Of course he’s going to have feelings of attraction toward a teammate or two. It’s human nature. These are some of the most physically fit and desirable human beings on the planet.

Um, Mark? You OK there, buddy?

Teamness is what fans demand from the teams they pay to watch. Any individual with an agenda that’s even slightly different from that of the team hurts that cause.

Um, Mark? You OK there, buddy?

And of course the addition of Latin players and African American players would harm the existing team chemistry.

These are some of the most physically fit and desirable human beings on the planet.

Are we still talking about baseball, or a different sport?

Mark Knudson? What Bob Sykes wasn't available?

These are some of the most physically fit and desirable human beings on the planet.

Are we still talking about baseball, or a different sport?

That John Kruk was one sexy b*tch.

Seems to me that every player on the team has an agenda. First and foremost on that agenda is their contract. The "teamness" thing just sounds weird.

"That John Kruk was one sexy b*tch."

You only say that because he's a ditzy blond.

Insert Sid Bream joke here.

dp

dp...what the hell?

Seems to me that every player on the team has an agenda. First and foremost on that agenda is their contract. The "teamness" thing just sounds weird.

He can’t just flip a switch and turn off his feelings when he walks into the locker room.

Isn't this just a version of the argument against having female reporters in the locker room?

I've submitted a bug report in the forum for Jim. I think I know how to replicate it, so testing.....

I've submitted a bug report in the forum for Jim. I think I know how to replicate it, so testing.

EDIT - Yep. Thought so.

You should all take your dp's to a straight thread.

I've submitted a bug report in the forum for Jim. I think I know how to replicate it, so testing

I'm sure that whatever it is will be fixed on the relaunch.

Just as absurd as comparing workplace environments is the ridiculous claim by some in the gay community that there wouldn’t be any sort of physical attraction for a gay athlete toward any of his straight teammates .... He’s gay; he’s not dead. ... The gay athlete isn’t going to notice that? And obviously, the straight teammates are going to feel the same sort of vibe that the attractive girl on the co-ed softball team gets from a few of the men on her team.

Most of the men are dead? Were does this necrosoftball league play?

The only gay people that are attracted to their teammates are the ones that are out of the closet?

There's a relaunch? I missed that news.

Of course he’s going to have feelings of attraction toward a teammate or two. It’s human nature. These are some of the most physically fit and desirable human beings on the planet. The gay athlete isn’t going to notice that? And obviously, the straight teammates are going to feel the same sort of vibe that the attractive girl on the co-ed softball team gets from a few of the men on her team. Attractive people know when they’re being “checked out” and it leads to those very awkward moments. It’s human nature for people to be attracted to other people and it’s not going to stop happening because the workplace environment is a locker room rather than a typical office setting.

I try to avoid the flamebait threads, but attractive people getting checked out is present in roughly 100% of all work environments. Even those that don't include thousands of paying spectators and a vast television audience. Somehow people manage to get work done, anyway.

Dupe.

Work-around for duplicate postings: If you edit your post, do not refresh your page afterwards. If you refresh, it will ask you if you want to cancel or continue. If you continue, your post will dupe. Instead, leave the thread and then come back in.

We have to admit, we haven’t read such a calm and cool explanation of an incredibly stupid opinion in a long time. Seriously, it’s incredible how reasonable Knudson sounds.

No matter how unreasonable the rationale, they always seem rational to the person making them.

He seems to be groping for some legitimately discussable points, although that doesn't mean they should be socially, much less legally, dispositive. In any regime of views it's sometimes not so much what you believe, it's that you dare express that belief. (See our discussion on male rights, ha ha.)

Why not merge all accommodations and facilities that distinguish on a sexual/gender basis? Why not have women and men at health clubs or in schools share the same locker rooms, showers, etc. Why not allow male coaches to be in women's dressing facilities while they dress? Or women in male's? People tend to not see the conceptual cluster #### behind their views on sex, gender, and the relations thereof. So, the sides assume a righteous air and never go into it. And whoever is momentarily in ideological ascendancy dares the other side to even bring it up, except in their accepted way.

These are some of the most physically fit and desirable human beings on the planet.

Agreed. If you can resist your urges after seeing Bartolo Colon or Jonathan Broxton in the shower, then you're a stronger man than I.

