Yeah, enough with this whole homosexual fad!

Ah never mind. I misread it as McCarthy having a problem with them showing two guys kissing. I guess I've just been conditioned in this Twitter era to not be surprised if a pro athlete did vocalize his displeasure with such a thing.

I tried to edit that into my original post, but BBTF must be anti-kissing cam, too, because it won't publish the edit.

McCarthy being 'accused' of being gay in 3-2-1...

McCarthy is one of my favorite big leaguers. This doesn't hurt that status.

wait ... this is an athlete expressing a nuanced view about homophobia? shut my mouth.

Good for him.

S'funny, I thought "Some Like it Hot" was held to be the greatest comedy ever by some people. But now I know, it's just offensive!!

He's so damn likable.

Is there anything contradictory about "just offensive" and "held to be the greatest comedy ever by some people"? There are people that love There's Something About Mary.

S'funny, I thought "Some Like it Hot" was held to be the greatest comedy ever by some people. But now I know, it's just offensive!!

I'm glad you are able to discern that there is no notable difference between a 50-year old movie and the modern stadium kiss cam. Not everyone has that kind of nuance.


Good for McCarthy.

Beyond that, anyone who has seen "Some Like It Hot" knows that an extremely small part of the comedy derives from anything resembling homophobia. Most of the comedy is stuff like Cary Grant on the boat with Marilyn or the various bits involving the mafia. If anything, the movie seems incredibly comfortable with the concept of homosexuality for a film as old as it is.

We had a huge thread on this a year or two ago.

Honest, non-trolling question: When male actors kiss each other (on SNL or whatever) kiss each other to comedic effect, is it equally offensive?

"Some Like it Hot" was held to be the greatest comedy ever by some people.

Do those people know that many studios continued to make movies even after the Eisenhower administration?

Beyond that, anyone who has seen "Some Like It Hot" knows that an extremely small part of the comedy derives from anything resembling homophobia. Most of the comedy is stuff like Cary Grant on the boat with Marilyn or the various bits involving the mafia. If anything, the movie seems incredibly comfortable with the concept of homosexuality for a film as old as it is.

Well sure. But let's not sell short the multi-layered comedic genius of the LOL! GAY!!! kiss-cam joke.

If anything, the movie seems incredibly comfortable with the concept of homosexuality for a film as old as it is.

Yup.

PF - obviously, it depends on context. I think the particularly problematic thing, humor-wise, is "gay panic" - when the joke is that the man (usually it's a man) is horrified, just horrified that he might be thought to be gay. That's comedy based in and reinforcing homophobia. The kiss cam is a problem because it's seeking to produce the "gay panic" reaction.

I think the particularly problematic thing, humor-wise, is "gay panic" - when the joke is that the man (usually it's a man) is horrified beyond all reason that he might be thought to be gay. That's comedy based in and reinforcing homophobia. The kiss cam is a problem because it's seeking to produce the "gay panic" reaction.

Whereas the joke of the final line in Some Like It Hot isn't even that Joe E. Brown is gay. It's that he's really surprisingly open-minded about that sort of thing.

The kiss cam is a problem because it's seeking to produce the "gay panic" reaction.

No. Like the end of "Some Like it Hot", the comedy (like most comedy) is the unexpected juxtaposition. It's just funny because it's (supposed) to be unexpected.

If we stop every GD time to ponder "Wait, why am I laughing?", then nothing will be funny.

"A guy riding a nuclear weapon? That's not funny! Do you think the people in Hiroshima think that's funny? Besides, it's offensive to southerners."

"Michael Palin in A Fish Called Wanda?? My father stutters, and I was mortified to see that movie! And the animal treatment! WTF is funny about squishing a helpless dog? Or a poor old woman dying of a heart attack? My grandmother died of heart disease!"

"Blazing Saddles????" (marches off to burn books and protest.)

My oldest friend and I literally met when we were infants. At the ballpark, we popped up on the video screen (not a Kiss Cam). We pretended to embrace and kiss. Way too many people reacted with something approaching existential horror.

Besides, it's offensive to southerners.

We might have to worry about that, if they ever got electricity below the Mason-Dixon Line.

16- Couldn't you argue that laughing at the guy who is afraid that people will think he is gay is actually transgressive in that it makes homophobia itself (on the part of the guy on camera) the butt of the joke?

Honest, non-trolling question: When male actors kiss each other (on SNL or whatever) kiss each other to comedic effect, is it equally offensive?

I would say usually not, though I'm sure there are examples to the contrary, because in SNL's case anyway most of those sketches aren't hommophobic or anti-gay at all - instead, they're exploiting the audiences' homophobic instincts. It might sound like splitting hairs to some people, but that's satire for you.

