Recently Jason Akermanis put forward the view that homosexual footballers should not "out" themselves while playing the game. His reasoning seems to be based on the idea that he and other players would feel discomfited if openly gay players were to share the locker rooms and showers. There has been much made of his "homophobia" and a great deal of verbiage has been generated, but none has made anything of his right to shower free of the sense that he may be being "perved on".

We have routinely separated men and women's public facilities at such venues as swimming complexes and sporting arenas, changing rooms at the beach, shops etc. We have laws in place to prevent people taking photos of others without permission, on the grounds that such photos "may" provide sexual titillation. Public toilets are segregated, even in places like clubs which are semi-private. If I was to enter a female changing room and start having a shower, would the occupants just shrug their shoulders and continue what they were doing or would there be a rush for the door and the nearest copper?

So what is wrong with Akermanis suggesting that he should be free of the scrutiny of someone who may be looking at him as a sexual object? After all, gay men are known to obtain sexual gratification or at least stimulation from looking at other men.

Doesn't his right to "feel safe" from someone else's possible titillation outweigh someone else's right to use the facility?

Antiseptic,
I agree.
If homosexual males are permitted to shower with normal men,
then heterosexual males should be allowed to shower with women.

Dear Anti,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from the little
I saw of the interviews on TV. It was their
coming out of "the closet" that Akermanis
was objecting to. In other words if they
were gay, they should keep it to themselves.
And he's fine with it.

Which means that he was allright with them
"purving" as you put it, as long as he didn't know
they were gay. How do you feel about that.?
That it's ok to be gay - as long as you don't
tell anyone about it?

I wonder how many gay guys have really made a
move on Akermanis during his career?
Physically, to me he doesn't appear all that hot.
But what do I know? And I can't remember reading
anything about in the media previously about
any "gay problem" in sports. Football players
have had their fair share of other problems
in the media though - haven't they though?

Public Toilets and Change rooms..locker rooms.. yep.. you nailed it antiseptic.

We have separate ones because of the sanctity of the body and not wanting to be perved at.

I think Public toilets should have signs
"Females and Gay men"
Mens should have the sign
"Men and Lesbians"

One Lilydale gym now has 'unisex' locker rooms I'm told.. my wife says I can't go there :) I wonder why.

NOOO!.. don't ask me which one? :) cos I dunno.

Women spend their whole lives being perved on.

Women share dressing rooms with homosexual females.

No doubt males of all sexual orientations have been sharing showers
for years already. Homosexuality amongst sports people, or any group, has never been a rarity. Hopoate ( maybe he doesn't even identify as gay) didn't need to be in a shower room to sexually assault people.

As long as nobody touches another person's body in an intimate way without consent there isn't a problem, or at least not a new problem - just perhaps a new awareness.

Interesting essay:

http://www.alterheros.com/english/dossier/Articles.cfm?InfoID=34

Nonetheless it remains Jason's view that players would not like to share their usually uninhibited dressing rooms with men who are attracted to other men and he has a right to his opinion and feelings as a player who could be in that position:

'Writing in the Herald Sun, Akermanis said: "Football clubs are very different environments. Locker room nudity is an everyday part of our lives and unlike any other work place.

"I believe it would cause discomfort in that environment should someone declare himself gay."

“I know there are many who think a public AFL outing would break down homophobia, but they don't live in football clubs. It's not the job of the minority to make the environment safer. Not now, anyway.”'
http://www.news.com.au/national/jason-akermanis-wrong-about-football-codes-and-gay-players-says-gay-and-lesbian-rights-group/story-e6frfkw0-1225869112311

It is his and other players' feelings that their privacy could be violated that need to be considered and we have no right to tell them otherwise.

Maybe this will lead to players being more conscious of their exposure in dressing rooms - women for example are generally far less inclined to be as up-front with their nudity or part-nudity in dressing rooms.

ARL and NRL players have complained previously about media intrusion into dressing rooms and by female reporters. Some intrusion was (wrongly) forced onto them as publicity (more like public perving).

Frankly I do not know any straight women or men who wouldn't be more cautious about their exposure in dressing rooms or toilets in the presence of gays or lesbians.

The Hopoate example is ridiculous, it was aberrant behaviour that resulted in discipline and players regardless of side expressed abhorrence at his behaviour.

When it is all boiled down, players have a right to privacy and even though they normally put up with a lot because of primitive facilities, they shouldn't be ridiculed or required to offer explanations for demanding or exercising that right. They are no lesser men for it.

