[quote]Originally posted by redsoxbreath:


I'm not sure I knew about this, what happened? How has it impacted your career?

---

Its been since last winter - actually its pretty cool - We don't say much about it but its widely known ,but with as many yrs on as I have it seems to not have affected a lot of people's attitudes. I just do my job as I always have and things are cool.

[quote]Originally posted by MSUBobcat:
I do find that there are quite a few young guys my age that would never think of dropping their towel to put on their underwear. LOL Just curious. I guess that got kind of off topic.

---

Maybe the emergence of gay sensibility has gotten the younger generation to realize that being male is no protection againt being a sexual object.

Hey Alphamale,
Since you don't accept replys from private messages I'll have to say this here.

I wasn't implying anything about a body type, or mental stability or anything of the like. I was just wondering if you were shy. Thanks for the great mental images, you sound like a fox.

I do still disagree about the fact that you think that a gay guy showering with straight guys SHOULD AND WOULD be a huge problem, but hey we all have the right to our opinions. Thanks for the private response.

Again, sorry I had to write this here, but your profile wouldn't accept a private response.

[quote]Originally posted by satxbuddy1:
Maybe the emergence of gay sensibility has gotten the younger generation to realize that being male is no protection againt being a sexual object.

---

That's part of it. Most schools do NOT require showers after gym class anymore. Even after sports practices or games, kids don't shower at school. This is different than just 10 years ago as many school districts dropped the required shower. Too much liability I suppose. Most kids just dollop on a stick of deodorant and go on their way. It makes for a smelly classroom after gym class.

[quote]Originally posted by alphamale:
I was also under the impression that most companies would be leery to endorse (PAY) someone
that may not fit their image.

---

I hope you keep posting Alphamale, and keep reading Outsports, including this thread.

Sorry to say this guys but any "OUT" Athlete is gonna hear "FAGGOT" "HOMO" etc at every away game! Plus if he f**ks up at home, just imagine? I say there is a closet for a reason! Let them be!

[quote] Sorry to say this guys but any "OUT" Athlete is gonna hear "FAGGOT" "HOMO" etc at every away game!

---

And stadium officials would immediately remove those fans...no different than fans yelling racial slurs. Even opponent stadiums have more class than to let something like this occur. And if it becomes a crowd chant (i.e. the All-Star game chants that obviously the stadium folks didn't want), that city will be so humiliated by the national media that it would never happen again there.

If there's a closet for a reason, let it be because they are still unsure of themselves, or something like that. Not because they're afraid of what they'd hear.

Got to agree with 90% of what Jim says in his article about the double standard of the response to Sue Wick's coming out and Piazza's..going in?

But the general lack of response by the public is obviously due to the assumption that athletic women are more likely to be gay whereas athletic men are assumed not to be. I would not personally make that assumption..about either.

As far as the lack of response on this board to Sue Wick, and anyone correct me if I'm wrong, the majority of us are probably male and therefore more interested in the sexuality of male athletes.

Thought provoking piece though.

i must respectfully disagree with jim's article. i think the comparison between piazza and wicks is entirely inapt. he is a major star in a major sport -- mlb for cryin' out loud! -- and she is a prominent player in a league on the edge. the reaction to their respective announcements (i'm out! i'm in!) was directly proportional to their fame and name recognition.

a better comaparison to determine any double standard would be between the press's reaction to sue wicks coming out and derrick peterson coming out. for the most part they are two people the world had never heard of and when they came out, the world, accordingly, didn't care.

there might be a double standard, for the very reasons jim highlighted, but the attendant examples neither contradict nor support this view. they are, as i said i feel, not an appropriate comparison.

Like I said on the Jackie Robinson thread, I think it has a lot to do with the fact that MLB is incredibly popular and the WNBA is not.

But also there have been lesbian trailblazers in major sports whereas the out gay men who were out while playing tended to congregate in niche sports that achieve public awareness every four years or so, or sports perceived as feminine.

Also there are gender roles at stake. Women who play sports are always foreshadowed by a rumors of lesbianism, where as men who play sports are always thought of as manly and "they can't be gay if they play sports."

I have to agree ... the comparison between Piazza and Wicks (who da heck???) doesn't really work. One is a very famous All-Star MLBer with lots of high-profile endorsements and hordes of adoring female fans (and a few male ones too, obviously). The other is an obscure athlete in a marginal sport. Very little attention was paid to Wicks' coming out because so few people know who she is in the first place.

A better comparison would be between Mike Piazza and Anna Kournikova. If the super-feminine, super-sexy, adored by zillions of male fans Kournikova ever came out as a lesbian, oh believe you me, the sports world would be turned on its ear.

Feh, what would change? All the drooling straight guys would just fantasize about her WITH her girlfriend as opposed to just fantasizing about her alone like they do now. It's not as if any of her notoriety is based on her athletic performance in the first place.

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Matt the Bruins fan ]

Last night I saw Ian Roberts on the Footy Show, an Australian comedy variety show about rugby and the fans--a funny programme really. They did an update on the great league player's past rugby career and his present acting career. The audience loved it and cheered.

I thought of the U.S. paranoia regarding players, referees, fans, and how sensitive all these people are. I understand it, I am gay, but the level seems peculiar when compared to Beckham appreciating his gay fans. My best mate in town is straight, rugby ref, and readily accepts me as gay.

Keeping it is perspective, I know the U.S. is miles (not kilometres) ahead of Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, or even Japan. And I think that only the gay person should decide their level of comfort, who and how to tell. But the U.S. paranoia seems peculiar, perhaps for its religious history.

[quote]Originally written by Tom Brooks:
U.S. paranoia [about gay men] seems peculiar, perhaps for its religious history.

---

Isn't there a saying in Australia, referring to the original Anglo colonizers, that goes something along the lines of "Thank God we got the convicts and America got the Puritans..."? I agree that American Puritanism is still alive today, and plays a major, often unrecognized role in impeding social acceptance of gays in many professions. Sadly, this zeal for religious paranoia seems to generate an enormous amount of misplaced momentum; if it weren't fear-driven, it might be applied toward much more positive enterprises.
I have three married sisters, and their husbands are all great American guys, comfortable in their heterosexuality. None of them has ever had a problem with my being gay (and believe me, I possess plenty of the "Classical Music Queen" traits mixed in with the "Gay Sports Fan" qualities, so my three brothers-in-law have experienced a broad homo-spectrum.) My informal survey concludes that if straight men are secure in their sexuality, gay men are just plain non-threatening.
A puritanical world-view is, almost by definition, based on fear (essentially, controlling "sin" because you're afraid it will overwhelm you.) This is a huge simplification, of course, but I feel that most people who are intolerant of gays are afraid of their own sexuality. Well, God bless us one and all, but I have to admit that I'm wishing a few folks would just relax a little, for their own sakes as well as ours...

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: fielderschoice ]