Knudson has a right to his feelings and a right to express those feelings. At the very least. What he is striving to explain is his feeling that his privacy has been invaded. You may argue this has always existed as to confusion in private settings of the two sexual orientations. But when gays were in the closet this allow his psyche to create a border for a feeling of safety and security. Such as with women having their privacy in these public areas.

Thus, there may not be anything to be done about that. However, there is an issue of expression. Just as many censure not the belief but the expression of the belief (for instance, you can believe that males are in some ways subject to prejudice and discrimnation but how dare it be articulated here among the better people, much less a case made for that, you stupid whinning low-bottom male).

So, why won't this solution simply follow the logic: Same-sex/different-orientation and different-sex/same-orientation should be added to the pile. It's all the same, isn't it?

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.

I guess the thing is he did manage to "pass". Would his having been out have made it more difficult for his teammates than his being closeted made it for him? And is it right that the imposition was on him rather than his teammates?

My college roommate was a D1 athlete and there was an openly gay player on his team. The teammate was elected co-captain of the team so it obviously wasn't an issue for the rest of the team (and this was a sport that demanded a lot more physical fitness than baseball--those guys probably were actually physical specimens).

Knudson has a right to his feelings and a right to express those feelings. At the very least. What he is striving to explain is his feeling that his privacy has been invaded. You may argue this has always existed as to confusion in private settings of the two sexual orientations. But when gays were in the closet this allow his psyche to create a border for a feeling of safety and security. Such as with women having their privacy in these public areas.

Thus, there may not be anything to be done about that. However, there is an issue of expression. Just as many censure not the belief but the expression of the belief (for instance, you can believe that males are in some ways subject to prejudice and discrimnation but how dare it be articulated here among the better people, much less a case made for that, you stupid whinning low-bottom male).

i think that is 98% wrong.

think of it this way, if you're okay with sharing a locker room with a gay teammate so long as he's in the closet, then the issue isn't that there's a gay teammate in your locker room, it's the anticipation at being consciously aware of there being a gay teammate in your locker room. but the thing about that is that just about everyone who would be okay with having a closeted teammate would adjust to having an openly gay teammate within a week because after a couple of days, the anticipation and awareness of the situation will just fade into the background.

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.

Wow. The Thought Police are everywhere.

Knudson certainly has the right to his opinion, and I suppose I'd support his or any athlete's decision to make their millions elsewhere.** It's curious, though, how "teamness" isn't harmed by religious or political bloviation, even tho one of our posters here his his stories of religious ignorance/intolerance that wouldn't have been contributing to teamicity.

** Factor in the question of what the #### else most of these guys are going to do for a paycheck like even MLB minimum and just how many won't go all tolerant on you?

@54: quite the opposite; it's when there's a way to prevent others from sexually desiring you that the thought police are "everywhere."

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.

Meh. He's making the same argument that's been made for centuries about allowing "them" to join "us", especially in "team" situations. African-Americans and women in the army brought forward basically the same arguments (although not the "I don't want them checking me out" argument against African-Americans; and in the case of women it was twisted the other way that the guys would be distracted, get jealous, etc).

And this is extreme to the point of absurd (and not sociologically-grounded):

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.

and this is not sociologically-grounded either:

We should salute Esera Tuaolo and other gay athletes who are able to keep their sexual orientation private during their playing days. It’s got to be very difficult to do, and yet it’s what’s best for the team.

With that one notice who has to take one for the team. Rather than Knudson and those like him swallowing their discomfort with an openly gay person in the locker room for the good of the team, the gay person should stay closeted.

And if one's teammates in all their noble teamness won't accept you, who will?

Teams are being asked to change. He's saying change is bad because it's disruptive. It's the argument that's trotted out every time the status quo is defended and here, as in most cases, it's really nothing more than "sociological" cover for defending a status quo that is more comfortable for the speaker.

It's not a reasonable position because (a) the history of ethnic and gender inclusion shows it hasn't been disruptive to "teamness" and (b) even if true, the problem lies with those who feel uncomfortable with gays on the team, not the gay people who live open lives.

Very good post, Walt.

@54: quite the opposite; it's when there's a way to prevent others from sexually desiring you that the thought police are "everywhere."

Exactly. You can think whatever you want abo0ut another person having the hots for you - be offended, outraged, flattered if you want, that's entirely your right. The other person gets to think whatever they like about you though, including having the hots for you.