All Public swimming pools are rife with perving in the change rooms dating back to when I was a child. I swam twice a week last winter, changed as most of us do afterwards, and know from experience, that many women perve, more out of curiosity than anything else, at other womens bodies and features. Human nature. All the gays and lesbians I know have never 'hit' randomly on anyone. They prefer to intellectually get to know someone, date and form long term relationships as opposed to hitting on males naked. Sure, as in any sexual denomination, there are sleazes; thank goodness these are a minority.

I choose dressing rooms if available, yet not always lucky. I wrap a towel around me anyway, to show respect around kids and it educates them to follow example.

My fear is running into work colleagues in the pool changerooms and them viewing me naked. For this reason I choose the dressing rooms or a dirty wet toilet cubicle.

What Pynchme said. Hi Pynch :)

Antiseptic obviously lives in the dark ages, judging by his ridiculous first post: Some people wear their homophobia with pride. So be it!

I forgot to mention, I also read at random a few of his past posts. He doesn't seem to like women very much either. Sad man.

Sad man.
well, he does play football.

Foxy:"he was allright with them
"purving" as you put it, as long as he didn't know
they were gay"

Let's put it really simply for you: does the "right" of a gay man to share a shower block with straight men trump the "right" of those straight men to feel comfortable in such a setting? Why or why not?

Akermanis was subjected to much ridicule on the radio yesterday morning, including a comment (from one of the presenters, the well known lesbian Vicki Wilson) that "maybe his "maleness" is a bit small", for expressing his discomfort!

Is it only women and gay men whose feelings on these subjects must be considered? Must straight men always simply cop it sweet, not even daring to raise their concerns for fear of ridicule? There was an interesting article in the News Limited press yesterday, which indicates that many men put up with severe abuse from their wives for the same reason - they'll be ridiculed (maybe his "maleness" is a bit small) if they tell anyone. http://www.news.com.au/national/hidden-epidemic-of-women-beating-up-men/story-e6frfkvr-1225869842575

Pynchme, whether women have been perved on for years is not the issue, the issue is the right of someone to feel safe and comfortable in a vulnerable position. Whether they happen to be male or female, gay or straight, should not matter, although it obviously does to you. Still, it's nice that you're here to tell CJ what he "thinks".

Smithy456:"I also read at random a few of his past posts"

Oh dear, another stalker. I do hope you're better at it than your predecessors, dear. Now off you toddle and read the rest of my pearls of wisdom. Do feel free to put your hand up if you need help with the big words, won't you lovey?

Antiseptic how far do you take all that?

I get the logic that if segregated change/toilet facilities are important based on gender because people don't like being perved on (or having members of the opposite sex hear them on the toilet etc) and it's hard to see a good reason why those concerns are not as valid when the potential perver is of the same gender.

What do you do about it, what facilities would work for same sex orientated people (or bi) who might also have similar concerns?

Unless all public change facilities have individual stalls (with adequate room to get dressed in the dry) the problem would still exist.

On the other hand it's hardly homophobic to have those concern's, any more than it would be hetrophobic if someone expressed concern that their job required them to share shower and change facilities with members of the opposite sex.

R0bert

I doubt many want to know Jason's opinion on anything, and am looking for trouble but convinced he was right in saying do not tell.
I noted an next NRL player respected and gay, thought it was homophobia that drove Jason.
Jason needs to be extremely controversial to get air play and he is a big mouth with a small brain.
While sportsmen have shared shower rooms with every type of sexual person I never knew of any who perved there.

ANTISEPTIC...

your thread is a most interesting example of how 'right' is trampled into the dirt by 'wrong' and the only defense 'evil/wrong' can offer is ridicule and offensive odious mocking.

It's a pity such bottom feeders trample on the absolutely valid human right of a person to privacy from leering from perverted people of the same sex...

You make the totally reasonable assertion of the human right to dignity and privacy..and how does one poster respond ? Well he mounts his bulldozer/steamroller and puts on his peaked storm trooper hat and tries to stifle you with a personal attack.

The words used to describe you (Antisptic) are

-living in the dark ages.
-Rediculous
-Homophobic

All of which are completely irrational (and thus evidence of Smithy's own "Phobia") and possibly evidence of serious psychological problems.

I wish you well Smithy in getting help with those.. and hope you can afford the 'unscrambling of your mind costs'.. sorry I can't contribute.

