You said: 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.
I wonder: wouldn't the proponents of the theory you describe claim exactly that (i.e., that you married someone of the opposite sex because you were caught up in or accepted patriarchy)? Or are you saying that no one else would make this claim? I could imagine that even people who wouldn't insist on women only accepting lesbian relationships might say that it is not a coincidence when someone who self-identifies as bi chooses to commit to a heterosexual relationship. (Please don't take this as criticism of you. I'm just questioning your belief that no one would attribute political attitudes to your life choices.)
You said: 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.
I think you should clarify what you mean by 'normalize.' Not everyone (even within the narrow group you describe) who would make that guess (accurate or not) would consider it normal or feel comfortable with it. Do you mean that people are familiar with the idea of same-sex relationships?
You said: While still an oppressed and highly discriminated against minority, gays and lesbians are very visible in the media.
There was an interesting article on the back page of Entertainment Weekly a couple months ago that disputed this claim, IIRC. It was by Mark Harris (I think that's his name) and was on the topic of Dumbledore's outing.
You said: 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.
I really agree with this. I find it a little weird sometimes in unexpected ways. I once had a new acquaintance invite me out for a drink (a married straight woman and a married lesbian woman walk into a bar...) and still had someone else express concern later that I was being hit on.
You said: 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.
Really? I think the two examples you gave would lead me to assume the opposite.
You said: Mostly, this is an issue with interactions between two people who do not know each other well.
Well, or have never made it clear to the other that there's no romantic interest. (Remember Strangers in Paradise back before it got weird? They were best friends for years.)
You said: we abandon those in childhood with woven bracelets and elaborate charts.
Am curious about the elaborate charts.
I think your points at the end get a different issue, which is the nature of community in our electronic era. The nature of obligation is related to the extent to which one considers another to be part of the same community. That community used to have a strong geographical element. It's not so clear anymore how to define our communities or what to do when it's so easy to be in touch with people we may not have seen for years or may not have ever met.
sorry if this is a bit incoherent, I'm really tired.
I wonder: wouldn't the proponents of the theory you describe claim exactly that (i.e., that you married someone of the opposite sex because you were caught up in or accepted patriarchy)? Or are you saying that no one else would make this claim? I could imagine that even people who wouldn't insist on women only accepting lesbian relationships might say that it is not a coincidence when someone who self-identifies as bi chooses to commit to a heterosexual relationship. (Please don't take this as criticism of you. I'm just questioning your belief that no one would attribute political attitudes to your life choices.)
You said: 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.
I think you should clarify what you mean by 'normalize.' Not everyone (even within the narrow group you describe) who would make that guess (accurate or not) would consider it normal or feel comfortable with it. Do you mean that people are familiar with the idea of same-sex relationships?
You said: While still an oppressed and highly discriminated against minority, gays and lesbians are very visible in the media.
There was an interesting article on the back page of Entertainment Weekly a couple months ago that disputed this claim, IIRC. It was by Mark Harris (I think that's his name) and was on the topic of Dumbledore's outing.
You said: 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.
I really agree with this. I find it a little weird sometimes in unexpected ways. I once had a new acquaintance invite me out for a drink (a married straight woman and a married lesbian woman walk into a bar...) and still had someone else express concern later that I was being hit on.
You said: 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.
Really? I think the two examples you gave would lead me to assume the opposite.
You said: Mostly, this is an issue with interactions between two people who do not know each other well.
Well, or have never made it clear to the other that there's no romantic interest. (Remember Strangers in Paradise back before it got weird? They were best friends for years.)
You said: we abandon those in childhood with woven bracelets and elaborate charts.
Am curious about the elaborate charts.
I think your points at the end get a different issue, which is the nature of community in our electronic era. The nature of obligation is related to the extent to which one considers another to be part of the same community. That community used to have a strong geographical element. It's not so clear anymore how to define our communities or what to do when it's so easy to be in touch with people we may not have seen for years or may not have ever met.