This is basically the exact opposite of "thought police".

This is basically the exact opposite of "thought police".

I misread the multiple negatives in your post to mean that you thought that such a "right not to be lusted after" existed (it's the weekend and I really don't feel like doing any more Boolean calculations). I re-read it enough times that it is clear now. I retract my snide remark.

Knudson has a right to his feelings and a right to express those feelings. At the very least. What he is striving to explain is his feeling that his privacy has been invaded. You may argue this has always existed as to confusion in private settings of the two sexual orientations. But when gays were in the closet this allow his psyche to create a border for a feeling of safety and security. Such as with women having their privacy in these public areas.

It's an interesting situation, but I guess in terms of privacy the knowledge of being spied upon might be more damaging than the actual spying. So the effective Peeping Tom who plies his craft undetected causes less damage because the subject never is aware they have been spied upon.

How about gay guys who don't want other people checking them out? They can't dress with the guys, can't dress with heterosexual women. About all they can do is pair off with a single lesbian.

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.

People keep ignoring the crux. It's not about thought. It's about place. Women know men think about them. They know they serve as masturbatory fodder. That doesn't make the issue of sharing intimate accommodations irrelevant. But, if you believe that, let's integrate all the places where the sexes are kept separate. Why does this keep whistling pass people's ears?

You know, it never occurred to me to be uncomfortable changing in front of a gay guy. I don't mean 'I wasn't uncomfortable', I mean 'I'd never thought about it until right now', though I've shared locker rooms, etc... with gays in the past and had read stories like this one many times before. (As mentioned in another thread, changing with/in front of women was a different story, more of an eyes down and get out of town scenario - though not a problem or anything and I'd still chat back and forth with them and such.) Maybe I'm heretonormative, maybe just egocentric (I don't care if someone might be attracted to me, I do care if I could find them attractive?) - ultimately, though, I treated people and teammates with respect and felt no less kinship with them regardless of what they wanted to do with whom and their whatevers in their free time.
I don't think that's too much to ask from a big league athlete, either - particularly compared to asking people to hide or deny a core part of who they are.

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.

Hockey players are by and large in better shape, and there are some lookers in the NHL. But by god no one does ugly like hockey.

Ach, never mind.

This is an interesting topic to me because I went to boarding school for high school and at my school there were dorms for women and dorms for men. If you wanted to go to a girls' dorm, there were a bunch of restrictions such as both the girls and guys being at least second semester sophomores, a requirement that doors stay open and specific times of days that interdorm visitation could occur, as well as a sign in procedure with the faculty member on duty and minimum of 3 feet on the floor. All of this was done in an effort to discourage sexual activity and I never thought much of it because I could always find my way around the rules. However, I did start thinking about it when I became aware that a friend of a friend was an openly gay female and was able to hook up with other females without jumping through any hoops as far as rules and without fear of repercussion if caught.

Obviously, the situation is different from TFA, but I think it touches on a somewhat similar general idea. So many of the policies we have regarding the genders, as far as locker rooms, dorm rooms, etc. are hetero-normative and to what extent should these things change since OMG gay people exist?

People keep ignoring the crux. It's not about thought. It's about place. Women know men think about them. They know they serve as masturbatory fodder. That doesn't make the issue of sharing intimate accommodations irrelevant. But, if you believe that, let's integrate all the places where the sexes are kept separate. Why does this keep whistling pass people's ears?

It's an interesting question to ask although I would say you're missing the crux, which is that Knudson is not arguing that gay men should not be allowed to shower with the rest of the team, but rather that they should be able to continue to do so but should hide their gayness (and that having to do so would avoid awkward moments and contribute to the atmosphere of "teamness"). So it is really a question of thought rather than place.

In response to your question, I think that the unequal power dynamics (physical as well as social) between men and women make that situation different from the question of a gay player in an all-male locker room. I would also suggest that the overwhelmingly male contributors to this thread might not be the best people to ask your question, and that might be why you're getting few responses.

People keep ignoring the crux. It's not about thought. It's about place. Women know men think about them. They know they serve as masturbatory fodder. That doesn't make the issue of sharing intimate accommodations irrelevant. But, if you believe that, let's integrate all the places where the sexes are kept separate. Why does this keep whistling pass people's ears?

