Cyd, I think you missed the mark.
I'm all for stamping out homophobia where it lives and all, but I don't really think either of the cases you mentioned were valid.
In the case of the X-mas card, it was an excercise in poor judgement. My guess is that nobody had a problem with the women's soccer team card because a)they had their shirts on
b)the caption probably didn't mention their packages.
I'd bet, also, that if a heterosexual male administrator sent out a card featuring any of the women's teams with a caption making reference to "stuffing stockings" or "getting up chimneys" he'd probably be in the same trouble.

Also, is it really homophobic to be creeped out at the idea of a bunch of guys ogling you in your speedo? (With or without the sleazy caption.) I don't think so. Is it creepy to keep a link up even when the person you're linking to has made it clear how they feel about it? Yeah.

Very interesting column, but I agree with blueliner. Taking the picture was fine, but the comment on it was crude, especially for a college administrator. The guy used poor judgement and deserves the flack he is going to get.

To make a more fair judgment, we need to know what the caption on the women's card was. If there was some sort of double-entendre on it, then it's clear that there's a double standard. If there wasn't, then it's less clear...but still certainly possible. Remember one of the excuses was possible NCAA sanctions. Well, why didn't they say anything the year before when the photo of the women's team was used?

I'm sure the swimmers at UNC are all over 18, but what do you suppose their parents would have said when they learned of the caption?

As a resident of Kalamazoo, it is my experience that K-College is a very gay affirming campus. They have a strong GLB community, in fact just two weeks ago Dave Pallone gave a great presentation on campus as a part of gay pride week. As far as small, private, liberal art colleges go, Kalamazoo College is the exception to the rule and does not foster a homophobic environment. I was disappointed to read about the situation with the swimmer's photograph and the conversation that took place. There are plenty of non-affirming, homophobic campuses around the country, and K-College is not one of them.

OK, I live in California. I work at a Fortune 100 company. I am forced to endure mandatory coverage on sexual harrassment ONCE per year. If anyone can talk this topic to death, its me.

The UNC administrator did nothing wrong by posing for a pic with a women's or men's team.
But the context of the caption for the card with the boys IS inappropriate because of the relationship of the individuals involved; administrator vs. students.
Were it not for the professional nature of this scenario, it would mean nothing. But I imagine that UNC (like so many schools) has a code of ethics involving the subject of sex (including mere comments), students, and faculty/staff.

There is solid legal ground for one of those swimmers to actually sue UNC over this. And that's based not on what is "right" or "wrong," but is simply based up what is the law.

UNC has every right to step in. Lawsuits frighten all institutions. UNC has the right to protect itself, and your personal opinions on homophobia carry no weight where legal bills are concerned.

Did anyone ask how the swimmer found out there was a link from this site to his picture?

- The swimmers at UNC had NO problem with the card - in fact, they were dismayed that the administration was being pissy about it. It was the MALE SWIMMERS IN THE PICTURE who came up with the saying on the card (btw, that saying was only on 1/3 of the cards - the other 2/3 had a generic saying and Dave used the latter for all business dealings).

- We don't know how the K'zoo swimmer found out about the link.

You are all very nicely making the whole POINT of the column. These instances seem very innocent but stem from something deeper. Any of the people involved would say, "I have no problem with a guy being gay," academically. But, as the issue draws closer to them, suddenly it becomes a problem.

Even the straight self-proclaimed conservative coach at UNC (who also had no problem with the picture), said that homophobia was at play here at some level.

The column was about COVERT HOMOPHOBIA and it seems that you are all exercising my point very well


Covert Homophobia Column

BTW, I think it is just AWESOME that we have so many different perspectives and opinions on this board.

I got an e-mail today from someone appologizing for disagreeing with what I had to say. The fact that there is little or no groupthink going on on this board is what makes it so fun and interesting.

Thank you all for your comments, and feel free to keep them coming.

