As I've heard several commenters on ESPN radio suggest, the real test will be when--in a male oriented sport--a genuine superstar comes out in mid-career. An ARod--a Peyton Manning--a LeBron James, or their equivalent (obviously, as far as I know none of these men are gay--they're just examples of the starpower I'm talking about). If someone like that can announce they're gay and their career and marketability more or less survives the action, it will be a genuine breakthrough. For someone who's already retired, it comes down to a way to sell more books and to get rid of a now unnecessary impediment to their social life.
I looked at the list in the article and I'd never heard of a single one of them. There doesn't even need to be a LeBron James-level athlete; how about a Rocket Ismail, Olie Kolzig, or Ronde Barber -level athlete? Six retired journeymen in four sports aren't even a statistical blip. There have probably been more confessing Zoroastrians than acknowledged homosexuals.
I never heard of this guy before, but I have the same questons as Shay and Sean. Who cares if he's gay or not, how does this affect the game? What are the teammates now going to ask for a separate locker room?
"What young gay person in today's America would be stupid enough to believe that they are the only one in the world, given gay portrayals in media and real life?"
Come on, that's just a stupid statement. There are a lot of places in the US where if you are gay you're gonna feel an awful lot like this kid:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29628
Er, uhm, I basically agree that it would be more interesting if he were still an active player.
I also agree that I still probably won't find it very interesting, although it would be marginally moreso.
My actual views of homosexuality seem to make absolutely no one happy, so I guess I should shut up, but it amounts to this:
It can be caused by psychological factors but genetics probably plays a bigger part. It's sort of like being born with naturally grey hair, or one blue eye and one brown eye. It's basically harmless. A little weird (dare I say queer?) but not inherently destructive. Sort of like how I'm a little weird because I'm bookish and a little asocial, but (hopefully) not evil (except when I lose my temper). I think most of the common religious proscriptions against it have more to do with practical matters that meant a lot more in more primitive times than any actual hatred by God of the practice.
"I think most of the common religious proscriptions against it have more to do with practical matters that meant a lot more in more primitive times than any actual hatred by God of the practice."
I'm trying to figure this one out, cus it seems kinda amusingly oddball. It was, say, most practical to put gay people immediately and swiftly to death? Practical for whom? Why? And when since has God explained his true stance on homosexuality such that we can understand it? :)
the reason it is news is because he is one of SIX atheletes in ALL of the main professional sports to come out as gay. clearly it's not a case of 30 people a month coming out, where the next in a long line is just another yawn factor.
But the reason it MATTERS is because up until extremely recently, there weren't a lot of masculine role models for gay men to aspire to. Society has traditionally held out at least tacit acceptance for the gay man who conforms to the stereotype of the femmy and amusing socialite or interior designer. But god forbid a gay man who wants to play rugby or be an action hero rather than on broadway. That's the difference between Mr. Amaechi and every other portrayal of gays in the media. Those portrayals all conform to a woefully outdated stereotype. Certainly the media-portrayed image speaks to many gay kids, but not all. And the isolation of the nonconformists matters, too.
I think one thing to note is that the people who read and comment on this blog are at least semi-intellectual, and can look at the issue of being gay with a detachment, and say 'so what?' However, the worlds of professional sports aren't really like that. That's an alpha male, domination oriented field. These guys also aren't necessarily the most urbane, sophisticated, or educated folks, either. And yeah, I'm playing to stereotypes a little bit, but I think most of the players reactions would be like Randolph's or worse. "I don't want to catch teh ghey!"
Also, how could any reporter repeat what Lebron James said? Basically, he said "If a guy's in the closet, and we don't know about it, how can we trust him cause he's keeping secrets from us." But how do you know he's keeping secrets!!!
I'm a non-sports-fan, so I mostly just don't care on this matter. But Vic, that's the first comment on this whole thread that made me appreciate the significance of it. Thanks!
Bah, a black guy playing baseball in the non-Negro leagues? Who cares? Why make such a big deal about it. Bah. Grumble grumble.
If Jackie Robinson had somehow disguised himself as a white man and played in the majors, then "unmasked" after his retirement and yelled "FOOLED YOU!", I'd suggest that his status as a cultural icon would have been rather diminished compared to what it is today. It's simply different for someone to make an announcement like this after their career is over than during it.
Vic: More than one Roman Emperor tried to outlaw homosexuality because he viewed it as harmful toward the goal of furthering the Roman race.
He didn't need religious reasons. He just saw it as a threat against reproduction and the future of the Empire. You had a lot of men in the ranks who were more interested in buggering each other than they were in taking wives.
In ancient times, men diddling other men was considered fairly normal. Including men diddling little boys. This was common in many cultures, where masturbation with inanimate objects or with children was popular and accepted.