Other than being a pervert, I have no idea why you would go in that direction, rather than the obvious one. Every person should be able to decide for themselves which parts of their body they want to expose to which people (insert flasher joke here). It's trivial for an organization such as MLB to accommodate that. Expanding a system where others have to expose themselves to people they don't want to, is the exact opposite of what we should be doing.

And as a straight man, I would very much appreciate it, if you made full use of that option. I really have no desire to see your 5 incher flopping around at the gym. You'd be doing me a huge courtesy.

This is an interesting topic to me because I went to boarding school for high school and at my school there were dorms for women and dorms for men. If you wanted to go to a girls' dorm, there were a bunch of restrictions such as both the girls and guys being at least second semester sophomores, a requirement that doors stay open and specific times of days that interdorm visitation could occur, as well as a sign in procedure with the faculty member on duty and minimum of 3 feet on the floor. All of this was done in an effort to discourage sexual activity and I never thought much of it because I could always find my way around the rules. However, I did start thinking about it when I became aware that a friend of a friend was an openly gay female and was able to hook up with other females without jumping through any hoops as far as rules and without fear of repercussion if caught.

Yet another example of special privileges for favored minority groups!

67. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: March 04, 2013 at 11:09 AM (#4380099)

People keep ignoring the crux. It's not about thought. It's about place. Women know men think about them. They know they serve as masturbatory fodder. That doesn't make the issue of sharing intimate accommodations irrelevant. But, if you believe that, let's integrate all the places where the sexes are kept separate. Why does this keep whistling pass people's ears?

- here we go again

there are not coed changing rooms/males allowed in female locker rooms because females are uncomfortable/embarrassed enough about having to be nekkid in front of other females but frightened about hwving to do that in front of other males. because we've gotten used to males having masturbatory thoughts about females but we FEEL safer with clothes ON. and with YALLS clothes on. it is a rape/power thing.

but morty is the kind of guy who thinks that old guys screwing 12-16 year olds is kewl, so there is no talking to a mind like that

when you get in large groups of males and females, there aren't problems like this, although i would bet there were/are BITGOD when females were kept in a small powerless group and had to put up with sexual crap from males or quit/get fired

i have asked some former male athletes about gay guys on the team and have heard pretty much that either they thought/knew that some guy was gay and it wasn't a problem because the gay guy didn't either drool over his junk or come on to him.

I don't like nobody touching my stuff. So just keep your meat-hooks off. If I catch any of you guys in my stuff, I'll kill you. Also, I don't like nobody touching me. Now, any of you homos touch me, and I'll kill you.

Lighten up, Francis.

minimum of 3 feet on the floor

The mind simply boggles at the possibilities.

But why are they showering like it's 1899?

This is what I don't get, they spend millions of dollars on these athletes, why do they have to shower as if the place of employment can't afford to spend a few thousands to upgrade the shower facilities? If it's all about the showers, then it should be a non-factor at all.

He's making the same argument that's been made for centuries about allowing "them" to join "us"

First thing I thought when reading this article, is that I have heard this argument before. It's given out by people who want to restrict, while pretending to be open. As pointed out, same article could have been written about the military (femals, blacks and gays). I just don't see how it's that big of a deal. Most guys who have taken a few dozen showers with other guys, just stop caring about what is going on around them, and get to the task at hand. Any trepidation or worry is gone after about a week with the same group of guys anyway.

Besides, having openly gay is probably less stressful than closeted gay if you are worried about that stuff. If being open allows you to know who is gay, and it's going to bother you, then you can time your shower visits to avoid the openly gay guy if you want. Versus having closeted gay guys means "who knows who is checking out your junk?".. I would rather be in the know than guessing(assuming I would care)

If a gay player is openly predatoring on his teammates, the problem isn't that he's gay, it's that he's openly predatoring on his teammates.

Most guys who have taken a few dozen showers with other guys, just stop caring about what is going on around them, and get to the task at hand. Any trepidation or worry is gone after about a week with the same group of guys anyway.

This completely misses the issue being raised.

If a gay player is openly predatoring on his teammates, the problem isn't that he's gay, it's that he's openly predatoring on his teammates.

And I'd love to see what would happen to the first player who tried that. That alone would be an obvious deterrent to any gay player trying to act out his fantasies.

