BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Jered Weaver would support a gay teammate and other musings from a Robert Fick-Dmitri Young vodcast

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Jered Weaver would support a gay teammate and other musings from a Robert Fick-Dmitri Young vodcast

While Fickface remains a ########.

It’s admirable that Fick raised the topic, even if his opinion is just as repugnant:

“I can’t meet gays in… I don’t want a gay athlete, baseball player, in my clubhouse. It would be ... uncomfortable for me,” said Fick, who also dropped a crude anti-gay slur twice in the first 20 minutes of the show, later couching his statements with “I have some gay friends and it’s all good.”

The actual good news was, the Weavers didn’t agree.

“Just let ‘em be whatever they are. As long as they can hit or pitch, come on in,” Jeff Weaver said.

The best news was, Jered Weaver probably will be playing baseball for a long time, and would have some influence once an active major leaguer finally comes out. This is what he said:

“If you’re hitting .300 with 40 and 140, bring ‘em on, you know?”

“I think it would just be a shock at first, but it’s still your teammate in the long run.”

“They worked just as hard as us to get up to where we’re at.”

It’s not utopian, but at least it’s practical. Fick backed down a little, saying he probably would get used to having a gay teammate. He’s done playing, so we’ll never know. Young added a wince-inducing: “As long as he’s not trying to crack my back in the shower…” before following up with “To me, people are people so it doesn’t bother me.”

Repoz Posted: January 31, 2013 at 05:48 AM | 215 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: media

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 >

1. jacjacatk Posted: January 31, 2013 at 08:38 AM (#4358847)

Fick had 360 MLB teammates, played on 12 different MiLB teams in 9 seasons, and played HS and College ball in California. Does he really think he hasn't already shared a locker room with a gay athlete?

2. Xander Posted: January 31, 2013 at 09:07 AM (#4358866)

Robert Fick? This is the guy who didn't mind sticking out the occasional elbow as he ran down the first base line?

3. Jeff Francoeur's OPS Posted: January 31, 2013 at 09:21 AM (#4358878)

As long as they can hit or pitch, come on in,”

Giggity.

4. Transmission Posted: January 31, 2013 at 09:23 AM (#4358883)

Fick and Young both sound like prejudiced men who are just self-aware enough to realize that their prejudice isn't quite socially acceptable any more, and so add these "it's all good" and "it doesn't bother me" qualifiers on to the end of their bigoted statements in clumsy efforts to demonstrate that they're not beyond the new mainstream. It's a baby-step toward a world where they realize they'd be better served by just STFU.

5. There are a lot of good people in alt-Shooty

Posted: January 31, 2013 at 09:27 AM (#4358886)

I don't think Dmitri Young has too much to worry about when it comes to gay men making a pass at him...

6. Rusty Priske Posted: January 31, 2013 at 10:00 AM (#4358919)

The fact that a headline like that could be news is sad.

There are only two sorts of people in this discussion.

Those that 'would support a gay teammate'

and

Those who are ####### scumbags

The fact that the latter exist makes me sad...

7. Covfefe Posted: January 31, 2013 at 10:02 AM (#4358924)

I don't think Dmitri Young has too much to worry about when it comes to gay men making a pass at him...

Bears get lovin, too...

8. Nasty Nate Posted: January 31, 2013 at 10:15 AM (#4358933)

And Fick wore a wooly fur hat...

9. Random Transaction Generator Posted: January 31, 2013 at 10:25 AM (#4358945)

If there is anything I've learned from American political statements about homosexuality, it's that it seems pretty obvious to me that Robert Fick is, in fact, gay.

10. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: January 31, 2013 at 10:31 AM (#4358950)

Fick - 37
Young - 38
Weaver - 30

What you're seeing his is the same generational shift you see in the population at large, with some holdover in the manly-man segments that necessarily skew the data set of professional athletes.

11. Crosseyed and Painless Posted: January 31, 2013 at 10:31 AM (#4358952)

Rob Fick and Dmitri Young? I can't imagine too many Tigers fans tune into this. Come for the flashbacks to the bad old years, stay for the homophobia!

12. Greg K Posted: January 31, 2013 at 10:33 AM (#4358955)

Jered Weaver is 30?
Wow, I still think of him as a young pitcher.

13. kthejoker Posted: January 31, 2013 at 10:41 AM (#4358959)

C'mon, Rusty. You're going to call guys scumbags who were probably raised their whole lives to think being gay was a mortal sin / disgusting / a sign of weakness / whatever? Do you think they're all just going to change their minds overnight? Just "get with the times"?

My grandpa still drops the n-word like it's nothing. He's not a scumbag, he's just set in his ways and no amount of social reconditioning is going to magically transform him into a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

So could we stop with the namecalling? It is, ironically, really intolerant of other people's situations. Your last sentiment sums up the correct emotion: pity.

Oh, and a dash of hope could be thrown in there ...

14. Esoteric Posted: January 31, 2013 at 10:41 AM (#4358960)

Rob Fick and Dmitri Young? I can't imagine too many Tigers fans tune into this.

It's funny you should say that, because Robert Fick and Dmitri Young are a "flashback to the bad old years" for Nationals fans as well -- they played together during our nadir seasons.

This is a generational thing.

15. Copronymus Posted: January 31, 2013 at 10:44 AM (#4358963)

I can't imagine too many Tigers fans tune into this.

Another site where I read a recap of this mentioned that the previous episode had 4 views. I don't think too many of anyone is actually watching these.

16. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: January 31, 2013 at 10:49 AM (#4358967)

Jered Weaver is 30?

Yeah, I still have him penciled in as Jeff's punk kid brother. Maybe 25-26, tops.

17. The District Attorney Posted: January 31, 2013 at 10:51 AM (#4358971)

I wish there would just be a bunch of out gay "Big 4 team sports" athletes already. Partially because it would represent progress in the world. Partially because then I wouldn't have to hear all these athletes' hypotheticals about how they might act if it happened. Maybe leaning towards the latter, at this point...

18. base ball chick Posted: January 31, 2013 at 11:13 AM (#4358999)

i can understand all those macho sports guys being terrified of the homosex. i mean, just one look at their manliness and they all be converted to instant homos. it's how it spreads. just like vampires you know - made not born. and have to slink about going out only at night. so what's gonna happen in day games??? hmmmmmmm???

i wish that more of the guys who are dmeat hook's age just said - played with gay guys - shrug - like, so what. i know some ball player who is a big time Ultra Christian - was it smoltzie - said something like that and it didn't get enough pub.

but times really are changing - the guys just coming up are not so freaked by guys coming out. guys grow up with gay parents, gay friends, friends gay parents. it's like - whatever. although unfortunately homo haters are still too loud and proud in high schools. i hope that very very soon that gay people will not have to come out as gay any more than we do as White, Black, Hispanic, Asian

19. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: January 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM (#4359009)

i wish that more of the guys who are dmeat hook's age just said - played with gay guys - shrug - like, so what. i know some ball player who is a big time Ultra Christian - was it smoltzie - said something like that and it didn't get enough pub.

I doubt it was Smoltz, who is best known on this issue for comparing gay marriage to bestiality.

20. Der-K: downgraded to lurker Posted: January 31, 2013 at 11:25 AM (#4359016)

So could we stop with the namecalling? It is, ironically, really intolerant of other people's situations. Your last sentiment sums up the correct emotion: pity.

I have mixed feelings here.
1) Most of us are wrong about some stuff, people are complicated - I'm reluctant to judge somebody by their stance on an issue or two. (Or in general, really.)
2) OTOH, lots of other people have managed to figure out basic civility and decency by now. Being set in your ways is not a valid excuse.

21. SoSH U at work Posted: January 31, 2013 at 11:26 AM (#4359019)

i know some ball player who is a big time Ultra Christian - was it smoltzie - said something like that and it didn't get enough pub.

Mike Timlin, who is in fact a devout Christian, said that quite a long time ago.

22. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 11:28 AM (#4359022)

There are only two sorts of people in this discussion.

Those that 'would support a gay teammate'

and

Those who are ####### scumbags

The fact that the latter exist makes me sad...

What about those that just don't care?

23. base ball chick Posted: January 31, 2013 at 11:28 AM (#4359023)

maybe it wasn't smoltz, although i thought it was. but it was someone his age with The Christian Label - and in fact i was real surprised to hear him come out (hahahaha) and say he already HAD played with a gay teammate

24. base ball chick Posted: January 31, 2013 at 11:31 AM (#4359025)

snapper

don't care if someone is straight or gay is actually support. i would think guys would be relieved to have a gay teammate. no prob if your wife is whatshername sandberg gonna go after him. no worrying about some guy wanting to swap wives and families.

sometimes i think that some guys don't want a gay teammate because they don't want to know what it is like to be sexually hassled like they sexually hassle females

25. Bruce Markusen Posted: January 31, 2013 at 11:32 AM (#4359028)

Oh great, let's make another anti-Christian thread. We don't have enough of those already. As if Christians are the only ones pitting themselves against the gay population. Yeesh.

26. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 11:33 AM (#4359029)

I found this interview with former Titans cornerback Wade Davis who has come out as gay since his playing days are over, pretty illuminating. He claims players know who is gay, but its not a big deal. There's the caveat Davis was a fringe practice-squad player who was only in the NFL briefly, but it was a pretty interesting perspective.

27. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 31, 2013 at 11:35 AM (#4359035)

the guys just coming up are not so freaked by guys coming out

That's a good turn of phrase.

28. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: January 31, 2013 at 11:38 AM (#4359036)

Who said anything anti-Christian?

What about those that just don't care?

In this context, that's the same as supporting a gay teammate, which means treating that person like you would anyone else on the team.

29. The District Attorney Posted: January 31, 2013 at 11:40 AM (#4359042)

Another site where I read a recap of this mentioned that the previous episode had 4 views.

BTW, this is hilarious.

30. tfbg9 Posted: January 31, 2013 at 11:41 AM (#4359047)

My grandpa still drops the n-word like it's nothing. He's not a scumbag, he's just set in his ways and no amount of social reconditioning is going to magically transform him into a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

Clearly, the poster is a racist.

31. Lassus Posted: January 31, 2013 at 11:50 AM (#4359050)

I am absolutely sympathetic to kthejoker (#13) and his grandfather in this. My grandmother was upset when my sister married a Lutheran, and responded thusly: "At least he's not black". It was 2008 and she was (mathhhh)... 83 at the time. And I'm guessing kthejoker's grandfather is in his late 60s if not older.

But.

Whereas I am full of generational and cultural understanding and acceptance for that age group, I am similarly not, AT ALL, for Fick and Young's group. If K's grandfather is 67 (and he might be older) that's 30 years on. I'm not going to have that same allowance for people younger than me, who grew up through the 80s and later. Move on into the future or prepare thyself for the shit rightfully spoken in your direction. (And for 67, my allowance isn't exactly generous, but at least it exists.)

32. aberg Posted: January 31, 2013 at 11:59 AM (#4359064)

My grandpa still drops the n-word like it's nothing. He's not a scumbag, he's just set in his ways and no amount of social reconditioning is going to magically transform him into a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

You could fit an ocean in the gap between "dropping the n-word like it's nothing" and being "a card-carrying member of the ACLU." How about, for instance, keeping overtly racist comments to himself, or even not being racist? Also, what is the point of saying "card-carrying member?" Are you trying to invoke the ACLU as the modern analog to the communist party, and every bit as interested in destroying core American values? Perhaps not, but I'd be interested to hear what other possible reason there is for the invocation of that loaded phrase.

33. Dingbat_Charlie

Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4359066)

I agree with #31. I'm a few years older than Fick and Hook, but young enough to find their comments obnoxious.

34. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:06 PM (#4359071)

Whereas I am full of generational and cultural understanding and acceptance for that age group, I am similarly not, AT ALL, for Fick and Young's group. If K's grandfather is 67 (and he might be older) that's 30 years on. I'm not going to have that same allowance for people younger than me, who grew up through the 80s and later. Move on into the future or prepare thyself for the #### rightfully spoken in your direction. (And for 67, my allowance isn't exactly generous, but at least it exists.)

Fick and Young are of our generation and should be more tolerant than Boomers, yes. But in every generation you will have a distribution of positions (on any given topic) not unlike a bell curve, and some members of our generation are going to be "throwbacks." It is likely that the slice of the sample who skews to "throwback" is also going to be over represented in the slice of the sample that includes "high end professional athletes."

35. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:07 PM (#4359073)

Who said anything anti-Christian?

No one. Bruce is being hypersensitive and overplaying the "Christians are the new cool persecuted class."

36. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:09 PM (#4359080)

In this context, that's the same as supporting a gay teammate, which means treating that person like you would anyone else on the team.

OK, by support I assumed you meant something more.

Just talking personally, I have worked with gays, and I treat them like everyone else. I view it as none of my business.

But, that doesn't extend to approving of their lifestyle choices.

37. 2 dudes are better than STIGGLES; i'm both of em Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:15 PM (#4359094)

i actually think comments like this are productive for the gay community. when you hear comments like "I don’t want a gay athlete, baseball player, in my clubhouse. It would be ... uncomfortable for me," what you have to understand is that that is not someone who is taking a hardline position, it is someone who is talking out of their ass about something that they have never really been personally confronted with.

i think back to the whole tim hardaway situation, and i just think that 9 times out of 10, when a professional athlete makes a comment like this, the least productive response is to jump down his throat and call him a \"####### scumbag".

38. 2 dudes are better than STIGGLES; i'm both of em Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:16 PM (#4359097)

But, that doesn't extend to approving of their lifestyle choices.

now on the other hand, this guy...

39. Famous Original Joe C Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:19 PM (#4359105)

But, that doesn't extend to approving of their lifestyle choices.

That's okay, I don't approve of a lot of what the Catholic Church has to say/believes, either. I guess we can agree to disagree?

40. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:22 PM (#4359110)

That's okay, I don't approve of a lot of what the Catholic Church has to say/believes, either. I guess we can agree to disagree?

Sure. I also don't approve of heterosexual fornication or adultery; it's not specifically a gay thing.

As long as neither of us tries to force the other to act against his convictions, we should be able to agree to disagree.

41. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:26 PM (#4359114)

But, that doesn't extend to approving of their lifestyle choices.

Being gay isn't a lifestyle choice, Snap.

42. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:29 PM (#4359124)

Sure. I also don't approve of heterosexual fornication or adultery; it's not specifically a gay thing.

The problem is that you disapprove of gay "lifestyle choices," by which you mean "fornication and adultery," but you also disapprove of social structures that bring gay relationships into the construct of marriage, thus allowing for non-adulterous, non-fornacational relationships. Your position denies heteros the pleasure of non-marriage based relationships, but it denies gays and lesbians *any* relationship.

You can be against loose lifestyles and cheap sex, or you can be against marriage and culturally conservative relationship building. You can't rationally be against both.

43. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:30 PM (#4359126)

Being gay isn't a lifestyle choice, Snap.

Correct. And I don't believe the orientation is morally wrong or sinful in any way.

Choosing to have sex with someone of the same sex is a lifestyle choice, just like choosing to have sex with someone of the opposite sex.

44. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:33 PM (#4359134)

45. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:39 PM (#4359145)

Yes, you can. It depends on your view of sexuality and it's proper exercise. You only can't reconcile them under the modernist view of sex as recreation, that people have a right to.

The alternative is unjust. You are consigning an entire class of people to complete and total abstinence, just for being born wired to love someone of the same sex.

EDIT: and of course the concept of human relationships having an "objective order" is false, on the merits, but we're never going to agree on that.

46. JJ1986 Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:44 PM (#4359155)

Yes, you can. It depends on your view of sexuality and it's proper exercise. You only can't reconcile them under the modernist view of sex as recreation, that people have a right to.

Should barren straight people be having sex?

47. jobu Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:46 PM (#4359161)

If there is anything I've learned from American political statements about homosexuality, it's that it seems pretty obvious to me that Robert Fick is, in fact, gay.

If Robert Fick (or a player of his caliber) had come out during his career, he probably would have been shunned by several/many of his teammates. Weaver says to "bring on" a gay teammate who is ".300 with 40 and 140." A gay superstar would change things immediately (plus, can you imagine the jersey sales?).

48. Bruce Markusen Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:47 PM (#4359162)

Not being hypersensitive at all. Christianity was not part of the original excerpt, nor was John Smoltz or Mike Timlin. But someone felt the need to bring Smoltz' and Timlin's Christianity into the issue.

So when people felt the need to bring the word "Christian" into the argument repeatedly--not just once but repeatedly--that's when I felt the need to say that homophobia is not restricted to those of the Christian faith.

49. Fernigal McGunnigle Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:48 PM (#4359166)

I doubt it was Smoltz, who is best known on this issue for comparing gay marriage to bestiality.

"John, you misunderstood me when I said I liked bears."

50. Covfefe Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:50 PM (#4359170)

Yes, you can. It depends on your view of sexuality and it's proper exercise. You only can't reconcile them under the modernist view of sex as recreation, that people have a right to.

Should barren straight people be having sex?

Depends how hot they are.

51. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:50 PM (#4359172)

Should barren straight people be having sex?

If they're legitimately married, yes.

The alternative is unjust. You are consigning an entire class of people to complete and total abstinence, just for being born wired to love someone of the same sex.

Lots of people are consigned to a life of total abstinence under my view (the single, the divorced, married people whose spouse is no longer able to have sex, etc.)

It's only "unjust" if you believe the sexual activity is some sort of right. I don't.

52. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:51 PM (#4359173)

Yes, you can. It depends on your view of sexuality and it's proper exercise. You only can't reconcile them under the modernist view of sex as recreation, that people have a right to.

Should barren straight people be having sex?

The doctrinal Catholic answer is that non-procreative vaginal intercourse between a married man and a married woman is acceptable because it looks like procreative vaginal intercourse between a married man and a married woman. Since non-procreative sex of other forms doesn't look like the good kind of sex, it's not ok.

This argument is, of course, quite terrible. But it's all they've got.

53. Lassus Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:52 PM (#4359178)

But in every generation you will have a distribution of positions (on any given topic) not unlike a bell curve, and some members of our generation are going to be "throwbacks." It is likely that the slice of the sample who skews to "throwback" is also going to be over represented in the slice of the sample that includes "high end professional athletes."

Noted and accepted. Still not particularly forgiving, but I get it.

It's only "unjust" if you believe the sexual activity is some sort of right. I don't.

Yikes.

54. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:57 PM (#4359186)

Lots of people are consigned to a life of total abstinence under my view (the single, the divorced, married people whose spouse is no longer able to have sex, etc.)

It's only "unjust" if you believe the sexual activity is some sort of right. I don't.

I'm quoting this for posterity. Because it is jaw-droppingly awful.

55. Covfefe Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:57 PM (#4359187)

It's only "unjust" if you believe the sexual activity is some sort of right. I don't.

Yikes.

Well, congratulations... it's finally happened... turns out I can imagine a scenario where I might be interested in emigrating to Libertariatopia.

56. SoSH U at work Posted: January 31, 2013 at 12:58 PM (#4359188)

Not being hypersensitive at all. Christianity was not part of the original excerpt, nor was John Smoltz or Mike Timlin. But someone felt the need to bring Smoltz' and Timlin's Christianity into the issue.

BBC asked a question about the identity of one of the very few ballplayer who has gone on record as having played with a homosexual teammate, and that player's homosexuality being a non-issue. She correctly recalled that this attitude was held by a player known for being a devout Christian (she just got the wrong player).

Neither her question nor my answer was an example of Christian as homophobe. Quite the contrary.

57. Fly should without a doubt be number !!!!! Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:08 PM (#4359210)

I'm quoting this for posterity. Because it is jaw-droppingly awful.

It's pretty standard Catholic teaching. He hasn't said anything unusual (horrible, sure, but not unusual).

58. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:12 PM (#4359219)

I'm a Catholic, and find of much of the faith's standard teachings to be jaw-droppingly awful.

59. Der-K: downgraded to lurker Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:13 PM (#4359220)

Seconded, Fly.

Bruce, I do think you came in quick with that one...

60. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:14 PM (#4359224)

Not being hypersensitive at all. Christianity was not part of the original excerpt, nor was John Smoltz or Mike Timlin. But someone felt the need to bring Smoltz' and Timlin's Christianity into the issue.

Lisa originally brought up the "hyper Christian" reference as a call to how people *should* act.

61. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:16 PM (#4359229)

A gay superstar would change things immediately (plus, can you imagine the jersey sales?).

Superstar or really anything would be good. It's a lot easier to hate the idea of something than to hate an actual guy. Especially if he weren't, y'know, like a total #######. There is so much love and free PR for the first guy to come out, it's amazing to me it hasn't happened yet.

62. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:16 PM (#4359230)

I'm a Catholic, and find of much of the faith's standard teachings to be jaw-droppingly awful.

On sex, gender, and sexuality sure. The church is a real mess there. On a whole bunch of other stuff, though, from science to social justice, the Catholic Church is reasonably well in line with my own beliefs. (Not Catholic, but have a lot of Catholics in the family and generally find the church fascinating.)

63. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:17 PM (#4359231)

I'm quoting this for posterity. Because it is jaw-droppingly awful.

It's pretty standard Catholic teaching. He hasn't said anything unusual (horrible, sure, but not unusual)

64. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:18 PM (#4359233)

Superstar or really anything would be good. It's a lot easier to hate the idea of something than to hate an actual guy.

True story; during college, my best friend and I would refer to our out gay friends as "scrappy, defensive minded middle infielders from San Pedro de Marcoris."

65. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:19 PM (#4359235)

It's pretty standard Catholic teaching. He hasn't said anything unusual (horrible, sure, but not unusual).

Pretty standard for all traditional religions.

66. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:23 PM (#4359240)

Concur. The position is terrible considered and even more terribly implemented in the world, but that's a problem with the position. I actually find Snapper's honest embrace of the required positions of his religious dogma refreshing. Snapper's error is not in holding the jaw-droppingly awful position on "objectively ordered" sex. That's the error of the Church. Snapper's error is in accepting church dogma without pause.

I certainly did not accept it "without pause". I didn't accept it, and certainly didn't practice it for a good chunk of my life.

I accepted it after living the secular position and finding it wanting, studying the Catholic position, studying the teachings of the great theologians, and finding it the only coherent theory of sexuality.

67. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:28 PM (#4359248)

I accepted it after living the secular position and finding it wanting, studying the Catholic position, studying the teachings of the great theologians, and finding it the only coherent theory of sexuality.

The fact that you need a "coherent theory of sexuality" seems...odd to me.

68. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:41 PM (#4359270)

The fact that you need a "coherent theory of sexuality" seems...odd to me.

Really? You don't feel curious about the purpose of life, the concept of "the good", morality, etc.?

69. PerroX Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:47 PM (#4359281)

Fick and Young both sound like prejudiced men who are just self-aware enough to realize that their prejudice isn't quite socially acceptable any more, and so add these "it's all good" and "it doesn't bother me" qualifiers on to the end of their bigoted statements in clumsy efforts to demonstrate that they're not beyond the new mainstream. It's a baby-step toward a world where they realize they'd be better served by just STFU.

There's a lot of liberal posing going on on these threads all the time, but this common sentiment is the kind of sentiment that completely shuts down real change, that denies the humanity of the Ficks and Youngs, both their ignorance and their potential to change. Who the #### are any of us to sit on a high horse and judge when it's not us that will have to deal with the actual nitty gritty of tolerance and acceptance? It's easy to sit on the internet and always be enlightened, a much harder task in real life.

My opinion may come off as unduly harsh, but more STFU is exactly what we DONT NEED.

70. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:48 PM (#4359282)

Lots of people are consigned to a life of total abstinence under my view (the single, the divorced, married people whose spouse is no longer able to have sex, etc.)

It's only "unjust" if you believe the sexual activity is some sort of right. I don't.

Catholic Church declining in relevence in the modern world - mystery solved. And if snapper is right this belief is presnet in "pretty much all traditional religions" then it is no surprise the world is slowly turning secular. Newsflash - sex is fun and part of many people's pursuit of happiness.

Anyway, it is a bit late, but my mom is in here late 70s and is very much not bigoted and very open minded. I understand that the percentages skew more bigoted the older the cohort, but I don't like that as an excuse for bigoted behavior. I don't know that any bigoted feelings make one a scumbag, but I don't think age absolves one of responsbility for ones backward beliefs.

71. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:48 PM (#4359284)

Really? You don't feel curious about the purpose of life, the concept of "the good", morality, etc.?

72. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:49 PM (#4359290)

It's easy to sit on the internet and always be enlightened, a much harder task in real life.

It really is not that hard in real life. Take people for who they are. Been there, done that, in real life and not just the internet.

73. tfbg9 Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:50 PM (#4359292)

The doctrinal Catholic answer is that non-procreative vaginal intercourse between a married man and a married woman is acceptable because it looks like procreative vaginal intercourse between a married man and a married woman. Since non-procreative sex of other forms doesn't look like the good kind of sex, it's not ok.

This is not the teaching. You're wrong.

74. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:50 PM (#4359293)

Catholic Church declining in relevence in the modern world - mystery solved. And if snapper is right this belief is presnet in "pretty much all traditional religions" then it is no surprise the world is slowly turning secular. Newsflash - sex is fun and part of many people's pursuit of happiness.

Sure sex is fun, but it causes as much misery as it does happiness.

Think of all the ridiculous behavior people engage in to get sex. We need not be slaves to our animal instincts.

75. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:50 PM (#4359295)

Sexuality has no objective order aside from the very rough outline of expressing relationships between two people. There is no "purpose" beyond that. If you must assign a "purpose" to sex, you should stick with "human joy."

From a biological and psychological standpoint there is a ton more than that, but I know what you are saying.

76. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:52 PM (#4359302)

Sure sex is fun, but it causes as much misery as it does happiness.

Think of all the ridiculous behavior people engage in to get sex. We need not be slaves to our animal instincts.

This has nothing to do with sex per se though. People do ridiculous things to have money, friends, sex, status, and so on. The things they do - no matter how ridiculous - do do suggest the goal is the problem The problem is what people are doing.

If someone is an idiot while trying to have sex, the sex is not the problem (hopefully) it is there idiocy. You are blaming the wrong thing.

77. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:53 PM (#4359304)

1. I don't think life has a purpose, aside from the living of said. I'm not big on teleological wish-casting.
2. I don't need a "coherent theory of sexuality" to be interested in or viably consider "'the good', morality, etc."

Sexuality has no objective order aside from the very rough outline of expressing relationships between two people. There is no "purpose" beyond that. If you must assign a "purpose" to sex, you should stick with "human joy."

That's not a coherent purpose, since sex causes as much misery as it does joy.

And, I don't see how you can completely ignore the procreative nature of sex. If we're just smart animals (i.e. nothing exists that transcends the material world we experience), then procreation is the only purpose of sex. Any enjoyment is just an accident.

78. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:53 PM (#4359306)

Stupid double post. Grrr.

79. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:56 PM (#4359310)

That's not a coherent purpose, since sex causes as much misery as it does joy.

I do not believe this is true.

And, I don't see how you can completely ignore the procreative nature of sex. If we're just smart animals (i.e. nothing exists that transcends the material world we experience), then procreation is the only purpose of sex. Any enjoyment is just an accident.

Enjoyment is built in to encourage procreation. They are linked evolutionarily in humans.

80. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:57 PM (#4359312)

This has nothign to do with sex per se though. People do ridiculous things to have money, friends, sex, status, and so on. The things they do - no matter how ridiculous - do do suggest the goal is the problem The problem is what people are doing.

If someone is an idiot while trying to have sex, the sex is not the problem (hopefully) it is there idiocy. You are blaming the wrong thing.

I disagree. They behave idiotically because they raise the object (money, friends, sex, whatever) to the status of an idol; it becomes their "god".

The fixation on these false idols, rather than some coherent concept of "the good" (need not be Christian or Deistic, Aristotle and Plato had them)is the root cause of the idiocy.

CEOs that get caught cooking the books to get even richer are not wrong b/c they are bad at stealing, they're wrong because they raised wealth to a status above moral behavior.

81. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:58 PM (#4359314)

That's not a coherent purpose, since sex causes as much misery as it does joy.

More correctly, hangups about sex and getting strung out by pointless guilt afterwards causes misery. Generally speaking, consensual sex is pleasurable for all parties as a *thing.* Some, moreso than others, I suppose.

And, I don't see how you can completely ignore the procreative nature of sex. If we're just smart animals (i.e. nothing exists that transcends the material world we experience), then procreation is the only purpose of sex. Any enjoyment is just an accident.

You can use your hands to kill an animal for food. You can use your hands to rock your child to sleep. It's almost as if your hands have no objective purpose, per se. Procreation is one thing you can do with sex. Relationship building is another. Just straight up pleasure is a third.

82. Baldrick Posted: January 31, 2013 at 01:58 PM (#4359316)

That's not a coherent purpose, since sex causes as much misery as it does joy.

I don't have time to say more, but this is just insane.

The only way this can be true is if human beings are fundamentally irrational - in a deep and neurotically pervasive fashion. If you think that God designed us to be Freud's worst nightmares, then I don't really see how you can hold out hope that embracing our 'rational' higher minds is supposed to be a pathway to anything productive.

83. jobu Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:00 PM (#4359317)

That's not a coherent purpose, since sex causes as much misery as it does joy.

84. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:01 PM (#4359320)

The doctrinal Catholic answer is that non-procreative vaginal intercourse between a married man and a married woman is acceptable because it looks like procreative vaginal intercourse between a married man and a married woman. Since non-procreative sex of other forms doesn't look like the good kind of sex, it's not ok.

This is not the teaching. You're wrong.

The determining phrase for the New Natural Lawyers is "acts of the reproductive kind". I am perhaps being not very nice in summarizing their understanding that way, but it's essentially what it means.

85. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:02 PM (#4359322)

Enjoyment is built in to encourage procreation. They are linked evolutionarily in humans.

Nope. Most animals don't need any pleasure in sex to procreate, the urge is sufficient. Enjoyment is built in to link the couple to each other, to encourage stable relationship to raise the children.

The unique feature of humans is the need for massive investment in young children; human babies are uiquely underdeveloped. It is very difficult for a human mother to raise a child alone, unlike most any other animals. Therefore the need is for the father to provide support and protection.

That's why humans get pleasure from sex, and why women are interested in sex outside of the fertile period. To bind the couple together and keep the man around.

86. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:03 PM (#4359325)

Ooh, evidence-free evolutionary psychology to go along with evidence-free natural law.

87. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:05 PM (#4359329)

I think this is a pretty big overstatement. It can cause either, but AS MUCH misery? Now, religion--religion is something that one could reasonably argue has caused as much misery as joy.

Or, alternatively, if you think the misery and joy of sex balance out, perhaps you've just been doing it wrong.

It's all joy for me at this point, but in the past there was significant misery, breakups, cheating, etc.

There's also all the STDs, marriages broken by adultery, the economic and social problems caused by single motherhood. The ledger is far from one sided.

88. DA Baracus Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:05 PM (#4359330)

Sure sex is fun, but it causes as much misery as it does happiness.

Man, you must have had some really bad sex.

89. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:06 PM (#4359333)

90. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:07 PM (#4359334)

Nope. Most animals don't need any pleasure in sex to procreate, the urge is sufficient. Enjoyment is built in to link the couple to each other, to encourage stable relationship to raise the children.

1. How do you know other animals don't experience pleasure from sex?
2. Humans aren't the only species that couples to raise offspring.

91. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:08 PM (#4359336)

I don't disagree with any of those aspects of sex. You're the one that limited it.