Then again, while I think McCarthy's comments are admirable, I don't actually see what's "offensive" about the kiss-cam; the "joke" works just as well for anyone who's not a couple. For example, I've seen instances where the cameramen found a man and woman who they assumed were a couple, but they emphatically push each other away instead of kissing. Maybe they were just friends, or related, or whatever, but it gets the same kind of reaction from the crowd as when they show two men.

It's just kind of a dumb bit - or, like McCarthy says, it "got old". But here we are, it's 2012 and people still do the ####### "YMCA" at sporting events, so I guess complaining about the offensiveness of the kiss-cam is as good a way as any to get rid of the thing. In that sense, I fully (though not 100% sincerely) endorse the attempts to turn it into a PC issue. Come to think of it, the "YMCA" seems pretty homophobic as well.

If we stop every GD time to ponder "Wait, why am I laughing?", then nothing will be funny.

I think it's okay to occassionally stop to ponder "wait, why am I laughing?", especially when the answer is "Because being gay is disgusting".

Come to think of it, the "YMCA" seems pretty homophobic as well.

(Insert Bleacher Creature snark)

Oh, I'm sure some day, some teenage boy will be featured at the end of a Kiss-Cam Joke, get bullied for it...and that will be the end of the Kiss-Cam.

Now, I'm sure on the face of it, that sounds like a good idea to stop the Kiss Cam, but the problem is bullying. Just as I'm sure bullying hasn't stopped in New Yankee Stadium just because they stopped doing the YMCA bit. I sure do still hear "Asssssshollllllle" a few times a night for each game.

I think it's okay to occassionally stop to ponder "wait, why am I laughing?", especially when the answer is "Because being gay is disgusting".

Is that the answer to the question of "why is camp funny"? I'm really asking.

Whether or not I agree with them (in this case I certainly do), I always find it encouraging when players are relatively thoughtful. Makes me happier to be a fan (especially when they are not terrible at the sport, of course).

Smart guy like McCarthy, Granderson, Mussina... Love 'em.

Is that the answer to the question of "why is camp funny"?

MCoA answered this - it depends on the context.

When the kiss cam invariably ends up focusing on two players in the visitor's dugout (as it does at minor league games I've been to), it's not exactly a giagntic leap to "those guys on the other team are a bunch of fags".

The kiss cam is a problem because it's seeking to produce the "gay panic" reaction.

No. Like the end of "Some Like it Hot", the comedy (like most comedy) is the unexpected juxtaposition. It's just funny because it's (supposed) to be unexpected.

Yes, but like Yakov Smirnoff jokes or stupid puns, those kiss-cam two-men smooches aren't exactly "unexpected" after the 15th or 20th repetition. The first time is okay, but after that, you'd think they'd want to come up with something a bit more original.

Is that the answer to the question of "why is camp funny"? I'm really asking.

There's usually a lot of ironic distance embedded in camp. It's worth considering the source. You could argue that Chappelle's Show was racist, but you'd have to be intentionally missing the point. Maybe stadium camera-operators across the nation are using the kiss-cam to conduct a stairical examination of contemporary American gender roles, but I'm skeptical.

When the kiss cam invariably ends up focusing on two players in the visitor's dugout (as it does at minor league games I've been to), it's not exactly a giagntic leap to "those guys on the other team are a bunch of fags".

I can see that. Though I would have paid big money to see Mike Timlin and Tim Wakefield make out.

If we stop every GD time to ponder "Wait, why am I laughing?", then nothing will be funny.

Some dude on the BBC was making this point when talking about Steve Coogan criticizing the Top Gear guys for some Mexican jokes. Coogan seemed to be taking the "this offends me as a comedian" line. But the BBC fellow argued that Coogan and Ricky Gervais are effective comedians exactly because they do force you to think about why you're laughing at them. I guess it's less relevant in a debate over whether something is offensive or not. But if the more you think about something the less funny it is, that's a failing of the comedian, not the audience.

Couldn't you argue that laughing at the guy who is afraid that people will think he is gay is actually transgressive in that it makes homophobia itself (on the part of the guy on camera) the butt of the joke?

That's certainly possible, which is why context matters. "Gay panic" humor is based on the identification with the guy who's panicking about being perceived as gay. If his homophobia is the butt of the joke, that's not gay panic.

Dale once again has insisted that all humor is identical and thus criticism of one type of joke constitutes the end of comedy. He's consistent, but there doesn't seem to be much to engage with in his position. It's wrong, but he's probably just going to assert it baldly a third time.

Ricky Gervais

(Insert HUGE post about whether the "Extras" episode in which Gervais refuses to kiss a man on stage is funny or offensive)

Dale once again has concluded that all humor is identical and thus no one should ever say anything about humor. He's consistent.

I'm sure there are people who say the same thing about baseball...as terrifying as that is.

Is that the answer to the question of "why is camp funny"? I'm really asking.

