By this logic, the male friends I’ve eaten out with are very much not male. Or Doug is a twit.

“Sometimes, when I look at a woman, my wee-wee gets all tingly. That makes her bad.”

Consistency is not their strong point.

If that’s what Dougie-boy thinks sharing a meal with a woman is like…well, I certainly don’t want to have lunch with him.

I’m probably going to be meeting a woman next Monday at 7 in a local donut shop. It’s supposed to be about a part time job, but I guess she’s actually out to seduce me, despite neither of us having met in person before, or even having an idea what each other looks like.

I wonder to what degree Wilson and Co *plant* some of these feelings in young men. After all, studies show false memories can be planted. In addition, there are cases in which studies show that the power of suggestion can be such that folks will remember ambiguous things wrongly based on another’s suggestion.

Thus, since Wilson and Co make such a BFD (big freaking deal) out of getting turned on, and will say this to teen boys not sure what to make of these feelings, to what degree things can be planted. If the leaders just let it be, how many guys would be just fine, and merrily go about their way, able to enjoy friendship regardless of gender.

Also, notice how cisheteronormative Wilson and Evangelicals are. Even books like Every Man’s Battle (which does pushback against rape apologia, to mention its stopped church clock moment) promote the idea that folks should let opposite sex friendships slide, lest there be adultery during hard times.

My question is what about encounters with LGBT people? Should Good, Manly Christian Men (TM) avoid gay men, lest you have a hot date? Should straight Christian women avoid dinner with gay guys, though the guys are not interested? The same question with lesbians. When it comes to trans people, should their biological sex or gender identity be the determining factor?

I thought about this due to something I heard happened on a 2004 episode of The Apprentice, an unpresidented covfefe idea: it was a restaurant task, teams divided by gender. A group of gay guys sat at a table, and the guys decided to do a sex sell: the most attractive was to walk towards their table, walk away, bend over, and tie his shoe. That did help me think of modesty in a new way.

Jesus Christ, these people can’t just mind their own business and let everyone else live their lives, can they? Who cares if a man and a woman who aren’t “together” want to go out to eat? Who cares if it’s a “fancy” restaurant? As long as they are comfortable and understand the boundaries of their relationship, it’s no one else’s concern.

Read this carefully. Doug is addressing the motives of the man. His approach is perfectly logical if you accept his basic premise that the only possible interest a man could have in any form of social interaction with a woman is sex. Doug hates women, is contemptuous of them and doesn’t truly believe they are real people. He can’t, and therefore he can’t see how any man could possibly care about what these creatures think or say, or enjoy or value their company other than out of a desire to stick his penis in them. Any social interaction is therefore necessarily an attempt at seduction, even if the man kids himself it is not, because what other possible motive could their sensibly be for initiating it?

Is it okay to for a man to talk to a woman at Buc-ee’s? (I just saw your post from awhile back with the photo of Buc-ee Beaver. Those are all over Texas, plus there are two in Alabama. I was quite surprised to see it on your blog!)

My preferences for a lunch are someplace not too loud, quick food delivery, and not crowded tables. If I’m discussing business stuff, I don’t want to be 6″ from the next table. Actually, I don’t want to be 6″ from any other table at any restaurant.

He’s telling us way more about himself than we really wanted to know.

Notice, if you will, these jerks never take responsibility for their own libido. It’s always the woman’s faults.To me, that’s just pathetic. I’ve taken responsibility for any sex I’ve had in my life–we were attracted to one another and that was it. These men are so weak and immature that only some fundie woman would want them. No straight woman with any maturity I’ve known over the years would ever want a man like that.

I’d say you hit the nail straight on the head. They only want a woman they can dominate and lord it over.Deep-down, they hate women.

Many a good man has been ensnared by a woman in a donut shop. lol

Your last sentence would have set off alarm bells in me, too. How is a girl getting food poisoning and not getting medical support for hydration not child abuse and neglect?. You know, I feel this way about these nuts and the Christian Scientists, etc.: if someone wants to do things like not seek medical help when they need it, they can knock themselves out. I may think it’s stupid, but they’re an adult and it’s ultimately their choice and their right to make it. But minor children, to me, are off limits. Adults have alternatives. Children, as minors, do not, as they are dependent upon their parents.

Also, with these no medicine cults, women and children are disproportionately affected by the lack of medical care. The men in charge just don’t care.

I agree 100%.

I regularly have lunch with a bi-sexual friend who’s presently in a heterosexual marriage. (No candles or violinists, though.) We’ve even taken the odd road trip together. Do I need to be afraid that she’s seducing me? Or vice versa?

You’re right. They don’t.