Signaling

[cjsmith]

This morning I was thinking we need a way to signal straight.

Let's say I'm wanting to flirt with a chick. Let's say I don't know whether she's straight or not, and she doesn't know whether I am either. And it's way too early in this tentative teeny tiny flirtation here for the soul-searing horror of having to BRING IT UP IN CONVERSATION. That might let her know what I'm thinkin', see, and that's scary.

So I can signal not-straight. I can wear rainbow stuff, or triangles (how outdated!), or a number of other things. Some have the added advantage that few non-queer-friendly folk get the message. It's like a secret code. And with every single one of 'em I can deny that I made a point of sending the message at all. Oh, no, I always wear my Michfest T-shirt on odd-numbered Tuesdays.

If I'm in luck, and she's not only not-straight but might be interested, my hypothetical cute gal can signal back. But she doesn't have any code she can send back, subtly, without loss of face on either side, to say she's straight. She can oh-so-casually mention a current or previous boyfriend, but that's awkward -- it commits the sin of bringing the subject closer to ACTUAL CONVERSATION, which as noted before is verboten this early in the game. Plus it does not successfully signal not-bi.

I suggest pinstripes.

Comments

[eichin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, my general impression of CA drivers last time I was there (6 or 7 years ago?) was that right-on-red was no problem but they could use some help with the whole "straight-ahead-on-green" concept. (I also thought "traffic" when I read the first sentence, then thought "wait, no, this is CJ writing..." :-)

[cjsmith.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I remember griping when I first arrived that "straight ahead on green" was the toughie. "Straight ahead on red" they've got the hang of (except for preemptive lefts, which are completely unknown here), and "straight through a stop sign without looking" is popular, but God help you if you want to go when the light turns green.