Camp is funny because it's a burlesque of society. It's taking everyday relations and making them into a big performance. The enjoyment in camp - at least for a lot of people - is seeing our own little performances replayed in 1000x magnification.

(Insert HUGE post about whether the "Extras" episode in which Gervais refuses to kiss a man on stage is funny or offensive)

There are plenty of funny jokes made about people having overly negative (or overly positive or just weird) reactions to gay people or gay relationships. That's not the same as saying that gay people or gay relationships themselves are funny jokes.

(Insert HUGE post about whether the "Extras" episode in which Gervais refuses to kiss a man on stage is funny or offensive)

This is exactly what I mean. Gervais wants us to laugh, and then consider, "why is this funny?". I won't say his character in Extras is a sympathetic one. But he's a bit of the little-guy dreamer who never gets a fair shake. We're meant to be rooting for him. So we know he's not an entirely awful person. And yet he's clearly homophobic. I think we're meant to feel uncomfortable with how easily we might react the same way even though we don't think of ourselves as homophobic. Like most of Extras for me that scene is about making the audience uncomfortably aware of how, while we may share in Gervais' little-guy mentality, we also share in his more petty, ugly nature too.

Oh, I'm sure some day, some teenage boy will be featured at the end of a Kiss-Cam Joke, get bullied for it...and that will be the end of the Kiss-Cam.

Now, I'm sure on the face of it, that sounds like a good idea to stop the Kiss Cam, but the problem is bullying. Just as I'm sure bullying hasn't stopped in New Yankee Stadium just because they stopped doing the YMCA bit. I sure do still hear "Asssssshollllllle" a few times a night for each game.

Funny....I just finished reading an article about the Twins shooting a "It Gets Better" video before starting to read this thread. Seven other teams have already shot It Gets Better videos.....maybe they should show them immediately following the Kiss Cam, just to cover themselves.

That's certainly possible, which is why context matters. "Gay panic" humor is based on the identification with the guy who's panicking about being perceived as gay. If he's the butt of the joke, that's not gay panic.

And if the two guys don't even see that they're on the screen? (as often happens) People still laugh? Why? Because seeing two guys was unexpected.

There. I didn't dissapoint you MCOA.

But since *I'm* not being the pendantic ass in this convo, I will say I agree with you that trying to get two guys to go "HEY ! I'm no fag!" is across the line. I didn't come to this conclusion because MCarthy doesn't mention that (I think) and because I can't remember ever seeing that at a game. Usually they don't notice, or one guy just looks at the camera and slowly shakes his head to say "Really?"

I agree with Greg in 31 that the best comedians are the ones whose jokes get better as you think about them. Those often take the form of interrogating something you presumed to be true and never felt like you had any reason to give it a second thought. Louis CK is among the best at that now, even if I'm not breaking ground by saying it. I will say that it is interesting that his high brow style has reached such a wide audience.

Like most of Extras for me that scene is about making the audience uncomfortably aware of how,

"Extras" and most of both "Offices" is unwatchable for me. And exactly because I sympathize with the characters. I can't watch them put themselves in those positions.

Whereas Seinfeld never made me uncomfortable because those four arn't particularly nice people, and until the very end, usually come out on top. Even George. George lives a dream life compared to most tv characters.

Just because it is my job to turn the focus of every thread to the 17th century...

I hadn't thought of it before, but my reading of Extras is probably informed by research into charivari rituals where cuckolded men were shamed by the community. Some historians read the mocking laughter cuckolds inspired as somewhat anxious and a mask for an uncomfortable recognition that the object of all the derision could easily be themselves tomorrow.

I think some of the deepest laughter we have is when we recognize the absurdity, pettiness, or ugliness in the person we're laughing at as qualities we ourselves are ashamed to have. What I think makes Gervias great* is that he taps into this.

*fully conceding that at a certain level comedy is about preference. I'm not claiming he is objectively a great comedian.

Like most of Extras for me that scene is about making the audience uncomfortably aware of how, while we may share in Gervais' little-guy mentality, we also share in his more petty, ugly nature too.

this was larry david's shtick too. trouble is, he was so good at being an @sshole that i really lost all identification with his character to the point i lost interest in the show.

the unexpected juxtaposition. It's just funny because it's (supposed) to be unexpected

McCarthy has a good analysis of that theory, though. Why is showing two guys unexpected? Because the Cam operators don't look for ordinary gay couples who might kiss unironically. The assumption is that two same-sex people sitting next to each other must be (a) heterosexual and (b) mildly embarrassed but good sports about the whole thing. The humor is complicated, but it seems to be guaranteed by the Cam not really "thinking" the specific couple are gay, but thinking that being gay is essentially ridiculous.

Interestingly, I'm sure the operators have occasionally picked a brother and sister (sometimes an opposite-sex couple reacts in such uncomfortable fashion that something like that is going on). That seems "allowable," because accepting the imputation that you're a straight couple is always supposed to be OK, even when asserting it seriously would be a lethal insult.