My point has nothing to do with covert homophobia, but the legal grounds upon which the UNC guy tread. Even a player that says he "approves" of the caption can recant, then sue on "harrassment" grounds.
And my opinion has nothing to do with homo issues. Had he been straight, and put such a caption on the pic with the girls team, the situation would have been the same. Sexual innuendo in an academic administrative role is inappropriate based on legal precendent.

this looks like it's going to be the "homophobia on seattle radio" situation all over again -- much ado about nothing. did we not learn from that thread?

there must be bigger (homophobic) fish to fry than a christmas card with apparent serious legal shortcomings as correctly pointed out by au, and a teenager who doesn't want his picture linked to a particular site (perhaps it was the caption, not the site). and if there are no bigger targets than these, we should just declare victory and walk away!

Thersis, I think this is a totally different situation from the Seattle radio show.

First, I found the card and the caption to be quite funny, but unnerving at the same time. There are CLEAR grounds for a sexual harrassment lawsuit. I think it was very poor judgement on the administrator's part to put that comment on the card. I know the guys probably thought it was funny; however, it was just plain wrong for a member of management to open himself to the possiblity of a lawsuit. Also, don't forget, that this "situation" can be used to exhibit the University's lack of response to sexual harrassment if it were to come up in the future.

One thing I always try to look at when making decisions for business. We have approximately 150 employees (small company) and every decision we as management make affects them and their families. That means a lot of people depend on management to make the proper decisions to insure the place stays in business and they can feed and clothe their family.

Sorry, Cyd, I think you have missed the point on this one. This member of management made a poor decision and I stand behind the University's actions.

Again, I've got to opine that there isn't necessarily homophobia at play here. (Overt, covert or other.)
In the first case, someone who should've known better objectified and sexualized students. Period.
The second case is paramount to someone trying, (unsuccesfully,) to rebuff unwanted advances. Have you ever had somebody stare at you in the shower at the gym? I mean somebody you weren't into. You probably felt fairly skeeved out about it, yes? But why? He wasn't taking anything from you. He wasn't breaking the law. But still, you felt creepy. You maybe even told him what-for. By your definition, that makes you (covertly) homophobic. Dig?

I think the administrator used poor judgement and that's the main reason why he should be reprimanded. As for Kalamazoo College, as a grad of neighboring Western Michigan I can tell you K-College is very gay friendly. In fact we used to call it Gay-College instead of K-College. I don't think the two examples are about homophobia as much as the issue of sex period makes us nervous.

Z

The first incident at UNC seems pretty clouded, with issues on several levels, one of which may or may not be homophobia. It seems like most of the parties in question are pretty open-minded. These organizations (universities) will always err on the side of caution. Their decision is not surprising to me - or offensive.

The second incident is more interesting. If we're disturbed by the swimmer requesting that the link to his picture be removed (and I'm not at all disturbed by it), is it because he had the nerve to ask to have the picture removed or simply that he may be uncomfortable knowing that gay men are looking at him in his swim suit, and that hurts our feelings? Covert homophobia? Probably. Look around and you'll find covert racism, covert misogyny, covert anti-semitism, covert prejudice against Islam, etc. Some of US enlightened gay people might even be guilty of some of these......

I've said this before. I wish all straight men were cool with homosexuality. I think I won't hold my breath waiting for that day. A lot of these straight men are now conditioned enough by political correctness to not offend gays and all the other protected groups. Does that mean they're enlightned, open-minded individuals? I would say no, and if not, do we intend or want to police their inner-most thoughts and demand unqualified acceptance? Can't we be stronger - a little less fragile than that? Do we have to run screaming and pointing fingers because someone, somewhere doesn't embrace our lifestyle and expresses this opinion? Does our self-esteem bruise so easily?

Interesting discussion. A bit blown out of proportion, I'd say. It seems to be more about a tacky Christmas card and what's appropriate (or not) professionally than any dark homophobia...And if someone doesn't want their picture posted on a web site, gay or not, I think we should respect their choice...