Some posters seem to live in that twighlight zone of "black is white.. good is bad.. light is darkness"

All we can do is paitently tolerate and gradually help them.. post by post

This issue raises a host of other obvious issues that our society refuses to address.
It goes beyond the trite "well known lesbian Vicki Wilson (saying) that "maybe his "maleness" is a bit small" discourse.
This addresses/belittles the man-on-man discomfiture.
What about the man-on-boy issue?
It is the grossest of travesties that homosexual males are not expressly forbidden from holding down any jobs that put them in similar contact with boys.
eg.physical education teachers
scout leaders,
camp leaders (if you'll pardon the pun).
The law should prevent homosexuals from engaging in any of these roles,
for reasons which are obvious to all but the delusional.

Cornflower: The relevance of the Hopoate example that you didn't grasp is that intruding on someone's person doesn't need a change room. Blokey-bloke sports have always had a homoerotic element to them (see essay posted before re: homoeroticism and homophobia).

http://files.posterous.com/opieradio/ZtC6nXx85ELqGBftGhkWgTDQiDODGdt6eCWbgulUgtes1ppgzoc2YXedNgYK/IMG00482-20091020-0652.jpg.scaled.1000.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=1C9REJR1EMRZ83Q7QRG2&Expires=1274578900&Signature=LG4Y9UyEEZnTCACtzDsVuGffWVg%3D

You might ask, "Whatever happened to shaking hands?", but I think it's understandable that men who are in close proximity, sharing the excitement of their mutual effort (to win etc); testosterone all up - can easily be drawn into physical intimacy. That's what scares the homophobes - they know how close they get to sharing sexual intimacy with another person of the same sex, but their social conditioning to conform means they are shocked and frightened by their own inclinations.

Heterosexuality and gayness - it's just a matter of degree.

Antiseptic: Just HOW do you propose that people determine beforehand whether or not their team mates are gay?

Btw there are locations in the public service where male and female employees (and sometimes members of the public) share the same facilities for their ablutions.

I just wonder when we as a society are ever going to get over this stupidity. The cruelty is appalling.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/gay-files-historys-grim-closet-20100522-w2t9.html

Btw: If someone feels uncomfortable in a shared dressing area; they can use a stall, or get there first or last. As I pointed out, however, nobody has been able to tell so far so I don't see why it's suddenly a big issue.

Hey gidday CJ - :D

Dear Pynch,

I don't understand why its suddenly such
a big issue either - unless its an
attempt at publicity seeking by Akermanis.

I would have thought that someone's sex life
was none of anybody else's business. Perhaps
the coach should tell Akermanis to enjoy his
own sex life and leave others to enjoy theirs
in private, whatever their inclinations, which
are none of his business. It seems to me
that he's making stereotypical
assumptions about other people that have not
been proven in his field of activity - (sport),
to the best of anybody's knowledge.
Unless someone has actually tried groping
him - he's got no cause to object. It's
basically a private matter of other players.
If he suddenly feels insecure - what's his reason
for it, and for speaking out about it now?
Where's the evidence for his complaint and
the reason for his insecurity?

Well, this discussion has moved along at a good clip.

Akermanis says "it's ok to be a gay AFL player, so long as you don't tell anyone".

Antiseptic uses this as an excuse to ask us...

>> what is wrong with Akermanis suggesting that he should be free of the scrutiny of someone who may be looking at him as a sexual object?<<

Errr, Antiseptic, read it again. That this is not what Akermanis suggested.

Proxy reaches for the red herring.

>>If homosexual males are permitted to shower with normal men, then heterosexual males should be allowed to shower with women.<<

Note the not-so-subtle "normal men". Nice touch.

Boaz leaps in with the follow-up non sequitur.

>>We have separate ones because of the sanctity of the body and not wanting to be perved at.<<

Really? I thought it was so that women don't like men peeking at their bits.

But then, what do I know about "sanctity"?

Cornflower also grabs the wrong end of the schtick.

>>Nonetheless it remains Jason's view that players would not like to share their usually uninhibited dressing rooms with men who are attracted to other men<<

No, Cornflower. Only with men who have told others that they are attracted to other men. If they stay in the closet, that's cool with Jason.

Antiseptic brings in a spurious "right"

>>does the "right" of a gay man to share a shower block with straight men trump the "right" of those straight men to feel comfortable in such a setting?<<

Despite the fact (again) that the concern is only about those who have declared themselves as gay.

Boaz agrees.