These are some of the most physically fit and desirable human beings on the planet.

Mark has obviously never worked in software development.

Hey, it's the inventor of the keyboard.

He seems to be groping

How do the showers work in MLB locker rooms anyway? Is it the proverbial group setting, with the gay guy standing six inches from the other tall proud incredibly attractive baseball player and checking out his business? Or do they have stalls, and he's merely lusting through the tile?

Translation: "I stayed in the closet, and so should you!!"

Clearly gay baseball players should stay in the closet, because Knudsen's opinion make him one of the more socially liberal professional athletes to speak out on the subject. Unless you're a masochist, I guess.

but attractive people getting checked out is present in roughly 100% of all work environments.

Except software development. And possibly garbage collection, less sure about that.

I asked myself whether I would feel uncomfortable being naked daily in front of a man I know to be gay vis-a-vis a bunch of people of whom 1-2 are probably statistically gay but I don't know who they are. I think if I had any discomfort initially, I'd get used to the idea and it wouldn't matter after a week or so. I'm not sure what Knudson's point is.

In a normal work environment, people are individuals with jobs. In pro sports, it’s all about as George Karl puts it, “teamness.” Individualism and personal agendas might be okay in a normal workplace, but it’s not okay in team sports. Teamness is what fans demand from the teams they pay to watch. Any individual with an agenda that’s even slightly different from that of the team hurts that cause.

Huh. "Teamness" rhymes with "anus". Someone should do something with that.

How is it possible that "teamness" has not been roundly mocked?

Attractive people know when they’re being “checked out” and it leads to those very awkward moments.

If this is the crux of Knudson's argument, the reply can be a simple, even a friendly, "What of it?" He's correct, that it leads to awkward moments, even "very awkward moments", but we don't do or not do things contingent only or primarily on whether they engender "very awkward moments". The way ahead can be one where we acknowledge very awkward moments will arise, but that's sometimes the price we pay for inclusiveness; for not asking people to pretend to be substantively other than who they are.

I asked myself whether I would feel uncomfortable being naked daily in front of a man I know to be gay vis-a-vis a bunch of people of whom 1-2 are probably statistically gay but I don't know who they are. I think if I had any discomfort initially, I'd get used to the idea and it wouldn't matter after a week or so. I'm not sure what Knudson's point is.

On my high school baseball team we were mostly worried that some would-be jokester might walk off with our clothes while we were in the shower. My best friend at another high school once pulled that trick on one of his teammates in retaliation for a particularly nasty (if hilarious) practical joke, and news of the incident had already circulated up to us.

The worst part would be the guy choosing "It's raining men" as his at-bat music.

If this is the crux of Knudson's argument, the reply can be a simple, even a friendly, "What of it?" He's correct, that it leads to awkward moments, even "very awkward moments", but we don't do or not do things contingent only or primarily on whether they engender "very awkward moments". The way ahead can be one where we acknowledge very awkward moments will arise, but that's sometimes the price we pay for inclusiveness; for not asking people to pretend to be substantively other than who they are.

That's a sensible take, and one that Knudson should consider. It's not as if we're talking about a team full of Jerry Sanduskys and 11 year old bodys.

The worst part would be the guy choosing "It's raining men" as his at-bat music.

Or the good old "YMCA".

I'll bet he only likes Madonna's early work.

Did you ever notice how many sports stadium anthems are songs by artists associated with, umm, shall we say, not exactly Lawrence Welk type sexual ethics/practices?

Gary Glitter, Queen, The Village People, Liza ((she oddly married and divorced two clearly gay men-Peter Allen and that Guest guy who sued her for batttery (she sings on the version of "NY, NY" that they play when the Yanks lose-but they played Frank after "the biggest loss in sports history")). I'm forgetting some dammit.

Perhaps the comprimise solution here is a version of the old Red Sox cliche:

After the game...25 players, 25 shower stalls. Nah.

(she sings on the version of "NY, NY" that they play when the Yanks lose-but they played Frank after "the biggest loss in sports history"))

They stopped doing that several years ago. They play the Sinatra version after every game now.

