[DrPhil]

People have said similar things on GC over the years.

I don't know why he would care about an NPHC perspective but I don't see his response as "white self-loathing". I see it as needing support for his argument that lavaliering is outdated and dumb. It is probably less difficult to find such support in the GLO communities that are historically and predominantly racial and ethnic minorities.

Not like my opinion matters but the following is my perspective. I typically don't like traditions that I consider to be rooted in patriarchy and sexism disguised as "awww my partner gave me a loving gift through his GLO". But I can get over myself and not be too opposed to lavaliering--again, not like my opinion matters. I do believe that it should apply to same-sex couples IF some same-sex couples are interested. Not every same-sex couple is interested just as not every heterosexual couple is interested. If the same-sex partner is in another fraternity, he needs to defer to his fraternity's protocol and policies. If his fraternity frowns upon wearing another fraternity's symbols, do NOT do it. Being lavaliered by the man you love doesn't trump your own fraternity's policies and practices.