I'm closer to Cyd's original take on all this, than to some of you with other perspectives, but I appreciate all the interesting comments. Mine is some of you appear to be hiding (there's that covertness again) behind broad legal considerations and fear rather than facing things on a case by case basis, i.e., a humorous card made as friends and a homophobic reaction to a swimmer upon realizing some guys might look at him with lust. P.S. Taking his photo, posted publicly on the internet, off a link, does NOT prevent guys from looking at him lustfully; it would just make him inaccurately think that. Is nobody else p.o.'d at these two colleges' hypocracy, anti-male (over and above anti-gay)bias (thinking "those little boys are not capable of protecting themselves" demeans them), repression of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION. How about a sense of humor and humanity, rather than legalisms and fear of what MIGHT (and didn't) happen. Wait 'til something bad actually happens to address it. Don't fear what "may" happen if "this" is allowed to go on. That's the definition of "pre- (get it? "PRE")-judice!!!! Oops, now I'm getting mad. Does humor still have a place in our society, I hope???? THAT'S the biggest loser here.

Yes, I've heard Kalamazoo is a liberal college.

I went to Stanford. Very liberal place - only 11% of the students and faculty voted for Bush in '92 while I was there.

However, there were incidents of OVERT homophobia consistently - one of which made national headlines when the baseball team decided to smash a statue of two men holding hands - afterwards, the players said they weren't homophobic. Riiiiiight. I suppose that was just a bunch of friends getting together and having fun.

Just because the school is deemed "liberal" doesn't mean the entire student body is.

If this swimmer is so open-minded, then why did he not respond to any of my requests to talk to him or two questions I e-mailed him? I was left to make my conclusions, which you read.

I believe that these incidents are important not in and of themselves, but as indicative of the underlying attitude that exists in sports. At first, I had a list of seven very small incidents but each of which add up to a bigger picture - again, COVERT homophobia. I chose to focus on just two.

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Cyd at Outsports ]

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Cyd at Outsports ]

I believe the incidents are examples of homophobia, but I also believe they cross the line in terms of what's appropriate, regardless of sexual orientation. A picture of a female swimmer on a site that can be quite sexual in text probably would make any parent uncomfortable and the same for the Christmas card picture. So what if the students didn't mind. Many college males don't mind binge drinking either, that doesn't make it appropriate.

Z

Yes Z, I agree. I think both inappropriateness and homophobia contributed to what happened at UNC. No doubt.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cyd at Outsports:
[QB]
If this swimmer is so open-minded, then why did he not respond to any of my requests to talk to him or two questions I e-mailed him? I was left to make my conclusions, which you read.

What were the questions you asked him, and what would you consider "acceptable" answers? Suppose he said he was a devout Christian and didn't believe homosexuality was an acceptable lifestyle and would just rather not have his picture linked to a gay oriented website? While you and I may not agree with his views, is this an acceptable answer? Would you scream his reponse across Outsports? Why or why not? What is your goal in raising this issue? I think we can all agree that the arena of male sports remains largely homophobic. I think we can also all agree that gay athletes shouldn't be subjected to abuse or discrimination. But are you saying that nobody should be permitted to harbor ill feelings towards homosexuality at all? If so, why not?

Try this: Check out 20 university swim team websites for links of guys (and girls) you'd like to put on Outsports. Then email these individuals (it wouldn't be hard to get their addresses) and ask them how they feel about it. Of course you're not required to ask, but for the sake of this exercise ask anyway. Make sure that you're honest about the true intent of the pictureboards on this site - they're really for gay men to check out, possible ogle male athletes. How will you respond to the athletes that indicate they'd rather not have their picture on the site? Will you accuse them of being covertly homophobic? Suppose they say that they are, in fact, homophobic? What then?

I think these are important questions to consider. By raising this issue (with the Kalamazoo swimmer) it seems like you are advocating monitoring, if not controlling, the opinions of individual athletes about homosexuality.