@42: Oh. Too bad.

it's really interesting how so many baseball players vocally express their trepidation at the possibility of having an openly gay teammate when the fact is that, as a group, baseball players are just about as unattractive as athletes can possibly be. they exercise (meaning actual physical exertion) less than any other sports' athletes, and they constantly expectorate.

i mean seriously, they chew tobacco, they spit. they eat sunflower seeds, they spit. they drink gatorade (it's got what plants crave), they spit. the whole sport is basically standing on a field and spitting, or sitting in a dugout and spitting, and then maybe running for a handful of minutes spread out in 20 second bursts over 3 hours.

Knudson is wrong, I think, but you know what? He has a right to be wrong (in my opinion), especially when he expresses his point of view so thoughtfully and measuredly. As Morty pointed out in #24, he's not spewing Smoltz-ian "God don't like queers" crap here, he's making a much more interesting sociologically-grounded argument that -- even if you disagree with it or don't think it ought be dispositive -- shouldn't just be snarked at. This struck a chord for me in particular because I happen to have a friend who is gay and was a high-school and college athlete (and closeted at the time). This very topic happened to come up once, and you know what? What he said pretty much tracks with what Knudson writes here: "Of COURSE I was turned on by some of the guys on my team. [I'm paraphrasing a bit here, but actually not too much.] C'mon, you would've been too in my shoes. I'm gay, but I'm still wired like a guy..." He made a hilarious analogy which I've never forgotten: as a closeted gay athlete, for him being in the locker room with a ton of buff naked guys was like a straight man being able to miraculously 'pass' as just another "one of the girls" in the dressing room of a Victoria's Secret photo shoot.

Me? I have multiple gay family members and my two closest friends growing up were also LGBT, so even as a bona-fide conservative Republican I really don't care about such things. (Heck, I always figured that if a gay guy found you attractive you should honestly take it as a compliment...those dudes generally have tough standards.) But it's pure vanity to assume (or insist, as if it's as easy as waving a magic wand) that everyone else shares the same perspective.

There's an interesting parallel to "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in the military and the idea of team esprit de corps in a sports context worth mining. I was a big supporter of eliminating DADT precisely because what my military buddies (as well as common sense) told me was that, in a life-or-death situation like those faced in combat zones, people set such things aside and focus on what really matters...because they have to. But on a sports team the same sense of reflexive live-or-die compulsion doesn't really exist. Food for thought.

those dudes generally have tough standards

Hilarious.

Me? I have multiple gay family members and my two closest friends growing up were also LGBT, so even as a bona-fide conservative Republican I really don't care about such things. (Heck, I always figured that if a gay guy found you attractive you should honestly take it as a compliment...those dudes generally have tough standards.) But it's pure vanity to assume (or insist, as if it's as easy as waving a magic wand) that everyone else shares the same perspective.

That's fine, if a guy doesn't want his package checked out, he shouldn't have to. But why are they showering like it's 1899? MLB is a multi-billion dollar enterprise, putting up some dividers or something would cost them what, a few grand? If you don't want gay people checking you out, do something about it, and cover up. If you are uncomfortable being ogled, saying 'as long as you check me out without me knowing, it's cool' is retarded.

And outside of covering up bits of you, you don't want seen by people who might fantasize about them, you have the same right, to not be lusted after by another man or woman, as any other man or woman does (any permutations of gender and sexuality.) Which is to say none.

C'mon, you would've been too in my shoes. I'm gay, but I'm still wired like a guy..." He made a hilarious analogy which I've never forgotten: as a closeted gay athlete, for him being in the locker room with a ton of buff naked guys was like a straight man being able to miraculously 'pass' as just another "one of the girls" in the dressing room of a Victoria's Secret photo shoot.

Except we've been doing it literally our whole lives. Every locker room - high school, college, etc. The novelty wore off long ago. I think I know how to behave in a locker room at this point.

Why not merge all accommodations and facilities that distinguish on a sexual/gender basis? Why not have women and men at health clubs or in schools share the same locker rooms, showers, etc. Why not allow male coaches to be in women's dressing facilities while they dress? Or women in male's?

I'd be OK with that. It'd probably feel weird for a couple of weeks, and then I'd get used to it.

as a group, baseball players are just about as unattractive as athletes can possibly be.

Spoken like a guy who's never seen a naked offensive lineman in the shower. It ain't pretty.