I follow Brandon McCarthy on twitter. He's pretty amusing, and tweets some stuff that I imagine some teams wouldn't want.

And if the two guys don't even see that they're on the screen? (as often happens) People still laugh? Why? Because seeing two guys was unexpected.

It might be unexpected for those two guys if they see maybe 1 or 2 games a year with the kiss-cam, but I imagine seeing the same joke day-in day-out would make it a little less so, and I would guess makes one think a little more about what they're doing.

"Extras" and most of both "Offices" is unwatchable for me. And exactly because I sympathize with the characters. I can't watch them put themselves in those positions.

I certainly understand that sentiment. And to a certain degree even share it. At times when Gervais makes an utter prat of himself I literally have to look away for a moment or two.

I do love Seinfeld as well, in fact most of my friendships are modeled on the dynamic of those four. They're different kinds of comedies and both excellent (for me). Gervais' stuff is a bit more human (not necessarily better), and the pay-off you get at the end of the Extras Special would be worth it even if the entire two-season run had zero laughs. In fact, it's on youtube, I'll probably flick it on now and get a bit teared up.

<blockquote>McCarthy being 'accused' of being gay in 3-2-1...<blockquote>Even gay men would go straight for his wife. Yow.

I will say I agree with you that trying to get two guys to go "HEY ! I'm no fag!" is across the line.

This entirely contradicts your points above - we can, it turns out, ask why we find jokes funny, and try to tell better ones and non-homophobic ones.

I don't think the "unexpected" idea explains the laugh. What's unexpected? Gay people make up something like 2-5% of all folks. Pacific Islanders are a smaller percentage of the population, as are little people. Would it be funny to show them onscreen? They're statistically "unexpected". The joke on the kiss cam isn't that it's unexpected statistically, it's that being perceived as gay is funny for some reason. That's a joke still based in a kind of homophobia.

as are little people. Would it be funny to show them onscreen?

Yes. Yes it would.

not to be discounted is the general aversion, of many, to have their mug blasted on the jumbotron for all to see, whether or not they are on the screen with a spouse, partner, significant other, mistress or stranger.

on the screen with a spouse, partner, significant other, mistress or stranger.

what about a special lady friend?

I have always wanted the opportunity to be shown on a kiss cam next to another straight male then aggressively, graphically make out with him to see how fast they would give up on the joke even though it actually paid off.

The joke on the kiss cam isn't that it's unexpected statistically, it's that being perceived as gay is funny for some reason.

I disagree. The reaction is "Ha! Guys don't kiss!"*, not " Ha! Fags!"...and no it isn't the same ####### thing.

*Call that whatever you want. And good luck getting the whole of humanity to stop reacting like that. It's the same ####### thing you see a billion times in humor. From Laugh-In to Love American Style to whatever. When Arte Johnson kisses Joanne Worley, Goldie Hawn kisses Dan Rowan...and then Dan Rowen accidentally almost kisses Arte Johnson, the joke is not: "Let's laugh at gay people"

I disagree. The reaction is "Ha! Guys don't kiss!"*, not " Ha! Fags!"...and no it isn't the same ####### thing.

If the kiss cam did focus unknowingly on a gay male couple, the laughter, perhaps unintentionally, takes on a different meaning. And say this couple bravely kisses in front of everyone. What kind of reaction will this elicit?

not to be discounted is the general aversion, of many, to have their mug blasted on the jumbotron for all to see, whether or not they are on the screen with a spouse, partner, significant other, mistress or stranger.

The only time I was ever on a Kiss-Cam, I didn't know it until I heard my special lady friend - well, she's special, and a lady, and my friend, but she's not my "special lady friend" - say "Oh, HELL, no," from the adjacent seat.
Eventually I realized what was happening, but TOO LATE.
That's what I get for watching the field, and not the ####### DiamondVision screen.

What kind of reaction will this elicit?

Some will laugh, some will go "ewwwww", and MCOA (and others) will stand up on their seats and applaud.

I'm not defending Kiss-Cam, I'm attacking the cynical notion that everyone who laughs at two guys oblivious to being on the tail-end of Kiss-Cam are homophobes.

One of the more memorable parts of Ball Four is about Seattle Pilot players engaging gay burlesque activities. Involves players kissing each other. Yep, it turns serious. What happens finally is one guy has enough, loses his sense of humor, and punches another one. The conflict is neatly and believably resolved, although how this happens is only predictable in retrospect. I won't give away that resolution in case some here haven’t read the book—although why someone who hasn’t read the book is deserving of any sort of respectful consideration is debatable.

Whether they are homophobes or not, it's that persons pedal so hard to create a new taboo that I find interesting.