Jupiter, Excellent points! I've read many of your posts, and while I don't agree with all of them, you certainly hit the nail on the head this time!
Sometimes, we get so caught up in our comfort level with our sexuality that we are ready to discount those that do not agree with it. I have several friends (whom I am out to), who do not agree with my gayness, but RESPECT me for my honesty. I would NEVER send out a card with homosexual insinuations to them out of the RESPECT that I have for them.
Personally, as an HR professional, I can see how this card is easily considered Sexual Harrassment.

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: CowboysHskrFan ]

I'm saddened and angered to detect not covert but overt bigotry against gays in many of the comments in this thread. Many of you seem, for example, there is a right to NOT be oogled at. There is? Maybe these guys need to get out of swimming in public if that is a problem for them, at least they need to not permit any photos to be ever taken of them -- which is crazy and like some uncivilized ancient vodoo tribe. Oh gawd, the photograph will steal my soul! Wow, I wish I were more convincing to ask some of you to analyze your obvious hangups -- which in my un-studied, highly amateur view -- are based in hating gays and ashamed of sex, even if you are gay or have sex!

P.S. If I posted a photo of myself online in a swim suit -- which is scary enough -- can I seriously say I forbid anyone from putting a link to it from any straight sites? Are there such things as straight sites? What? WHAT? Would you respect me for NOT wanting to be linked to a straight site, if you even knew what that was. (Who's to say the K-school swim site is not a gay site, and "straight" sites should not be able to link to it or view it.) Should you have to register as straight or gay or male or female or American or Russian or Hispanic or Black or rich or poor to view certain websites. WHAT? I guess I'm dumb, but I do NOT get where some of you are going with this, unless it's that gay people should "stay in their place." Where and when have we heard that before? Nobody else sees where I'm coming from?

Beacher, There's a world of difference between checking someone out at the beach and ogling them on line for hours, as I'm sure all of us will admit to doing in some part, if not to these young men in particular. You admit you have an "un-studied, amateur view," but then proceed to parrot the pop psychology and sociobabble that says any criticism of gays is a sign of either homophobia or self-hate. Friend, even given the most expansive interpretation of the yet-to-be-defined (and etymologically inaccurate) term 'homophobia,' it just ain't so! The right in question here, the legally protected right to privacy, extends across many issues and includes much of what we seek: the right to be left alone, for starters. Roe v. Wade, the right to reproductive choice, is also a part of it, although we needn't look for "penumbras and emanations" to recognize that this right predates Magna Carta. Surely you don't mean to imply that supporters of either are anti-gay or self-loathing? No, this tired cliche is nonsense and is trotted out usually only as a last resort when all other arguments fail. In the end, it's simply name-calling, not debate. Stop looking for and finding bogeymen at every turn. You needn't have studied psychology to recognize that as pure paranoia!

[quote]Originally posted by CowboysHskrFan:
Sometimes, we get so caught up in our comfort level with our sexuality that we are ready to discount those that do not agree with it. I have several friends (whom I am out to), who do not agree with my gayness, but RESPECT me for my honesty. I would NEVER send out a card with homosexual insinuations to them out of the RESPECT that I have for them.
Personally, as an HR professional, I can see how this card is easily considered Sexual Harrassment.

---

But here is what Cyd said about the card:

[quote] - The swimmers at UNC had NO problem with the card - in fact, they were dismayed that the administration was being pissy about it. It was the MALE SWIMMERS IN THE PICTURE who came up with the saying on the card (btw, that saying was only on 1/3 of the cards - the other 2/3 had a generic saying and Dave used the latter for all business dealings).

---

If the swimmers in the picture agreed to be in the photo AND came up with the caption AND it wasn't sent to anyone who had a business relationship with the university, why would the university be concerned with having liability in a lawsuit--and who would file that lawsuit? Presumably not the swim team or the guy who sent the card.

If there is some NCAA rule that would prohibit such a card featuring student-athletes, why didn't the university have the same reaction a year earlier when WOMEN where in the photograph?

