Skip to main content

One check or two?

When I was with Karen, anytime we'd go out to eat, we were never asked if we wanted one check or two.  It was naturally assumed that I would paying the check.  Whether we were just on a date or whether we were married, I would be paying.  This is the culture that we live in.  We could even be just two good friends going out to eat together and want to pay separately, but if that were the case we'd have to inform the server ourselves.  Honestly, I find it funny because the whole time we lived here in Tennessee, Karen made twice as much as I did, so while I would be the one who pulled the card out and signed the receipt, it was actually Karen's money that was being used.

Anyway, whenever I've gone out to eat with Conrad, we've invariably (that is, without exception) been asked "Will this be together or separate?".  Even when we've been extremely open about displaying affection toward each other.  I've fed Conrad bites of food from my own fork, held hands, played footsie, and even kissed.  I think only the most oblivious of servers would not realize that we're romantically involved.  And yet, it has never been assumed that we would be paying together.  This has always been a question.

I'm not pointing this out because I'm offended.  In fact, I think it's very sensitive of the server to make such an inquiry.  If I were to advocate for any change at all, it would be that I think they should ask all parties whether they'd be paying together or separately--whether they're gay or straight couples.  Of course, I wouldn't mind being brought one check and having to tell the server that we want it split up either (if we ever did want it split up).

The only reason I mention this is to indicate one more way that gay people are treated differently than straight people.  It would be one thing if Conrad and I just acted like we were two guys hanging out.  If we, like heterosexual men, always stood at least one person's width apart from each other, never made direct eye contact with each other, or smiled at each other, then I could see the server thinking that we would want to pay separately.  But, when you're making it quite apparent that you're a couple and the server treats you differently than ey would treat a straight couple, the unequal treatment is keenly felt.

I hope you haven't thought that this post was about checks at a restaurant and how servers treat their customers.  I hope you see the bigger picture.  This is about equality.  Gay people just aren't treated the same as straight people.  I do think part of the reason is that homosexuality is new to the general populace.  Straight couples have been out and about for ages, so there's a "norm" there and everyone treats them according to that norm (eg, the guy pays for the lady's dinner).  But gay couples are only recently out and about (until the last decade or two, they were pretty much confined to pretending they weren't gay or only going to a few select gay establishments), so people don't know what to do.  They're not sure if gay couples go dutch or pay together.  That was even something that was confusing for me when I started dating guys.  So, I'm certainly not condemning anything here.  All I'm saying is there's lots of room for progress toward true equality.

On a lighter note, after dinner, we went to Aeropostale, and overheard a fun conversation.  A girl went to the cashier and asked "Do you have eyeliner?" to which the cashier (also female) replied "What?  You mean for girls?"

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Do you really believe?

This is Richard Dawkin's talk from yesterday's Reason Rally in Washington DC.  He makes several good points, but the one that stuck out to me the most was when he told people that they should challenge someone when they say they're religious.  The example he gave is when someone says they're Catholic, ask them if they really  believe that when a priest blesses a wafer that it actually turns into the body of Christ, or that the wine actually turns into his blood.  So, this post will be dedicated to me asking any of my reader base who are religious, do you really  believe what your religions teach? For those who are Christian (any denomination thereof), Do you really believe every word of the Bible to be the word of god?  If so, read every word of the Bible and then come back and answer the question again. Do you really believe that a snake tricked Eve into eating fruit that made her suddenly unfit to live in the paradisiacal garden god had just made for her? Do y

Hitchens v god

I'm rather ashamed to admit that I just recently discovered Christopher Hitchens. And, while I normally add my own thoughts and commentary to videos when I post them here, in nearly every Hitchens video that I've encountered, I have not a single word to add. He is so articulate and does such a good job of presenting his case that I couldn't possibly add anything to it.  I would definitely be interested if any of my readers have any comments to make in regards to what Hitches says in this video. Enjoy.  

The fundamental theorem of atheism

I think many times, with all the discussion of religion, science, atheism, etc, it can be easy to lose sight of the real purpose of what one is trying to accomplish.  Of course, this can happen in any discussion.  But, one of those ever-famous text-images found on Facebook caught my attention today.  (I do think it's funny, but from what I have seen a basic fact about human psychology, that people are more likely to read text when it is in an image--even if the image is purely text--than when it is just simply written text.  I wonder if they've done any studies on that.) So, to bring my own focus back to where it should be, here is what I will call the "fundamental theorem of atheism".  Yes, that's a very mathematical title--every branch (and sub-branch) of mathematics has a "fundamental theorem".  So, here it is for atheism.   The burden of proof lies on those who claim that there is a god to produce evidence of its existence .  So, here's the ima