I have always wanted the opportunity to be shown on a kiss cam next to another straight male then aggressively, graphically make out with him to see how fast they would give up on the joke even though it actually paid off.

Remind me never to sit next to you at a game... :)

I have always wanted the opportunity to be shown on a kiss cam next to another straight male then aggressively, graphically make out with him to see how fast they would give up on the joke even though it actually paid off.

Something all of us in the NBA Thread will keep in mind in the event of a meetup.

Just because it is my job to turn the focus of every thread to the 17th century...

I would like to say it is this reason, and the awesome things that follow in that very post, that always make me look very much forward to reading your comments, Greg.

Greg's quirky history factoids actually had me looking up the admissions standards at History departments around the country for PhD programs. I was like, "hey, summers off, get paid to learn? What a great way to waste 6 years!"

I would like to say it is this reason, and the awesome things that follow in that very post, that always make me look very much forward to reading your comments, Greg.

Perhaps, um, you two should go to a ballgame together...

Hey, serious question: has anyone ever flipped off the KissCam?? Would that be grounds for ejection from the ballpark?

Hey, serious question: has anyone ever flipped off the KissCam??

I've always planned on going with The Shocker.

What PhD program gets summers off?

Even gay men would go straight for his wife. Yow.

Meh. She's okay.

Hey, serious question: has anyone ever flipped off the KissCam??

Has anyone on KissCam ever gone with Option J?

DB

Dan Rowen accidentally almost kisses Arte Johnson, the joke is not: "Let's laugh at gay people"

If that's not the joke, then what is the joke? And you can't say "Guys don't kiss," because they kiss girls all the time, I've seen them.

I hadn't thought of it before, but my reading of Extras is probably informed by research into charivari rituals where cuckolded men were shamed by the community.

This is the greatest thing ever.

"hey, summers off, get paid to learn? What a great way to waste 6 years!"

The pay for most grad students compares unfavorably to being a hobo, though.

She's okay.

you little ####!

"Blazing Saddles????" (marches off to burn books and protest.)

What, there's a book! Is it scratch and sniff?

I was like, "hey, summers off, get paid to learn? What a great way to waste 6 years!"

You're planning on the fast track then?

There is a thin line though. I like to point to Andrew Dice Clay. When he first started to break (and I assume before), his comedic personae was primarily someone to be laughed at. At some point in there (just before or after the start of the controversy, hard to tell), both he and the audience seemed to shift and it became humor that was intended to be laughed with. Pretty much the same script, entirely different humor. There's a PhD in there somewhere.

Similar but different is Married with Children which began as an over-the-top parody of the Cosby Show but quickly became a pathetic, bawdy comedy based on stereotypes. In neither case am I sure if it was the creators or the audience that changed first.

As to Gervais -- in the Office, I think that character is meant to be loathed. He is never really presented as sympathetic (the US version is quite different in this regard). It's perhaps the "cruelest" black comedy in TV history. "Extras" is a much different kettle of fish. Then there's that awful animated thing -- well, the one episode I watched was truly horrible and cringe-worthy.

Most of the comedy is stuff like Cary Grant on the boat with Marilyn

I can't believe no one has mentioned this yet, but:

Cary Grant?!?!? Cary Grant?!?!?!?

Tony Curtis says "**** you."

Whether or not I agree with them (in this case I certainly do), I always find it encouraging when players are relatively thoughtful.

Especially in 140 characters or less.

Tony Curtis says "**** you."

Well, he would. If he wasn't dead.

Cary Grant?!?!? Cary Grant?!?!?!?

What about him?

RE: Gervais - please keep in mind his great passion in life is now exposing the orange-shaped man with the flowing twaddle that is Count Mancula, or his Pilkington.

What PhD program gets summers off?

It's not full summers, but in each of my two summers as a PhD student I've taken a month off to wander around (last year Europe, this year Canada). My supervisors' reactions both times I asked for the time off was slightly amused confusion as to why I would even bother checking with them. I get the sense I could push for more time off, but I wouldn't want to push it too much. It seems that as long as you're reasonably up to speed on your work it's not a big deal.

The pay isn't great. All told (scholarship, part-time teaching, tuition, rent, food, travel etc.) for the three years I'll be here I'll come out of it a couple thousand behind. But I get to hang out in Europe for a few years and read books! (not to mention 17th century manuscripts. I'm giving a talk on how to read hand-writing in a couple weeks, which should be fun. Luckily at a teaching workshop to people with no background in history. I'm actually quite bad at transcribing some of them).

Plus I have flexible hours so I can get in about 8 hours of baseball a week, 10 if it's a double-header weekend. I'd definitely recommend it to anyone with a couple years to kill.

And thank you kindly Lassus and Mr. Fish. It's great to know someone's actually paying attention. I keep toying with the idea of moving the other way and introducing some Bill James into my thesis (I've actually got a passage that is somewhat relevant to 17th century masculinity and that I find helpful in organizing things), but I somehow doubt that would be as accepted.

I thought about this thread last night watching the Sox/Sox game. When Doubront was removed, he and Saltalamchiasdia attempted to hug, Salty thought better of it and it was a very awkward moment that was dwelt on by the Red Sox announcers for longer than was probably wise.

Wondered what the folks here thought about it.


Some really good stuff up above. I will say that, in my experience, straight men really don't find other men at all attractive and the idea of smooching up to one of them repulses. If you put me on kiss cam next to, say, any of my very best male friends, I would react with something akin to horror. I actually hug those guys fairly often but kissing them is horrifying (mostly because they don't shave enough and usually have bad breath (unlike me, of course)). You'd get the same reaction from me if you put me on kiss cam next to a decomposing fish.

Now, the big question is: if you put a gay man on kiss cam next to a woman, would he feel the same way? Would two women? I honestly don't know. I assume some would, some wouldn't, just as there are probably a fair number of straight men who aren't completely repulsed by the disgustingness that is a man. I also assume a fair number of gay men would find kissing a woman horrifying due to their repulsiveness.


I do think you can't overgeneralize this. I don't think everyone who finds two men on kiss cam funny thinks they're laughing at gays. They're laughing at other people being in an awkward spot, as either evidenced by their reaction or the viewer's perception of how they'd feel in the same spot. There are certainly some who are simply laughing "at the gays" but I don't think all. Nor do I think it's fair to put them all in the same boat.


After all of it, though, kiss cam just isn't very entertaining or funny. I have no idea why it lingers.

in my experience

That's the key to the whole thread. If this was Renaissance Art Think Factory we'd all be wondering what was up with those queers who couldn't cry while debating over whether to let Carvaggio into the Hall of Fame despite his off the canvas troubles. So much of this is driven by culture. As to the comment about gay guys kissing women, I have plenty of gay and lesbian friends who've had het encounters or relationships simply because it's the cultural norm and they were trying to meet that norm while figuring their orientation out. And that's totally ignoring that sexuality is a continuum with most people clustered at one end of the two poles, not a binary system.

I generally oppose kiss-cams on the principle that they don't ask the people if it's OK first. I don't feel comfortable putting people on the spot. If they ask "hey, can we kiss-cam you guys" then I think it's cute and passes the time as well as anything between innings.

I thought about this thread last night watching the Sox/Sox game. When Doubront was removed, he and Saltalamchiasdia attempted to hug, Salty thought better of it and it was a very awkward moment that was dwelt on by the Red Sox announcers for longer than was probably wise.

Wondered what the folks here thought about it.

I found it humorous from the standpoint of it being an unexpected event surprising someone. Had Saltalamacchia punched him or stormed off I would probably feel differently but it seemed more the surprise than the act of the hug itself. Watching the broadcast that was where Remy and Orsillo seemed to be getting their amusement from. I think the reactions of everyone (Saltalamacchia, Remy/Orsillo) would have been similar had Doubront tried some sort of involved Orlando Cabrera style handshake with Saltalamacchia and Saltalamacchia had recoiled from confusion.

I had a nearly identical experience though so that informs my opinion. About a year ago we hired a guy from Brazil and when he first came to town to sort out some visa issues after a lengthy discussion between him, his boss and I we all stood up and the Brazilian guy went to hug me. I reacted pretty much like Saltalamacchia in part from surprise and in part because I hate being touched. I had a similar reaction when a female employee hugged me after I came back from vacation. To this day she jokes that it was the only time she saw me scared.

After all of it, though, kiss cam just isn't very entertaining or funny.

The first time I saw it was a couple of years ago in Baltimore. It seemed to go through three quick phases; cutesy couples smooching...gay joke like what we've seen described...soft core porn where the couple is just a bit too enthusiastic.

It really wasn't funny at all.

Tony Curtis says "**** you."

Well, he would. If he wasn't dead.

He's so indignant at the error that he says it from beyond the grave.

I took the first Grant reference as recognition that Tony Curtis is doing a Grant impression the whole time he's romancing Monroe.

Has anyone on KissCam ever gone with Option J?

Don't know. But KissCam is the origin of the Option J reference.

And that's totally ignoring that sexuality is a continuum with most people clustered at one end of the two poles, not a binary system.

Now this I'd like to hear Greg(U)K's historian's take on (I also enjoy the 17th c. digressions).

My sense is that has varied in time and place. In the Classical world, it seems you had very few exclusive homosexuals, even though homosexual sex was not highly stigmatized, and in some places not stigmatized at all (Sparta, Thebes). Many people (at least in the upper classes) were bi-sexual. IIRC, Greg U(K) said the same was true in the 17th c.

It would be interesting to know how much the emergence of a specific gay culture in the last 100 years has shaped the tendency towards exclusively homosexual behavior. There could be two different phenomena going on: 1) people in the past felt the need to continue the family line, so acted bisexual even though they were exclusive in their preferences, or 2) people in the present feel the need to be exclusive homosexual to fit in with the gay culture.

Now this I'd like to hear Greg(U)K's historian's take on (I also enjoy the 17th c. digressions).

I thought you'd never ask!

I'd say "so much of this is driven by culture" is accurate. "Homosexual" as a type of person is itself a cultural construction, and a relatively recent one at that. Though perhaps I'm over-stepping in saying that, I know very little about modern sexual identities so I wouldn't want to wade into that whole thing. Before, say, the 19th century there was less of a distinction between (as a man) desire for males and desire for females. Sexual desire that over-rides sober, rational thought was unmanly whether it was desire for a man or desire for a woman. Succumbing to desire for other men was also a sin anyone was capable of, like murder or theft. There was no gay culture (which snapper points out is more of an exclusively modern phenomenom* for men to navigate, for good and ill), and sexual preference as a source of an individual's identity would most likely be considered non-sensical. Attraction to other men was theoretically a possibility all men faced, and wasn't by itself a problem. Acting on those desires was the sin. So in a sense the associations with sodomites were more tied to lack of will power than the sexual act itself.

James I is probably a good example of snapper's 1). Most likely in today's world he'd be considered a homosexual, but he did have a Queen who bore him three children. Perhaps he viewed sex with his wife as contradicting his nature and "doing his duty" to establish an heir to his thrones. Or perhaps he just viewed sex with his wife as a less fun version of what he was doing with his male favourites, not unlike how (presumably) some men find sex with their mistresses more worthwhile than sex with their wives, but they still do both. It's one of the problems historians have that someone like James isn't likely to record how he felt about the various people he had sex with, and what that sex meant to him, explicitly. To tie it into the larger conversation, humour is also a tricky subject in that way. People rarely record why they think things are funny (BTF threads aside...which I why I think BTF will one day be a fabulous resource for historians), so at times historians are at a loss when trying to grasp why things are so funny (ie. charivari rituals). I've always wanted in my spare time to compile an encyclopedia of all the jokes told in parliament in the early modern period. Obviously, most likely not the highest level comedians of the age operating, but there are a few who try their hand every now and then.

It wasn't a joke, but one of the funniest passages I came across in reading the 1628 parliamentry debates was, in the middle of a heated debate on the future of the current Western political system, one of the important MPs in the debate (I want to say Dudley Digges, but I forget) interrupted a speech to demand that they pass a rule stopping people from saving their seats while they want to the pub for lunch by putting their gloves on the bench. I can just picture arguments flying back and forth about the King's right to billet troops in the houses of citizens, or who had control over taxation, or the right to arbitrarily arrest citizens. And Dudley stands up red-faced and say "No! We have to settle this seat-saving issue NOW!"

*at least in terms of the English-speaking world, the first elements of something we might describe as gay culture appear in early 18th century "Molly Houses" in London.

Also, because I think I may have got off track there and not really addressed the whole spectrum/binary thing.

At least in the 17th century it might be more accurate to say that the important spectrum was between unbridled desire and restraint rather than what it was you were attracted to. In the case of James I he's not so much criticized for being attracted to young boys/men, he's criticized for letting that desire cloud his otherwise rational mind. It's interesting the way the Duke of Buckingham, his last and most hated favourite, is described. He's universally hailed as the most handsome man in England, and there's a sense in the libel poetry that criticized James of, "well of course he's attracted to Buckingham, just look at him! But a real King (or man) puts desire on the back-burner when matters of state are at hand".

Just a sample:

From such a smooth, and beardlesse chinn
As may provoke, or tempt to sinn
From such a hand whose moyst palme may
My soveraigne lead out of the way

There's not really a sense that being tempted by the young, attractive man is something pecuilar to the King. It's a trap all men have to be wary of.

Simonds D'Ewes description of him is interesting, in that in D'Ewes recollection of the 1620s Buckingham is the great villain that ruined the nation. And yet he uses his obvious physical charms as a positive. (It's especially interesting that he seems to use "effeminate" as a compliment.

"I saw every thing in him full of delicacy and handsome features; yea, his hands and face seemed to me, especially, effeminate and curious" and he was, of course evil "yet this I do suppose proceeded rather from some Jesuitical incendiaries about him, than from his own nature, which his very countenance promised to be affable and gentle”

Unrelated, but I just came across this in my notes on one of the rare libel poems that's supportive of Buckingham. While leading an attack on the French the poet has him say this to his rallying troops:
"Theres nothinge fearefull in itt but our feare"

EDIT: Turns out the MP steamed over the gloves, seat-saving fiasco was Chancellor of the Duchy Humphrey May. Odd that I'd forget as he's my favourite 1620s MP.