I think sometimes we want to see homophobia when it isn't there. We can also not want to see it when it is there, even if it's covert.

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:
If the swimmers in the picture agreed to be in the photo AND came up with the caption AND it wasn't sent to anyone who had a business relationship with the university, why would the university be concerned with having liability in a lawsuit--and who would file that lawsuit?

---

Anytime correspondence is sent out on official University stationery, it is considered business. Whether anyone would actually would file the lawsuit or not is immaterial. The University cannot take that risk.

The more I read this thread, the more I realize that there is a great deal going on here, as much with us as with these incidents...

Let's face it, this site does combine sports and sex - is there another sports site that covertly draws as much attention to scantily clad athletes as this one? Not that I know of...some folks are going to have a problem with that. Of course, this site isn't necessarily for them and those of us who visit this site regularly like what's going on here. But, just because a straight (i presume) swimmer doesn't appreciate there being a link to his speedo photo doesn't mean he should be reprimanded or persecuted (i don't mean it that strongly) for his point of view. Maybe he's being homophobic or maybe he's just exercising his right over a photo of himself??? Granted, he's a bit of a chicken for not responding to Cyd's questions...

I still think the xmas card is tacky and cliche - and if I was a gay school administrator surrounded by swimmers in speedos, I'd be very conscious about appropriate professional behavior - that's his responsibility not the students! but I can see how in the moment it was funny and meaningless ...And wouldn't it be inappropriate for a straight male coach to add any sexual flavor to his involvement with the ladies team?

OK ... time for another installment of "Ask the Labor and Employment Law attorney" ... starring ... ME. This is my area of the law ... something I know something about.

AU Tiger in LA (no surprise) got the law perfectly right on the tacky (and probably, at some point, sticky) Christmas card. It just takes one of the swimmers to say he was pressured ... and your so-called consent evaporates. And you may not even need that given the power differential (essentially a student/professor type relationship). Instant lawsuit. In front of a North Carolina jury. Full of real North Carolinians ... not just Chapel Hillites. Think the swimmer would have trouble finding a lawyer?

The University acted totally appropriately given the current state of the law.

I can guarantee you there was no similarly suggestive caption with the women's soccer team. How do I know? We never heard about it. Think the AAUW would've been silent on such a card? I can guarantee you it would've been all over the news ... discussed at length on all of the cable news stations.

As far as the Kalamazoo speedo picture goes ... no laws were broken keeping the link up. Photo taken in a public place ... linked ... Outsports not claiming the picture is theirs. Would it be in good taste to keep a link up when the person requests it be taken down? That's NOT a question to ever ask a lawyer. Lawyers are horrible arbiters of good taste.

[ February 26, 2002: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

I'll try to make this my last 2 cents. All of my comments on this thread have strictly been aimed at the UNC case.
The Kalamazoo case is open to everyone else's interpretations. I honestly have no opinions, one way or the other. I'm sure however you feel about that case makes sense to you, and that's fine.

But there have been a couple of posts here where people (like beacher) appear to be painting all dissenters with the same brush...as if both of these cases are identical (and they are so very different). As if anyone that agrees with the UNC admin must be a self-loathing homosexual. I have no idea how anyone (except an anarchist, or an ACT-UP member) could come to this conclusion, but then again.....
I'm using LOGIC! You can find LOGIC in a supermarket near you! LOGIC....Ask for it by name.

To above writer, no not all supporters of the Magna Carta exhibit homophobia (he said it's not defined, but it is in my dictionary and mind). Also, just noticed most of the conflict between some of these writers is world view, glass half full, half empty-type thinking. Hackneyed but I look at the world as it can and I hope will be and move towards that. To some that is unrealistic. Call it what you want. Some of you look at the world realistically, that's just the way it is, laws, and homophobes, and some administrators harassing students and therefore all administrators must be punished and constricted, etc., and let's think not on a case by case basis, but with fear in mind of what might happen if we give a little bit. That IS how it is, but that is not reality- reality is more complex than saying "That's the way it is." Walter Cronkite notwithstanding, people that cling to the past are bound to repeat it. Get out of my way, I'm movin' on. Try not to cling and support things not even you want, and good luck. P.S. I am such a bad debater, I can't even convince apparent (but not sure of it) gays to support gays, to support extinguishing the lines they've drawn between people. I better stop debating. I've failed, but tried. Thanks for the chat, though. Even the ideas in your comments I disagree with, are totally interesting. Thanks for your thoughts and patience!

[quote]Originally posted by CowboysHskrFan:

Anytime correspondence is sent out on official University stationery, it is considered business.

---

Just to be clear, this was a personal Christmas card not sent on any University stationary or with a University stamp

"Just to be clear, this was a personal Christmas card not sent on any University stationary or with a University stamp."


Cyd:

I do not agree. If anyone uses an official job title and/or names the University, it involves the University anyway. Since the person mentioned his job title, got the University swim team in the photo and mentioned the University's name in the Christmas card; the University officials have a right to be involved!

Mikestead

Beacher posted:

P.S. I am such a bad debater, I can't even convince apparent (but not sure of it) gays to support gays.

Beacher:

I don't think this is a case where you need to try to convince gay people to support gays. I think this is clearly the case of a man, who happens to be gay, that made an error in judgement.

Possibly, the difference in a lot of our opinions come from our professions. It sounds like a lot of us dissenters are more involved in the HR and administrative sides of business. We have "been there, done that" on the sexual harrassment lawsuits and we can smell another one on the horizon in this situation. Forgive us for dissenting, but these are just the facts. Do we really want a sexual harrassment lawsuit involving one of the first openly gay administrators in college atheletics? I personally do not. That is the LAST thing we need for the religious right to have as ammunition.

I think it is important for us, as gay men who want equality, to realize that equality also has it down side. This is the case of the downside. A gay man, in a Christmas card with shirtless swimmers in speedos, with the comment about Christmas "packages". Equality dictates the reprimand.

As far as the Kalamazoo case goes. If the guy wants the link taken away, then take it away. I would rather us be known for respecting others' wishes and being gracious rather than staging a showdown over it. I enjoy the eye candy on here just as much as the other guys. However, even if we didn't have these pictures, I think the members of the site would still have a great time coming here and participating in all of the discussions. I know I would.

I know I'm going to get bashed for this, so go ahead.

In all this debate, I forgot to mention what really got me peeved...None of the swimmers' packages are actually featured all that prominently! Fire the photographer!

Beacher, in what endeavor, exactly are we supposed to be supporting gays? If it's something like marital rights, adoption rights, reproductive rights, right to privacy, Hell-I'll even supprot the gay right to bear arms, fine.

Am I going to support the right to hide in the lockerroom and look at the jockstraps? Um, no.

It's like the boy who cried "Wolf." If I cry "homophobia" everytime I don't get my way or somebody calls me on acting like a tacky fag, what happens the next time I actually DO encounter homophobia?

Wow, what a great topic, and what great opinions on the subject. I love the fact that we are all so different, and civil in our debate.

Now for my spin on things. I'll start with the picture. To me, being somewhat politically savy, I'd have to say that the guy was not too politically savy. Having the pic taken was totally within his rights. I think that it is awesome that he has such good raport with the team that they would be willing to be in a picture with him like that. I also say koodo's to the team for being open minded enough to come up with the caption. Now for the the place that he made the mistake. He had it turned into a christmas card. That was where he made his mistake. If he had given a copy to each of the kids and kept one for himself, fine no harm done. They thought it up, they liked it, and it is over, but by sending it out to people that the kids may not have known, that is where the line was crossed. It's unfortunate that the whole group, kids and administrator, got themselves into the mess, but it happened. As far as his career goes, I think he can be accused of not thinking things through, but he is the one that has to live with that.

Now for the swimmer pic, This one has some interesting points that can be made. How did he find out is pic was posted here? Why didn't he write to us himself to ask that the link be taken off? Why didn't he respond to Cyd? Why are we getting all bent out of shape? In the context of the article I think that it raised some intersting questions, and was used as an example in a proper way, Covert Homophobia. Does that really exist? Will we every get away from it? Do we want to get away from it? Is is possible to get away from it? Just questions that are raised in my head. This would obviously never happen in a utopia, but hey we don't live there. I was ticked when someone I didn't like posted a link to my pic on his website, and I asked him to remove it. I think the questions raised by this example are more important than the actual example. Look at culture, I think someone said it perfectly when they said that most straight guys are PC enough to not offend gay guys anymore, do we want more than this? Is there a way to get more than this? Think about it in terms of black people, covert racism happens everyday because you can't change the entire population. Most of the US does just what most straight guys do, they don't offend, and keep their opinions to themselves, and don't lash out. That's all we can ask for at this time. The rest will follow. I don't know if that made any sense, if not, sorry, if it did, then cool. I just like to contribute.

I thought wrote a great column and others have defended him well so I need not. I also appreciate the clarity expressed by the dissenters.

As for the Kazlamazoo pic, what I find interesting is that this team is not bashful about posing for suggestive pics. Check This One Out. There are also shots of guys hanging out in hot tubs etc. So why was this one swimmer so bent out of shape by a link? I have a feeling he wouldn't have minded if we were a straight women's web site.

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Jim at Outsports ]

But would WE be so bent out of shape if it were a straight male website and an 18 year-old girl?

As a public service I went through a bunch of the pictures on the Kalamazoo College swimming site. I'm sure it's all good, clean hetero fun. Here's some that are just begging for captions though (apologies to Brent):

So, hon, whatcha readin'?

Goin' to the chapel/And we're gonna/Get married

It's alright sweetie, don't cry

How many beers before they posed for this one?

Bad hair day (from a team shaving session)

I'm speechless

Hmmm...what is the guy on the left trying to say?

Happiness is a warm gun/Bang, bang, shoot, shoot

The point? We all bring our own baggage, history and perception to this debate. I think the UNC guy was a little naive if he didn't think the card would cause a stink. The Kalamazoo guy? Once your picture is on the 'Net, you lose control of it. It's as simple as that; ask anyone who's posed for a nude photograph for their husband or wife and it ends up all over the place. Not an ideal situation but the reality of it.

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Jim Allen ]

[quote]But would WE be so bent out of shape if it were a straight male website and an 18 year-old girl?

---

It's called the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.

Wow! Those are some awesome pics! I wish I had enough time to go through that many of those pics on their website. Thanks for finding those ones. I really like the last one. The two on the left look like REALLY close friends, and too bad the guy on the right wasn't wearing baggier pants.

The pic is ok, the caption was not. If the guy had kept the pic to himself no big deal. Why did he have to send out a card like that with the silly caption? I work for the feds and we have lots of training on sexual harrassment. This one stepped over the line. If it had just been a bunch of college kids he met in a bar or on a trip and took a pic it would be one thing. But since he is in a position of authority over them, it was inappropriate. Rather than covert homophobia, maybe the real issue here is the "covert pedophilia" of the guy... (I know they were over 18 and legal but it just creeps me out! sorry)

[quote]Originally posted by Jim at Outsports:


It's called the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.

---

The difference being that the models in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue made a choice to be there and are being compensated for it.

I did a triathlon today and a gay couple were taking photos of me and other guys. They trade such photos on internet. I'm reminded of Cyd's comments regarding posting photos of sportsmen. I don't feel shy about my photos being used (nothing awesome here), but there is something voyeuristic about a gay man stalking men for shots.