Our idea right now of the homosexual as someone who is merely attracted to the same sex is sort of naive. There's more to it than that. Indeed I think our modern "liberal" attitudes are rather naive.
Some years ago I read a story written by an American gay man who traveled to Egypt. He was delighted at first when he discovered groups of male Egyptian workers who regularly had sexual relations with each others.
Then he was horrified to learn that most of them thought that the idea that they might marry each other was laughable. Most of them wanted wives. This was just something they were doing for fun with each other.
We are a little naive to presume that any of this is either 100% cultural or 100% genetic.
"More than one Roman Emperor tried to outlaw homosexuality because he viewed it as harmful toward the goal of furthering the Roman race. "
More than one person has tried to guide a bowling ball with their hand after it has already started rolling down the lane. So? Neither the goal is necessarily of value, nor the purported fear of how homosexuality might hinder it is necessarily rational, and certainly not because an empire that allowed a god to appoint a horse to serve in a legislature thought it was so.
2.12.2007 8:38am
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
Come on, that's just a stupid statement. There are a lot of places in the US where if you are gay you're gonna feel an awful lot like this kid:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29628
It sounds to me as though this kid is unaware of the Wad Alliance Treat. Perhaps he could find the support he so desperately needs there.
Now who will be the first professional athlete to come out as a dork?
I also agree that I still probably won't find it very interesting, although it would be marginally moreso.
My actual views of homosexuality seem to make absolutely no one happy, so I guess I should shut up, but it amounts to this:
It can be caused by psychological factors but genetics probably plays a bigger part. It's sort of like being born with naturally grey hair, or one blue eye and one brown eye. It's basically harmless. A little weird (dare I say queer?) but not inherently destructive. Sort of like how I'm a little weird because I'm bookish and a little asocial, but (hopefully) not evil (except when I lose my temper). I think most of the common religious proscriptions against it have more to do with practical matters that meant a lot more in more primitive times than any actual hatred by God of the practice.
Sue me.
(I'm a Duke fan and all, but damn. Maybe he should have stayed in college and learned a little tact.)
I'm trying to figure this one out, cus it seems kinda amusingly oddball. It was, say, most practical to put gay people immediately and swiftly to death? Practical for whom? Why? And when since has God explained his true stance on homosexuality such that we can understand it? :)
So the guy's gay... Who cares? I say good for him, but is that news?
the reason it is news is because he is one of SIX atheletes in ALL of the main professional sports to come out as gay. clearly it's not a case of 30 people a month coming out, where the next in a long line is just another yawn factor.
But the reason it MATTERS is because up until extremely recently, there weren't a lot of masculine role models for gay men to aspire to. Society has traditionally held out at least tacit acceptance for the gay man who conforms to the stereotype of the femmy and amusing socialite or interior designer. But god forbid a gay man who wants to play rugby or be an action hero rather than on broadway. That's the difference between Mr. Amaechi and every other portrayal of gays in the media. Those portrayals all conform to a woefully outdated stereotype. Certainly the media-portrayed image speaks to many gay kids, but not all. And the isolation of the nonconformists matters, too.
Also, how could any reporter repeat what Lebron James said? Basically, he said "If a guy's in the closet, and we don't know about it, how can we trust him cause he's keeping secrets from us." But how do you know he's keeping secrets!!!
If Jackie Robinson had somehow disguised himself as a white man and played in the majors, then "unmasked" after his retirement and yelled "FOOLED YOU!", I'd suggest that his status as a cultural icon would have been rather diminished compared to what it is today. It's simply different for someone to make an announcement like this after their career is over than during it.
He didn't need religious reasons. He just saw it as a threat against reproduction and the future of the Empire. You had a lot of men in the ranks who were more interested in buggering each other than they were in taking wives.
In ancient times, men diddling other men was considered fairly normal. Including men diddling little boys. This was common in many cultures, where masturbation with inanimate objects or with children was popular and accepted.
Our idea right now of the homosexual as someone who is merely attracted to the same sex is sort of naive. There's more to it than that. Indeed I think our modern "liberal" attitudes are rather naive.
Some years ago I read a story written by an American gay man who traveled to Egypt. He was delighted at first when he discovered groups of male Egyptian workers who regularly had sexual relations with each others.
Then he was horrified to learn that most of them thought that the idea that they might marry each other was laughable. Most of them wanted wives. This was just something they were doing for fun with each other.
We are a little naive to presume that any of this is either 100% cultural or 100% genetic.
More than one person has tried to guide a bowling ball with their hand after it has already started rolling down the lane. So? Neither the goal is necessarily of value, nor the purported fear of how homosexuality might hinder it is necessarily rational, and certainly not because an empire that allowed a god to appoint a horse to serve in a legislature thought it was so.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.