I obviously know nothing about it, but my first thought when I saw your description of the seat-saving thing was that it was a brilliant stratagem to derail the debate by acting like a buffoon.

That would actually fit with who May was. He was actually the one member of the "Royalist"* side that was at least semi-trusted by the "Opposition" and at times gave only lukewarm support for the Crown's positions. In other words, seemingly the only man out of hundreds whose primary goal was compromise. It could have been a fiendishly clever plan to get the debate off a clear course towards disaster.

...or maybe he had a bit of a headache that day and had just had enough.

*using over-simplified terms here that would probably get me yelled at by Civil War historians, but I'll assume I can get away with it here.

Fascinating stuff Greg.

Attraction to other men was theoretically a possibility all men faced, and wasn't by itself a problem. Acting on those desires was the sin. So in a sense the associations with sodomites were more tied to lack of will power than the sexual act itself.

This part especially rings true with the traditional Christian teaching about homosexuality; it's no different than any other temptation, and being tempted isn't sinful, giving in is.

Odd that I'd forget as he's my favourite 1620s MP.

"Lord Palmerston!"...ohh..MP. "Lord Palmerston!"

Pitt the Elder!

Greg (U)K, have you read John Dickson Carr's The Murder of Sir Edmund Godfrey?

No I haven't. It looks like a good old detective approach to history, which can be quite entertaining. It's a bit past my area of expertise by a generation or two. I believe it's the grand-father (or possible his brother) of the Pembroke in that episode that plays a large role in my period. (it's a bit silly how narrowly things get focused in grad school!)

Paul Murray Kendall's epilogue on the fate of the princes in his Richard III book is one example of that kind of writing I enjoyed.

Yes, that's what it is. Carr was a great writer of classical detection fiction--in fact, the main exponent of the locked room/miracle murder--and something of a history student. Barzun and Taylor in their Catalogue of Crime called Edmund Godfrey Carr's masterpiece, "rereadable indefinitely". Combined with a general admiration for the literary period, and specifically for Dryden's Absalom and Achetophel, I developed an interest in the Restoration period for a while (especially for the sly reprobate Charles II; Carr's brilliant at describing how Charles outmaneuvers his opponents in that crisis),the other bookend of the 17th century. I was just wondering. Carr's book is a wonderful read--frightening, too. Makes you appreciate the improvements brought about by liberal democracy.

Wiki has a nice entry on the affair:

Edmund Godfrey

Makes you appreciate the improvements brought about by liberal democracy.

One of my profs has kick-start strategy for seminars when no one appears to want to talk. He picks an activity and asks the students to piece together how one would do that in the early modern or medieval period. Get from Nottingham to Paris, court a lady, and one of my favourites, how you'd go about getting a guy prosecuted for killing/stealing something of yours.

I'm actually just reading up on the 1641-2 crisis in preparation for a seminar I'm teaching Tuesday. That one's kind of a lesson in how not to handle a crisis. The first Charles really had a knack for bungling every single crisis he came across. I'm thinking the passionate speeches and armed stand-offs in parliament would make for a good mini-series...but I still need to work on that 1914 July Crisis mini-series I've wanted to see for ages.

Yes, that's what it is. Carr was a great writer of classical detection fiction--in fact, the main exponent of the locked room/miracle murder--and something of a history student.

I'm reading one of his books right now, thanks to older books being priced reasonably on Kindle. Nobody tell me how "He Who Whispers" ends!

Just a tip: read his earlier stuff first (see Wikipedia for the publishing sequence). He published his first novel in 1930. Those that have the detective Dr. Gideon Fell (modeled after G. K. Chesterton) were written under his name. Those with detective Sir Henry (H. M.) Merrivale (modeled on Winston Churchill) were written under the pseudonym Carter Dickson.

The Judas Window (Henry Merrivale) by Carter Dickson is particularly good. Maybe his best.

The Hollow Man (aka The Three Coffins) and The Crooked Hinge by John Dickson Carr (Fell) are excellent.

Carr, starting around 1950 wrote some popular historical fiction, combining derring do with a mystery. The mystery is no longer up to the high standards he earlier set, but he knew how to plot, create atmosphere, and use historical detail.

Carr's short stories are almost uniformly excellent, although a few, like The Gentleman from Paris, are overrated. The House in Goblin Wood is very good, as is the novella The Third Bullet. During WWII he was successful at radio plays. His sense of humor was good, although broad, and some critics at one time thought P. G. Wodehouse was the actual author of some of the novels.

The Judas Window (Henry Merrivale) by Carter Dickson is particularly good. Maybe his best.

The Hollow Man (aka The Three Coffins) and The Crooked Hinge by John Dickson Carr (Fell) are excellent.

I've read those already!