I am inconsistent because I like photos of athletes. But I know some of these straight men that the gay guys photographed and the guys taking the photos have no interest in the sport, only voyeurs. I feel a fundamental sadness that a person would have to live voyeurism rather than reality because we as gays are hidden. I think Outsports links to such photo sites is professional, well done, and very appropriate. Philosophically, I'd rather these gay guys become what they admire in men by working on their own fitness rather than rely exclusively on images of others.

I'm expressing my sensitivity, not condemning the gay men. Where does uncomfortable voyeurism end and acceptable appreciation (art, words, association) begin. In the simplest terms, is being gay to be equated with treating our mates as objects?

Regarding the original question, I think the Christmas card was nice but wording was unwise--not wrong, unwise. I think the Michigan swimmer is too sensitive, more panicky than a woman might have been. He certainly can ask the server to remove him from the site but the site is public access.

[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Tom Brooks ]

[quote]Originally posted by Tom Brooks:
I did a triathlon today and a gay couple were taking photos of me and other guys. They trade such photos on internet...
Where does uncomfortable voyeurism end and acceptable appreciation (art, words, association) begin...

---

Well I have had people ( men & women)take pictures of me in uniform at accident scenes & parades and other places - if they want to take em home & j.o. to them I don't care. Im in public - snap away .

[quote]Originally posted by copman:


Well I have had people ( men & women)take pictures of me in uniform at accident scenes & parades and other places - if they want to take em home & j.o. to them I don't care. Im in public - snap away .

---

MMMMMM So, if and when I get up to Ohio. Copman....can I take snap?...I like cops

Copman, you and I have said the same thing. You don't mind your image used and and I don't mind mine used, perhaps because we are older, secure, and out. My question was larger. Do gay men abdicate their active living and self improvement but instead prone to lead lives of quiet desperation--virtual living? Putting my cards on the table, I'd like some gay men to step out of their comfort zone and live actively and keep company with men they most admire. Be what you want to be. And then photograph it as a good day and be part of that day.

I don't know that taking pictures of athletes/cops/whoever qualifies as leading a life of quiet desperation. In fact, you have quite a few terrific pictures on your own website Tom, and I don't think the intent or physical shape of the photographer makes any difference in their impact.

If "active living and self-inprovement" were required to "keep the company of men they most admire" how many coaches would we have in most sports? Would directors have to look as good as their actors, in order to keep their company? Fans by their very definition can NOT do what the objects of their admiration can do. Do professional players expect their fans to only take pictures when they are "living actively"?

Perhaps your implied point was about most people's willingness to be coach potatoes, eating french fries while complaining that players needed to get in better shape to deserve their support. Real conversation--real travel--real meetings--real abs... instead of virtual ones I think we'd all agree are the goal and superior to virtual alternatives. But how many of us would be able to exchange what we do here on Outsports, and via email and the net, if it weren't for our "virtual" capabilities?

Maybe you are competing exclusively for your own internal motivations--the challenge, the camraderie, the feeling. Some also compete to be able to show off--and I don't mean that in a pejorative way--their bodies, attitudes, and accomplishments. There's a bit of a showman in most of us, and cameras are nearly omnipresent these days taking note and recording that.

Ideally, we'd all be in great shape, no one would do unhealthy things to themselves or others, and we would have nothing better to do than remake The Sound of Music in the Alps or compete in Eco-Challenges in New Zealand. Until then, perhaps you and others similarly inclined can continue to inspire and entertain with your physicality as well as your willingness to be Out--doing what you want, being what you want to be.

Tom Brooks, Checked out your site, after being lured there by your Thoreau understanding of life's dilemmas, and was pleased to see that not only are you my age, but also a fellow former Hoosier! I was down the road at Wabash while you were at Purdue, where most of my cousins went. You wouldn't be a Region Rat as well, would you, or is that asking for too much! Sounds - and looks, nice place! - like you've got a good life there in NZ and I hope to get there soon to visit a Kiwi friend of my own. As far as cameras obscura, want to trade your beast of a Nikon for my '70s era Canon TLb? Good luck and stay in shape!