Assistant attorney general blogs against gay student body president

[agzg]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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.

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.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by agzg

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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

This is an excuse for being scared?

Did I ever say it was?

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

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by agzg

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.

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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by agzg

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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

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.

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.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by agzg

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

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

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.

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

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by agzg

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.

@ 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.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

@ 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).