"I guess you ladies left the men at home today!" -- Update, p. 2

[noexitwounds]

In truth, I can't wholly agree that he opened with a comment about your rel@tionship status.  He simply commented that you came without men.  Responding with "Yes, we did" would have been accurate, and would have avoided his embarrassment (whether or not we think he needed it).

I respectfully disagree.

He commented that they left men at home, which presumes there are men at home, which is a presumption about relationships. Therefore, he opened up comments about relationship status. You'd have more support for your position if he'd said something like 'I guess you ladies are on your own today,' but the specific connection of 'men' to 'home' is an interesting assumption.

OP, I think your response was completely reasonable, well-done, and, frankly, I'm glad to see it. This isn't like correcting someone who thinks your lover is your sibling or your sibling is your lover; that's a different type of interesting assumption based on appearance. This is an interesting assumption based on heteronormality. You merely made it clear there was another option.

Maybe the touching was out of line, but I get why you did it -- it's well-established that light touches and eye contact increases the chance someone will pay attention and listen to you (and thus fairly instinctive to try when you're trying to get someone to listen to you). It's also a friendly gesture in this situation, to make it clear you're not offended.

[Sharnita]

I appreciate the variety of answers. Good food for thought, and thank you.

Just to play devil's advocate to those who've said they wouldn't clarify the situation, though: I've seen postings in which, say, someone who had a child with some sort of condition that led to other people to assume he/she was just a brat or bad parenting was involved, and the parent has corrected them.

How is this different?

Because assuming you have a man waiting at home does not reflect one way or another on your character.  Assuming children have bratty characters is quite different IMO. 

[Archer]

He commented that they left men at home, which presumes there are men at home, which is a presumption about rel@tionships. Therefore, he opened up comments about rel@tionship status. You'd have more support for your position if he'd said something like 'I guess you ladies are on your own today,' but the specific connection of 'men' to 'home' is an interesting assumption.

OP, I think your response was completely reasonable, well-done, and, frankly, I'm glad to see it. This isn't like correcting someone who thinks your lover is your sibling or your sibling is your lover; that's a different type of interesting assumption based on appearance. This is an interesting assumption based on heteronormality. You merely made it clear there was another option.

Thank you for putting this so well, noexitwounds, so I can hitch my agreement firmly to it!

I don't believe that you were rude, OP.

[Squeaks]

There was no need to hint at your rel@tionship status, IMO.  All in all, though, you could have done worse. 

He was the one who opened with a comment about what our rel@tionship status was. And in a way that was irritating-bordering-on-offensive to us. Imagine if you had been out with a friend of the same sex and a complete stranger said, "It's so nice to see a g*a*y couple enjoying their day."

--------------
eta to add my partner's comment: "If someone's going to air an assumption about you, you can at least make sure it's a correct assumption."

Would not offend me in the least, I will admit to likely gigging a bit and wondering what gave that impression, but i doubt id bother correcting them.

I think you over reacted.  Can't gay women have a "ladies/girls day out" with other females that are not their partner?  That is why it seems that what he says was not really offensive or an assumption, or should indicate any opinion he has on your status. 

I guess in my mine "left the men at home" seems more of an expression than something literal. 

I would not call you rude, but i think you may have found offensive where none really was. If you are more comfortable correcting people that is fine, but there is not reason to take it as an insult. 

[NestHolder]

I agree with Noexitwounds.  I think it's a good thing for society in general if its members learn that 'norms' don't actually cover everyone.  And it sounds as though the OP was perfectly polite in presenting that particular lesson.

[Clara Bow]

I don't know if I would have told him my business....I see no need to clarify in your situation. But I honestly can't say that you were rude. You handled it differently from how I would have, but well. 

[cass2591]

My partner and I were at a museum this afternoon, and as we entered one gallery, a member of the museum security staff said "I guess you ladies left the men at home today!"

We kind of goggled for a minute and said "What?"

"Looks like you're having a ladies' day out!"

I gently touched his shoulder and said "Think about it for a minute." He then said "What?" and my partner said "There's another option."

Took him a second, but then the penny dropped and he just sort of went "Oh" and went away looking sheepish.

How'd we do?

I just saw this and all I can say is what was your point? Educate? No, I'm sure the gentleman is well aware of same sex couples. Did you hear him talk to other people? Was he making small talk to them? Sounds to me like he was just making conversation, and all you did was embarass him.

[Fluffy Cat]

I think he made an interesting assumption....

However, I personally don't think it was necessary to approach it the way you did.  I don't think you were rude, but I think it was less than gracious.  He was most likely making friendly small talk that, even given your relationship status, shouldn't have been particularly offensive (maybe a tiny inside ). I think ideally, you shouldn't have bothered about it, and I think you embarassed him unescessarily (with good intentions).

Again, I'm not saying your response was rude, just less than ideal given the circumstances (good intentioned-stranger interaction).

[O'Dell]

There was no need to hint at your rel@tionship status, IMO.  All in all, though, you could have done worse. 

He was the one who opened with a comment about what our rel@tionship status was. And in a way that was irritating-bordering-on-offensive to us. Imagine if you had been out with a friend of the same sex and a complete stranger said, "It's so nice to see a g*a*y couple enjoying their day."

--------------
eta to add my partner's comment: "If someone's going to air an assumption about you, you can at least make sure it's a correct assumption."

I'm sorry that the man offended you. When I first read this thread I didn't see what the big deal is but then I'm straight and if I'm out with other women I *have* left my man at home, so I put it down to that. But now that I read it again I'm recalling the several times that lesbians have hit on me. I was never offended. A little flattered that they were attracted enough to hit on me, but mostly just feeling bad that I had given them the wrong impression and had to let them know that I wasn't interested. So yeah the guy wasn't the most tactful, but I'm not convinced that his assumption was an "interesting" one.

Having said that, I think what you said was fine if you maybe said it in a playful tone. Sort of like a word to the wise...so he would know to avoid that phrasing in the future.