her native tongue was acceptable.

*side eye*

Shut your face, also, pittsburghese is not my native tongue. For that you'll have to talk to Honeychile or 33girl.

One question: What exactly is a "radical homosexual agenda?"

Srsyly? :rolleyes: