Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, March 02, 2013

Queerty: Ex-Brewers Pitcher Mark Knudson: Gay Baseball Players Should Stay In The Closet

Mark Knudson, a former relief pitcher for the Milwaukee Brewers, decided to weigh in on the issue of openly gay professional athletes, with a piece in Mile High Sports.

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

...But Knudson really gets going when he explains why it’s so hard for pro athletes to accept a gay player, and why we probably shouldn’t ask them to:

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

  Just as absurd as comparing workplace environments is the ridiculous claim by some in the gay community that there wouldn’t be any sort of physical attraction for a gay athlete toward any of his straight teammates – which would cause those very uncomfortable situations. He’s gay; he’s not dead. He can’t just flip a switch and turn off his feelings when he walks into the locker room.

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

  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.

So apparently, Major League Baseball is a more intense atmosphere than the U.S. military, which has fairly seamlessly integrated gay and lesbian members?

Thanks to Steve V..

Repoz Posted: March 02, 2013 at 09:28 AM | 90 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: brewers

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.

   1. Guapo Posted: March 02, 2013 at 10:00 AM (#4379103)
Of course he’s going to have feelings of attraction toward a teammate or two. It’s human nature. These are some of the most physically fit and desirable human beings on the planet.


Um, Mark? You OK there, buddy?
   2. Publius Publicola Posted: March 02, 2013 at 10:19 AM (#4379112)
Teamness is what fans demand from the teams they pay to watch. Any individual with an agenda that’s even slightly different from that of the team hurts that cause.


Um, Mark? You OK there, buddy?
   3. Bob Tufts Posted: March 02, 2013 at 10:45 AM (#4379122)
And of course the addition of Latin players and African American players would harm the existing team chemistry.

   4. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 02, 2013 at 10:53 AM (#4379125)
These are some of the most physically fit and desirable human beings on the planet.

Are we still talking about baseball, or a different sport?
   5. TR_Sullivan Posted: March 02, 2013 at 11:02 AM (#4379127)
Mark Knudson? What Bob Sykes wasn't available?
   6. RMc is a fine piece of cheese Posted: March 02, 2013 at 11:06 AM (#4379130)
These are some of the most physically fit and desirable human beings on the planet.

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


That John Kruk was one sexy b*tch.
   7. beer on a stick Posted: March 02, 2013 at 11:16 AM (#4379131)
Seems to me that every player on the team has an agenda. First and foremost on that agenda is their contract. The "teamness" thing just sounds weird.

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

You only say that because he's a ditzy blond.
   8. asinwreck Posted: March 02, 2013 at 11:16 AM (#4379132)
Insert Sid Bream joke here.
   9. beer on a stick Posted: March 02, 2013 at 11:20 AM (#4379135)
dp
   10. beer on a stick Posted: March 02, 2013 at 11:31 AM (#4379140)
dp...what the hell?
   11. beer on a stick Posted: March 02, 2013 at 11:32 AM (#4379141)
Seems to me that every player on the team has an agenda. First and foremost on that agenda is their contract. The "teamness" thing just sounds weird.
   12. Random Transaction Generator Posted: March 02, 2013 at 11:32 AM (#4379142)
He can’t just flip a switch and turn off his feelings when he walks into the locker room.


Isn't this just a version of the argument against having female reporters in the locker room?
   13. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: March 02, 2013 at 11:36 AM (#4379143)
I've submitted a bug report in the forum for Jim. I think I know how to replicate it, so testing.....
   14. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: March 02, 2013 at 11:36 AM (#4379144)
I've submitted a bug report in the forum for Jim. I think I know how to replicate it, so testing.

EDIT - Yep. Thought so.
   15. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 02, 2013 at 11:41 AM (#4379145)
You should all take your dp's to a straight thread.
   16.     Hey Gurl Posted: March 02, 2013 at 11:53 AM (#4379149)
I've submitted a bug report in the forum for Jim. I think I know how to replicate it, so testing


I'm sure that whatever it is will be fixed on the relaunch.
   17. Mayor Blomberg Posted: March 02, 2013 at 12:02 PM (#4379152)
Just as absurd as comparing workplace environments is the ridiculous claim by some in the gay community that there wouldn’t be any sort of physical attraction for a gay athlete toward any of his straight teammates .... He’s gay; he’s not dead. ... The gay athlete isn’t going to notice that? And obviously, the straight teammates are going to feel the same sort of vibe that the attractive girl on the co-ed softball team gets from a few of the men on her team.

Most of the men are dead? Were does this necrosoftball league play?
   18. AJMcCringleberry Posted: March 02, 2013 at 12:06 PM (#4379154)
The only gay people that are attracted to their teammates are the ones that are out of the closet?
   19. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: March 02, 2013 at 12:07 PM (#4379155)
There's a relaunch? I missed that news.
   20. Zach Posted: March 02, 2013 at 12:17 PM (#4379157)
Of course he’s going to have feelings of attraction toward a teammate or two. It’s human nature. These are some of the most physically fit and desirable human beings on the planet. The gay athlete isn’t going to notice that? And obviously, the straight teammates are going to feel the same sort of vibe that the attractive girl on the co-ed softball team gets from a few of the men on her team. Attractive people know when they’re being “checked out” and it leads to those very awkward moments. It’s human nature for people to be attracted to other people and it’s not going to stop happening because the workplace environment is a locker room rather than a typical office setting.

I try to avoid the flamebait threads, but attractive people getting checked out is present in roughly 100% of all work environments. Even those that don't include thousands of paying spectators and a vast television audience. Somehow people manage to get work done, anyway.
   21. Zach Posted: March 02, 2013 at 12:23 PM (#4379158)
Dupe.
   22. Dock Ellis on Acid Posted: March 02, 2013 at 12:39 PM (#4379162)
Work-around for duplicate postings: If you edit your post, do not refresh your page afterwards. If you refresh, it will ask you if you want to cancel or continue. If you continue, your post will dupe. Instead, leave the thread and then come back in.
   23. Los Angeles El Hombre de Anaheim Posted: March 02, 2013 at 01:15 PM (#4379174)
We have to admit, we haven’t read such a calm and cool explanation of an incredibly stupid opinion in a long time. Seriously, it’s incredible how reasonable Knudson sounds.
No matter how unreasonable the rationale, they always seem rational to the person making them.
   24. Morty Causa Posted: March 02, 2013 at 01:15 PM (#4379175)
He seems to be groping for some legitimately discussable points, although that doesn't mean they should be socially, much less legally, dispositive. In any regime of views it's sometimes not so much what you believe, it's that you dare express that belief. (See our discussion on male rights, ha ha.)

Why not merge all accommodations and facilities that distinguish on a sexual/gender basis? Why not have women and men at health clubs or in schools share the same locker rooms, showers, etc. Why not allow male coaches to be in women's dressing facilities while they dress? Or women in male's? People tend to not see the conceptual cluster #### behind their views on sex, gender, and the relations thereof. So, the sides assume a righteous air and never go into it. And whoever is momentarily in ideological ascendancy dares the other side to even bring it up, except in their accepted way.
   25. Booey Posted: March 02, 2013 at 03:14 PM (#4379207)
These are some of the most physically fit and desirable human beings on the planet.


Agreed. If you can resist your urges after seeing Bartolo Colon or Jonathan Broxton in the shower, then you're a stronger man than I.
   26. depletion Posted: March 02, 2013 at 04:05 PM (#4379223)
These are some of the most physically fit and desirable human beings on the planet.

Mark has obviously never worked in software development.
   27. Walt Davis Posted: March 02, 2013 at 04:35 PM (#4379236)
Hey, it's the inventor of the keyboard.

He seems to be groping



   28. Squash Posted: March 02, 2013 at 05:02 PM (#4379247)
How do the showers work in MLB locker rooms anyway? Is it the proverbial group setting, with the gay guy standing six inches from the other tall proud incredibly attractive baseball player and checking out his business? Or do they have stalls, and he's merely lusting through the tile?
   29. What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face? Posted: March 02, 2013 at 05:44 PM (#4379255)
Translation: "I stayed in the closet, and so should you!!"
   30. Bhaakon Posted: March 02, 2013 at 09:12 PM (#4379334)
Clearly gay baseball players should stay in the closet, because Knudsen's opinion make him one of the more socially liberal professional athletes to speak out on the subject. Unless you're a masochist, I guess.
   31. Swedish Chef Posted: March 02, 2013 at 09:34 PM (#4379341)
but attractive people getting checked out is present in roughly 100% of all work environments.

Except software development. And possibly garbage collection, less sure about that.
   32. Ivan Grushenko of Hong Kong Posted: March 02, 2013 at 10:04 PM (#4379352)
I asked myself whether I would feel uncomfortable being naked daily in front of a man I know to be gay vis-a-vis a bunch of people of whom 1-2 are probably statistically gay but I don't know who they are. I think if I had any discomfort initially, I'd get used to the idea and it wouldn't matter after a week or so. I'm not sure what Knudson's point is.
   33. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 02, 2013 at 10:11 PM (#4379355)
In a normal work environment, people are individuals with jobs. In pro sports, it’s all about as George Karl puts it, “teamness.” Individualism and personal agendas might be okay in a normal workplace, but it’s not okay in team sports. Teamness is what fans demand from the teams they pay to watch. Any individual with an agenda that’s even slightly different from that of the team hurts that cause.


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

How is it possible that "teamness" has not been roundly mocked?
   34. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 02, 2013 at 10:21 PM (#4379359)
Attractive people know when they’re being “checked out” and it leads to those very awkward moments.


If this is the crux of Knudson's argument, the reply can be a simple, even a friendly, "What of it?" He's correct, that it leads to awkward moments, even "very awkward moments", but we don't do or not do things contingent only or primarily on whether they engender "very awkward moments". The way ahead can be one where we acknowledge very awkward moments will arise, but that's sometimes the price we pay for inclusiveness; for not asking people to pretend to be substantively other than who they are.
   35. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 02, 2013 at 10:21 PM (#4379360)
I asked myself whether I would feel uncomfortable being naked daily in front of a man I know to be gay vis-a-vis a bunch of people of whom 1-2 are probably statistically gay but I don't know who they are. I think if I had any discomfort initially, I'd get used to the idea and it wouldn't matter after a week or so. I'm not sure what Knudson's point is.

On my high school baseball team we were mostly worried that some would-be jokester might walk off with our clothes while we were in the shower. My best friend at another high school once pulled that trick on one of his teammates in retaliation for a particularly nasty (if hilarious) practical joke, and news of the incident had already circulated up to us.
   36. Walt Davis Posted: March 02, 2013 at 10:22 PM (#4379361)
The worst part would be the guy choosing "It's raining men" as his at-bat music.
   37. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 02, 2013 at 10:24 PM (#4379362)
If this is the crux of Knudson's argument, the reply can be a simple, even a friendly, "What of it?" He's correct, that it leads to awkward moments, even "very awkward moments", but we don't do or not do things contingent only or primarily on whether they engender "very awkward moments". The way ahead can be one where we acknowledge very awkward moments will arise, but that's sometimes the price we pay for inclusiveness; for not asking people to pretend to be substantively other than who they are.

That's a sensible take, and one that Knudson should consider. It's not as if we're talking about a team full of Jerry Sanduskys and 11 year old bodys.
   38. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 02, 2013 at 10:25 PM (#4379363)
The worst part would be the guy choosing "It's raining men" as his at-bat music.

Or the good old "YMCA".
   39. Bob Tufts Posted: March 03, 2013 at 12:02 AM (#4379410)
I'll bet he only likes Madonna's early work.
   40. tfbg9 Posted: March 03, 2013 at 12:37 AM (#4379430)
Did you ever notice how many sports stadium anthems are songs by artists associated with, umm, shall we say, not exactly Lawrence Welk type sexual ethics/practices?

Gary Glitter, Queen, The Village People, Liza ((she oddly married and divorced two clearly gay men-Peter Allen and that Guest guy who sued her for batttery (she sings on the version of "NY, NY" that they play when the Yanks lose-but they played Frank after "the biggest loss in sports history")). I'm forgetting some dammit.
   41. tfbg9 Posted: March 03, 2013 at 12:48 AM (#4379435)
Perhaps the comprimise solution here is a version of the old Red Sox cliche:

After the game...25 players, 25 shower stalls. Nah.
   42. Randy Jones Posted: March 03, 2013 at 12:50 AM (#4379436)
(she sings on the version of "NY, NY" that they play when the Yanks lose-but they played Frank after "the biggest loss in sports history"))


They stopped doing that several years ago. They play the Sinatra version after every game now.
   43. tfbg9 Posted: March 03, 2013 at 12:59 AM (#4379445)
@42: Oh. Too bad.
   44. steagles Posted: March 03, 2013 at 01:16 AM (#4379459)
it's really interesting how so many baseball players vocally express their trepidation at the possibility of having an openly gay teammate when the fact is that, as a group, baseball players are just about as unattractive as athletes can possibly be. they exercise (meaning actual physical exertion) less than any other sports' athletes, and they constantly expectorate.

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

   45. Depressoteric feels Royally blue these days Posted: March 03, 2013 at 06:03 AM (#4379636)
Knudson is wrong, I think, but you know what? He has a right to be wrong (in my opinion), especially when he expresses his point of view so thoughtfully and measuredly. As Morty pointed out in #24, he's not spewing Smoltz-ian "God don't like queers" crap here, he's making a much more interesting sociologically-grounded argument that -- even if you disagree with it or don't think it ought be dispositive -- shouldn't just be snarked at. This struck a chord for me in particular because I happen to have a friend who is gay and was a high-school and college athlete (and closeted at the time). This very topic happened to come up once, and you know what? What he said pretty much tracks with what Knudson writes here: "Of COURSE I was turned on by some of the guys on my team. [I'm paraphrasing a bit here, but actually not too much.] C'mon, you would've been too in my shoes. I'm gay, but I'm still wired like a guy..." He made a hilarious analogy which I've never forgotten: as a closeted gay athlete, for him being in the locker room with a ton of buff naked guys was like a straight man being able to miraculously 'pass' as just another "one of the girls" in the dressing room of a Victoria's Secret photo shoot.

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

There's an interesting parallel to "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in the military and the idea of team esprit de corps in a sports context worth mining. I was a big supporter of eliminating DADT precisely because what my military buddies (as well as common sense) told me was that, in a life-or-death situation like those faced in combat zones, people set such things aside and focus on what really matters...because they have to. But on a sports team the same sense of reflexive live-or-die compulsion doesn't really exist. Food for thought.
   46. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 03, 2013 at 07:50 AM (#4379647)
those dudes generally have tough standards


Hilarious.
   47. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 03, 2013 at 09:29 AM (#4379660)
Me? I have multiple gay family members and my two closest friends growing up were also LGBT, so even as a bona-fide conservative Republican I really don't care about such things. (Heck, I always figured that if a gay guy found you attractive you should honestly take it as a compliment...those dudes generally have tough standards.) But it's pure vanity to assume (or insist, as if it's as easy as waving a magic wand) that everyone else shares the same perspective.

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

And outside of covering up bits of you, you don't want seen by people who might fantasize about them, you have the same right, to not be lusted after by another man or woman, as any other man or woman does (any permutations of gender and sexuality.) Which is to say none.
   48. jdunster55 Posted: March 03, 2013 at 12:33 PM (#4379702)
C'mon, you would've been too in my shoes. I'm gay, but I'm still wired like a guy..." He made a hilarious analogy which I've never forgotten: as a closeted gay athlete, for him being in the locker room with a ton of buff naked guys was like a straight man being able to miraculously 'pass' as just another "one of the girls" in the dressing room of a Victoria's Secret photo shoot.


Except we've been doing it literally our whole lives. Every locker room - high school, college, etc. The novelty wore off long ago. I think I know how to behave in a locker room at this point.
   49. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 03, 2013 at 02:34 PM (#4379766)
Why not merge all accommodations and facilities that distinguish on a sexual/gender basis? Why not have women and men at health clubs or in schools share the same locker rooms, showers, etc. Why not allow male coaches to be in women's dressing facilities while they dress? Or women in male's?


I'd be OK with that. It'd probably feel weird for a couple of weeks, and then I'd get used to it.
   50. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: March 03, 2013 at 02:36 PM (#4379768)
as a group, baseball players are just about as unattractive as athletes can possibly be.


Spoken like a guy who's never seen a naked offensive lineman in the shower. It ain't pretty.
   51. Morty Causa Posted: March 03, 2013 at 03:36 PM (#4379798)
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?
   52. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: March 03, 2013 at 03:48 PM (#4379808)
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).
   53. steagles Posted: March 03, 2013 at 04:43 PM (#4379847)
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.

   54. boteman Posted: March 03, 2013 at 04:50 PM (#4379849)
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.
   55. Mayor Blomberg Posted: March 03, 2013 at 04:54 PM (#4379850)
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?
   56. Mayor Blomberg Posted: March 03, 2013 at 04:57 PM (#4379852)
@54: quite the opposite; it's when there's a way to prevent others from sexually desiring you that the thought police are "everywhere."
   57. Walt Davis Posted: March 03, 2013 at 05:09 PM (#4379861)
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.
   58. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: March 03, 2013 at 05:28 PM (#4379873)

Very good post, Walt.
   59. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 03, 2013 at 06:35 PM (#4379891)
@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".
   60. boteman Posted: March 03, 2013 at 06:50 PM (#4379892)
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.
   61. Jay Z Posted: March 03, 2013 at 07:49 PM (#4379903)
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.
   62. Morty Causa Posted: March 04, 2013 at 02:10 AM (#4379985)
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?


   63. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: March 04, 2013 at 04:20 AM (#4380001)
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.
   64. Greg K Posted: March 04, 2013 at 08:31 AM (#4380024)
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.
   65. Lassus Posted: March 04, 2013 at 10:06 AM (#4380055)
Ach, never mind.
   66. NJ in DC (Now with Wife!) Posted: March 04, 2013 at 11:01 AM (#4380094)
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?
   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?

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.
   68. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: March 04, 2013 at 11:30 AM (#4380112)
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.
   69. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 04, 2013 at 11:35 AM (#4380120)
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!
   70. base ball chick Posted: March 04, 2013 at 12:06 PM (#4380140)
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.

   71. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: March 04, 2013 at 12:30 PM (#4380151)
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.
   72. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: March 04, 2013 at 12:36 PM (#4380159)
Lighten up, Francis.
   73. BDC Posted: March 04, 2013 at 12:37 PM (#4380160)
minimum of 3 feet on the floor

The mind simply boggles at the possibilities.
   74. cardsfanboy Posted: March 04, 2013 at 12:58 PM (#4380176)
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)
   75. zack Posted: March 04, 2013 at 02:07 PM (#4380246)
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.
   76. NJ in DC (Now with Wife!) Posted: March 04, 2013 at 03:09 PM (#4380312)
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.
   77. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 04, 2013 at 04:10 PM (#4380392)
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.
   78. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: March 04, 2013 at 07:25 PM (#4380554)
I think the excerpt unquoted in 71 gives you a good idea what might happen.
   79. Morty Causa Posted: March 05, 2013 at 01:00 AM (#4380721)
Ach, never mind.
   80. Everybody Loves Tyrus Raymond Posted: March 05, 2013 at 02:40 AM (#4380803)
I just go through life assuming everyone wants to look at my junk. The gay guys can get in line.
   81. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 05, 2013 at 09:55 AM (#4380928)
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.

   82. Lassus Posted: March 05, 2013 at 10:41 AM (#4380963)
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.
   83. CrosbyBird Posted: March 05, 2013 at 09:07 PM (#4381606)
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.
   84. CrosbyBird Posted: March 05, 2013 at 09:12 PM (#4381607)
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.
   85. CrosbyBird Posted: March 05, 2013 at 09:39 PM (#4381618)
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.
   86. Lassus Posted: March 06, 2013 at 08:06 AM (#4381744)
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.
   87. CrosbyBird Posted: March 06, 2013 at 12:01 PM (#4381885)
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?
   88. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 06, 2013 at 12:19 PM (#4381910)
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.
   89. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: March 06, 2013 at 02:41 PM (#4382068)
Stupid double post.
   90. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: March 06, 2013 at 11:39 PM (#4382535)
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.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam M
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4044 - 3:11pm, Nov 21)
Last: zenbitz

NewsblogPablo Sandoval’s Brother: Red Sox Showed ‘First Class’ Attentiveness | Boston Red Sox | NESN.com
(6 - 3:10pm, Nov 21)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogRunning list of 2014 40-man roster additions | MiLB.com News | The Official Site of Minor League Baseball
(30 - 3:09pm, Nov 21)
Last: Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-21-2014
(31 - 3:06pm, Nov 21)
Last: Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(68 - 3:05pm, Nov 21)
Last: BDC

NewsblogDodgers Acquire Joel Peralta – MLB Trade Rumors
(26 - 3:02pm, Nov 21)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogMLB to tweak replay system, but managers’ challenges will stay | New York Post
(10 - 2:39pm, Nov 21)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogMLB Transaction Trees «
(21 - 2:22pm, Nov 21)
Last: Matt Welch

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2014 Ballot
(8 - 2:21pm, Nov 21)
Last: DL from MN

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2014 Discussion
(32 - 2:04pm, Nov 21)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogSwitch-pitcher Pat Venditte is ready to take a major step. | SportsonEarth.com : Howard Megdal Article
(28 - 1:26pm, Nov 21)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(912 - 12:48pm, Nov 21)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogRanking the top 25 prospects from the Arizona Fall League | MLB.com
(13 - 12:47pm, Nov 21)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogReds at least considering trading big names, reducing payroll | FOX Sports
(5 - 12:10pm, Nov 21)
Last: Ziggy

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1134 - 11:47am, Nov 21)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

Page rendered in 1.0532 seconds
54 querie(s) executed