I think the excerpt unquoted in 71 gives you a good idea what might happen.

Ach, never mind.

I just go through life assuming everyone wants to look at my junk. The gay guys can get in line.

If a gay player is openly predatoring on his teammates, the problem isn't that he's gay, it's that he's openly predatoring on his teammates.

I've very occasionally been in situations where an openly gay man has been aggressive, even belligerently so, in the pursuit of other men. In situations involving nudity it is indeed unpleasant, but the answer isn't excluding gay men from locker rooms, or telling them to keep their homosexuality to themselves; the answer should be more along the lines of how we discourage harassment in situations involving heterosexuals.

Ach, never mind.

No, no, I want to hear your response to BBC.


minimum of 3 feet on the floor
The mind simply boggles at the possibilities.

Yeah, this is a rule thought up by people with very little.... knowledge.

People keep ignoring the crux. It's not about thought. It's about place. Women know men think about them. They know they serve as masturbatory fodder. That doesn't make the issue of sharing intimate accommodations irrelevant. But, if you believe that, let's integrate all the places where the sexes are kept separate.

I agree. We should get over our ridiculous hangups about nudity, and that won't happen for as long as we segregate the sexes. Build your showers with little dressing room areas and there will be privacy for those who desire it.

And as a straight man, I would very much appreciate it, if you made full use of that option. I really have no desire to see your 5 incher flopping around at the gym. You'd be doing me a huge courtesy.

If you can measure someone's junk in the locker room with that degree of precision, I'm getting the idea that you really do want to see it.

there are not coed changing rooms/males allowed in female locker rooms because females are uncomfortable/embarrassed enough about having to be nekkid in front of other females but frightened about hwving to do that in front of other males. because we've gotten used to males having masturbatory thoughts about females but we FEEL safer with clothes ON. and with YALLS clothes on. it is a rape/power thing.

Someone could make the same sort of argument based on a belief that homosexual males are predatory. Men do rape other men on occasion.

Most men aren't rapists, and the fact that some are isn't really a good reason for segregation.

Someone could make the same sort of argument based on a belief that homosexual males are predatory. Men do rape other men on occasion. Most men aren't rapists, and the fact that some are isn't really a good reason for segregation.Most men aren't rapists, and the fact that some are isn't really a good reason for segregation.

It is noted that you don't find that "some" a notable number, but enough women do to appreciate not having to be naked in front of strange men.

If you're going to equate the frequency of men raping men with men raping women to make your argument, that's fine, but it's just not smart.

It is noted that you don't find that "some" a notable number, but enough women do to appreciate not having to be naked in front of strange men.

Don't put words in my mouth. I think "one" is a notable number, as in "one too many."

I'd also point out that it's much more than just rape statistics that drives this idea of segregated locker rooms. It's a cultural attitude toward certain body parts as exclusively sexualized. It's the same sort of reason people oppose breastfeeding in public.

I also think there's bit of lousy logic going on here, that unfairly paints men as beasts incapable of self-control. It's like the mere sight of naked woman flesh will drive men into a frenzy of uncontrollable sexual desire. My honest belief is that a coeducational locker room would, if anything, reduce the sexualization of the female form in our society, and I think that's a very good thing to be striving for.

If you're going to equate the frequency of men raping men with men raping women to make your argument, that's fine, but it's just not smart.

I'm not equating anything. I thought "on occasion" made it clear that I was talking about something relatively rare, but I could see how it looked sarcastic rather than matter of fact in text.

I'm saying that if a subsection of the population has a particular characteristic that it's unfair to brand the entire population with that characteristic. Over 25% of black men serve some time in prison. Is it really ever appropriate to segregate based on race because of this sizable minority? What if, based on these statistics, someone doesn't feel as safe around black men as he or she would around white men, and won't take a black man as a roommate? Is that reasonable?

Someone could make the same sort of argument based on a belief that homosexual males are predatory. Men do rape other men on occasion.

My old newspaper's executive editor decreed that men couldn't be raped, period. Also, there were no such things as neo-Nazis or racism.

Why, yes, he did fancy himself a libertarian.

Stupid double post.

People keep ignoring the crux. It's not about thought. It's about place. Women know men think about them. They know they serve as masturbatory fodder....

I found this funny, as the phrasing made it sound like it signaled a real difference between the sexes. I doubt women do this any less often than men do.