Huh? How's that again? My position is that sex is not objective ordered, nor objectively disordered. Rather, the concept of an 'objective' to sex and human relationships is categorically false to start. How is that limiting? You're the one saying sex is "for procreation."

92. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:09 PM (#4359338)

Nope. Most animals don't need any pleasure in sex to procreate, the urge is sufficient. Enjoyment is built in to link the couple to each other, to encourage stable relationship to raise the children.

I guess you missed the part when I said it was linked in humans? Cats have barbs on the junk to help with procreation. But I wasn't talking about cats, I was talking about humans, and in humans it is linked along with all the other sexual differences we have with many animals, including other primates. Human women don't go into 'heat' like dogs or many animals do, but so what? Our secondary sexual characteristics are much more "on display" than in many species (and less than others", similarly our sexual dimorphism exists but is not as extreme as some species.

None of the is relevent to my point that pleasure in sex is not in any way shape or form (excepting perhaps the original mutation) an accient any more than any other genetic trait is.

Why you think pleasure in sex relates to pairbonding and shared child rearing I honestly have no idea, but since there is nine months between sex and the arrival of the little bundle I really doubt the linkage.

93. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:09 PM (#4359339)

There's also all the STDs, marriages broken by adultery, the economic and social problems caused by single motherhood. The ledger is far from one sided.

You're conflating a lot of disparate parts into one thing and calling it "sex," just to fit your preferred social model of a "good."

94. simpleton & childlike gef the talking mongoose Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:12 PM (#4359341)

Man, you must have had some really bad sex.

I guess the priests never heard about providing gift baskets later.

95. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:13 PM (#4359344)

This has nothign to do with sex per se though. People do ridiculous things to have money, friends, sex, status, and so on. The things they do - no matter how ridiculous - do do suggest the goal is the problem The problem is what people are doing.

If someone is an idiot while trying to have sex, the sex is not the problem (hopefully) it is there idiocy. You are blaming the wrong thing.

I disagree. They behave idiotically because they raise the object (money, friends, sex, whatever) to the status of an idol; it becomes their "god".

The fixation on these false idols, rather than some coherent concept of "the good" (need not be Christian or Deistic, Aristotle and Plato had them)is the root cause of the idiocy.

CEOs that get caught cooking the books to get even richer are not wrong b/c they are bad at stealing, they're wrong because they raised wealth to a status above moral behavior.

What? You example suggest you agree with me and that can't be right. I am saying it is not the sex that is the problem it is people's behavior towards sex and that seems to be what your CEO example is saying also. It is not the money or even trying to get money, but what exactly the CEO does. Similarly it is not the sex or trying to have sex, it is what some people do - which is not an indictment of sex.

96. Delorians Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:14 PM (#4359345)

As a faithful Catholic, I agree with most of what Snapper has posted in this thread regarding sex and sexuality. The main point of divergence between he and I is the use of the phrase 'lifestyle choices', I would not have added that 3rd sentence to post #36, as stating that someone is gay (the original topic of discussion re: Fick/Young/Weaver) does not in and of itself imply sexual activity, just as stating that someone is straight does not in and of itself imply sexual activity.

97. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:15 PM (#4359346)

You're conflating a lot of disparate parts into one thing and calling it "sex," just to fit your preferred social model of a "good."

Right. It is not the sex, but the uneducated unprotected sex and its consequences. But I am pretty sure snapper is against enjoyable, safe, protected sex with none of those negative consequences (including breakups and so on) outside of marriage. Which tells me it is the sex and not the consequences at the root of it for him.

98. Rickey! the first of his name Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:26 PM (#4359352)

We need not be slaves to our animal instincts.

The irony here is that you are the one presuming that we are slaves to our animal instincts, that we can't so much as engage in sex outside of procreative acts between married men and women without having sex take over us and turn us into mad beasts of the savanna. I propose that that is a false concern.

99. Charles S. hopes his opening day is b4 opening day Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:33 PM (#4359364)

I disagree. They behave idiotically because they raise the object (money, friends, sex, whatever) to the status of an idol; it becomes their "god".
People also behave "idiotically" when they raise God to the status of an idol. Should you be blaming god for that idiotic behavior the same way you blame sex?

100. Greg K Posted: January 31, 2013 at 02:41 PM (#4359373)

I disagree. They behave idiotically because they raise the object (money, friends, sex, whatever) to the status of an idol; it becomes their "god".

I believe 40 Year Old Virgin made a similar point.

Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 >

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Jered Weaver would support a gay teammate and other musings from a Robert Fick-Dmitri Young vodcast

Reader Comments and Retorts

News

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics