orichalcum

1. I am oddly offended by the lesbian-feminist stance that women should be lesbians as a means of rejecting the patriarchal heterosexual system: "there is a nascent feminist political content in the act of choosing a woman lover or life partner in the face of institutionalized heterosexuality (A. Rich)." The odd part here is not that I am offended because I myself have chosen to love and marry someone of the opposite gender despite finding other women attractive, but because it seems to me to devalue the loving same-sex relationships that my female (and, relatedly, male) friends have formed with each other. If one is choosing one's romantic partner for political reasons, the implication is that you could choose the "easier path" of conforming to social norms and finding an opposite-sex partner. This seems to deny the possibility of women who do not find any men sexually or romantically attractive and thus choose to partner with only those they do find attractive, other women. It also seems to lessen the credibility of the relationship. No one tells me that I got married as a way of demonstrating my commitment to traditional nuclear families; I got married because I deeply love cerebralpaladin.



2. I disagree with many of Soapsuds' points in her article denying homoerotic tension in various works of literature and film, primarily because I do take a postmodern approach in valuing the experience of the audience and reader as much as the intent of the author. However, on a larger point and thining about this in relationship to queer theory, I think there's an interesting social change going on in terms of the sexualization of all relationships. Basically, I think there are two major social changes affecting this in the last fifteen years in elite coastal young American discourse:

1. Erotic same-sex relationships have been normalized to a certain extent, such that one can look at two men walking down the street in New York City holding hands and make a plausible guess that they are doing so because they are in a romantic relationship. While still an oppressed and highly discriminated against minority, gays and lesbians are very visible in the media. In particular, lesbian characters are beginning to avoid some of the traditional stereotypesNon- associated with such characters - is Willow butch or femme?

2. Non-erotic opposite-sex friendships have simultaneously been normalized to a large extent. My parents and in-laws don't really get the idea of being platonic friends with unmarried members of the opposite sex, especially with exes. For me, the idea of abandoning friendships with all my close guy friends because people might erroneously assume romantic tensions or affairs is both ridiculous and painful. While there are some biological issues I talk about with female friends rather than male ones, when I wanted to announce my pregnancy or my engagement, about half of the first group of people called were male. (It helps, of course, that there's some crossover between my friends and cerebralpaladin's, regardless of gender.)

So I think the net effect of 1 and 2 is to establish a society in which all relationships, at least between two people of approximately the same generation, are simultaneously potentially sexualized and potentially platonic. A woman and a man meet at a sports bar. The lively conversation that they strike up could be interpreted as flirting; it could also be interpreted as laying the groundwork for a solid friendship built on a shared fandom. Two men go to see a movie together. Is it a date? Soapsuds would take the approach I think of assuming platonic relations until clear signs are sent otherwise, and I think that she may have the majority viewpoint here. This may contribute to the rise in popularity of online dating and simultaneously of traditional "date signals" such as one person paying. In the absence of default assumptions about cross-gender interaction, new signs must be developed. I would argue, though, that in order to reject a heteronormative and discriminatory society, we need to apply the same rules to same-gender interactions.

Mostly, this is an issue with interactions between two people who do not know each other well. If I am at dinner with julianyap and he offers to pay, I do not think this is intended to convey any romantic intentions. If I'm getting chocolate with ladybird97 and she hasn't gone to the ATM lately and I offer to pay for them, I can assume that ladybird97 does not think she is required to kiss me in return for my generosity.

The final thought here is that we appear to have at least the foundation of a code in which the participants can sexualize a relationship, some aspects of which may be obvious to onlookers (kissing) but others of which may not be (picking up the check.) We do not have a similar good set of exchange-signs for signaling a platonic friendship; we abandon those in childhood with woven bracelets and elaborate charts. Perhaps the "Favorite Five" on cellphone lists is such an indicator, or blog-links, or LJ-friends pages, but there are no good ways there of easily differentiating between closer friends and acquaintances. "So-and-so has added you as a friend," Facebook tells me, when it is my cousin, or my brother, or my husband who has done this. What obligations does So-and-so feel towards me? If someone on my friends-list has a need of money and puts up a request for funds on their LJ, am I obliged to give, as I would if ladybird97 had no money to buy chocolate? Do people on my friends-list have a right to feel offended if I do not invite them to a party or formal event?

I've wandered now from my subfield into ladybird97's, come to think of it. So, what formal signs of friendship should we reintroduce, ladybird97?