Bros or 'Mos

[Gryffindorian]

When you see two guys together (walking in public, dining at the restaurant, at the movie theater), have you ever stopped to wonder whether they're "Bros" or "'Mos"? Bros may not necessarily be biological brothers in the sense; the term "bros" can refer to two heterosexual guys who are very good friends. "'Mos" is short for homosexual, and in this case two boyfriends.

I don't know how good my gaydar is, but usually I just assume that such guys are "bros."

 

[auntiehill]

UM............. I can't say that I've ever given it a thought one way or another.

Seriously, does ANYONE? Who the hell has time to worry about two completely random who aren't bothering anyone in the slightest?

If this is the type of thing that really occupies someone's thoughts, that person might want to consider whether they're projecting their own problems with sexual identity onto others.

 

[HighteeHeller]

Funny you mentioned this!

I was serving a guy at work today. He was alone when he ordered, then his "friend" joined him a minute later. The first thought that crossed my mind was whether they were a couple or not. Upon questioning that, i questioned why i even thought of wondering about it in the first place. Which led to a whole other train of thought. Poor guys, they had no idea what was going through my head all in the span of two mins.

They would have made a cute couple though. haha

 

[Winged Victory]

^Ditto auntiehill.

My sister's ex-boyfriend would do this all the time...I got so fed up with his chuckling and/or pointing! that I asked him to knock it off; it was so childish. Who cares if two guys are walking around together or eating a meal?

 

[sidious618]

I don't even wonder when I see a man and a woman having dinner.

 

[AstroSmurf]

You know I have never thought that. Actually I think that would be last thing on my mind. Now if I was attracted to one of them I might question his sexuality but even then I wouldn't spend all that much time on it.

 

[Rii]

All contacts are assumed hostile.

 

[Amaris]

Funny you mentioned this!

I was serving a guy at work today. He was alone when he ordered, then his "friend" joined him a minute later. The first thought that crossed my mind was whether they were a couple or not. Upon questioning that, i questioned why i even thought of wondering about it in the first place. Which led to a whole other train of thought. Poor guys, they had no idea what was going through my head all in the span of two mins.

They would have made a cute couple though. haha

I do the same thing. I don't see it as a bad thing as long as it's just idle thought. I tend to see myself in other people's places anyway, so it just occurs naturally for me. Now, if people do this and pass judgment on others for it, that is wrong, but just harmless thinking? Nah. Nothing wrong with that.

 

[TorontoTrekker]

I did this just last night, but I was in a gay bar with ChrinFinity and we were checking out these two cute guys who were sitting by the window, and trying to figure out if they were together or together.

But somehow I think that's a slightly different situation.

 

[Gryffindorian]

Funny you mentioned this!

I was serving a guy at work today. He was alone when he ordered, then his "friend" joined him a minute later. The first thought that crossed my mind was whether they were a couple or not. Upon questioning that, i questioned why i even thought of wondering about it in the first place. Which led to a whole other train of thought. Poor guys, they had no idea what was going through my head all in the span of two mins.

They would have made a cute couple though. haha

I do the same thing. I don't see it as a bad thing as long as it's just idle thought. I tend to see myself in other people's places anyway, so it just occurs naturally for me. Now, if people do this and pass judgment on others for it, that is wrong, but just harmless thinking? Nah. Nothing wrong with that.

Exactly. It's all about observation, not passing judgment. I mean, look at me. I'm bi. Who am I to judge. We live in a sexually conscious era, and with gay marriages becoming common, I just can't help wondering sometimes.

 

[Rii]

The habit merely reflects your own preoccupation with sexuality; it's hardly uncommon amongst non-heterosexuals.

 

[HighteeHeller]

Preoccupation with sexuality? Im preoccupied with the thought of having sex at least once in awhile. Wouldnt that be nice. But i dont care what other people do.

For myself, i am fully comfortable in my own skin, and have never been closed to any possibility, nor do i deny the right of anyone else to live their life the way they want.

Actually i have no idea what you are trying to say.

For a person who has Lisbeth Salander as their av, im surprised by your tone. Do you suggest that a heterosexual is not preoccupied by sexuality?

 

[Gryffindorian]

I think he/she meant to say gays and bis are always horny.

 

[HighteeHeller]

^In that case i might have to recheck my proclivity for the opposite sex. Im always horny!!

 

[scotpens]

When I see two guys together, it doesn't occur to me to wonder whether they're casual acquaintances, close friends or gay lovers. Well, unless they're dressed like a couple of the Village People.

 

[Rii]

Actually i have no idea what you are trying to say.

For a person who has Lisbeth Salander as their av, im surprised by your tone. Do you suggest that a heterosexual is not preoccupied by sexuality?

What tone?

People tend to emphasise that which makes them different from others in forming their own identity, and tend to be more sensitive to that difference in others.

Heterosexuality is the norm from which others differ, just as being right-handed is the norm from which left-handers differ, or white the norm (in most western societies) from which blacks, asians, etc. differ. A heterosexual has little more reason to consciously identity as heterosexual than as human; it's simply not a very useful delineator in most contexts. Identity is exclusionary; the question isn't 'who am I?', as you'd die of old age before you could finish answering; rather the question is 'who am I not?'

Star Trek fans tend to be more devoted to 'the cause' than Simpsons fans. Blacks are more concerned about being black then whites are about being white. And yes, non-heterosexuals are, on average, more concerned about sexuality than heterosexuals are. It's not a criticism, it's just how people work.

Incidentally, our emphasis on the various facets of our identity changes with context. Some of the non-American members on this board are conspicuously not American. On this board. In their daily life they're probably place a rather reduced emphasis on being from <insert nation here> for the simple reason that in their daily life, almost everyone else they encounter is from there too. And of course the same is true at sub-national levels.

 

[Gryffindorian]

Heterosexuality is the norm from which others differ, just as being right-handed is the norm from which left-handers differ, or white the norm (in most western societies) from which blacks, asians, etc. differ.

The norm or the majority? Those are two different things. It's probably safe to say that in the U.S. the majority of the population consists of Caucasians, followed by Hispanics, African-Americans, and Asians. The majority of a certain demographic, say, of people living in California from ages 18 through 65 identify as heterosexuals (rather than LGBT). A non-white person is certainly not less normal (or more normal, for that matter) than a person of Caucasian background, just as a left-handed person shouldn't be considered not normal or less normal.

 

[RoJoHen]

I went to a wedding a couple weeks ago, and my roommate and I drove together. Neither of us had dates to the wedding; we were just meeting a larger group of our friends there. The photographer came around to take pictures of everybody with their dates. So she got around to me and asked who I was with...so I pointed to my roommate and said, "Him."

She got very uncomfortable and was like, "Oh...why don't we just take a picture of the whole table?"

 

[Rii]

Heterosexuality is the norm from which others differ, just as being right-handed is the norm from which left-handers differ, or white the norm (in most western societies) from which blacks, asians, etc. differ.

The norm or the majority? Those are two different things. It's probably safe to say that in the U.S. the majority of the population consists of Caucasians, followed by Hispanics, African-Americans, and Asians. The majority of a certain demographic, say, of people living in California from ages 18 through 65 identify as heterosexuals (rather than LGBT). A non-white person is certainly not less normal (or more normal, for that matter) than a person of Caucasian background, just as a left-handed person shouldn't be considered not normal or less normal.

You're splitting hairs to no apparent end, and you changed my words to do it. The meaning of 'normal' is highly contextual. In some cases it constitutes preferential endorsement, in others not. Obviously this is one of the times in which it did not, and yet the risk was there that my meaning could be misconstrued and so I instead went for 'norm', which drops some connotations from the table (i.e. endorsement) and adds others (i.e. prescriptive) which even more obviously do not apply in this instance. Fat lot of good that did.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

I honestly don't care. I see two guys and it's just that: two guys. This matters why?


Sorry, i'm feeling a little bitchy today ...