>>a most interesting example of how 'right' is trampled into the dirt by 'wrong'<<

The right to feel comfortable, Boaz? Where is that ever a "right".

And now the coup de grace, from Proxy.

>>The law should prevent homosexuals from engaging in any of these roles, for reasons which are obvious to all but the delusional.<<

Well of course it should.

The "obvious reasons" being, of course, that the law is only concerned with your comfort, Proxy.

Good one.

Hiya Foxy! Hiya Pericles - gosh I love your posts. Incisive and hilarious.

This is all just an opportunity for some chest thumping by a few homophobes. However, it also provides an opportunity to re-examine some of Antiseptic's previous assertions.

For example: that women, being desired, have more power than men because they are in charge of the "gateway" (or summin).

Using the same argument, wouldn't men who are sexually desirable to other men also hold all the power because they own the gateway?

Gee all these blokes are wielding all the power of being sexual objects and don't seem to appreciate it.

Why are some of these heterosexual men worried about being sexually desirable to other men, when (using Antiseptic's rationale about women v men) it's a source of power that places the leerer at a disadvantage?

What is it that makes them feel uncomfortable? I wonder if any can articulate that.

This thread's too funny.

So Antiseptic's homophobic as well as misogynist? Who'd a thunk it?

Pericles: << Cornflower also grabs the wrong end of the schtick. >>

Excellent pun, and so true.

With the erudite support of Boazy and Proxy, Antiseptic's acquired some great 'bedfellows' on this issue.

>> This thread's too funny.

Possibly, but I wish I could get rid of this vision of Antiseptic and co showering together in their jocks, backs resolutely to the wall, furtively eyeing everyone else in the place for signs of ho-mo-sexuality.

I always know I've got the right idea when the ignoranti and their "camp followers" start in with the personal attacks on me and ignore the topic.

R0bert, I don't care about what is to be done about it, that's not what the thread is about. The only reason I became interested in the subject was because of the hatchet job that was done on Akermanis. It was a well-orchestrated attack purely because he said he felt uncomfortable. Here we've seen the same thing: merely for raising the subject I'm accused of homophobia, hating women, and gawd knows what else. No doubt I'll be accused of having a small dick next, just like Akermanis...

What is it about this subject that makes the lightweight hypocrites like Foxy, Morgan and Pericles so uncomfortable? Why is there such a rush to scream silly insults at the messenger and ignore the message? Is puerile schoolyard innuendo the limit of your intelectual range?

To get back to the subject: Akermanis, like many others on other topics has said that he feels uncomfortable about sharing his shower with openly gay players. For some reason this has elicited a strong response, which I'm at a loss to understand.

I suspect it's because he is using the language of victimhood and thereby making a mockery of the victim industry. It is amusing that the same people who advocate uncritical acceptance of a claim of victimhood (from the "right type" of victim of course, none of those straight men) are loudest in pillorying Akermanis.

Hypocrisy is never a good look dears. BTW, Pericles, I'm not sure what you were trying to say here: "I thought it was so that women don't like men peeking at their bits." Perhaps a short course in elementary sentence construction?

Dear Antiseptic,

Here we go again - down to personal attacks.
Never attacking the argument, always attacking
the arguers! Hypocrites? Dear oh dear!
Raise the bar on your own thread Anti, and don't
waste time on personal shots - they're so lame,
and tend to display intellectual bankruptcy.
Stick to the topic - and present your arguments.
It's more impressive. Otherwise you appear to
be out of your depth in these discussions.
I assume you'd prefer to be taken seriously.

Anyway, once again, just to remind you:

Akermanis stated quite clearly that gays should
stay in the closet. And that's all Akermanis has
a problem with! I'm actually beginning to wonder
if this is all a smokescreen - and perhaps he's
gay? (not that there's anything wrong with that).
He didn't say that he was against gays in sports -
merely that they should stay in the closet.

Think about it... expand your thinking!
Perhaps there's a reason why he wants gays to
remain in the closet for more personal reasons?
Why does he dye his hair blonde (and not his
facial hair)? How does he inter-act with the other
guys? This could be a bigger issue! ;-)

Foxy,

Jason Akermanis is married to Megan Legge who has given him two beautiful daughters, Charlotte (born 2005) and Sienna (born 2008).

http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/F4uvkWVUJWU/Celebrities+Attend+Emirates+Stakes+Day+2009

Foxy, you're being hypocritical here for several reasons:
1. You are happy to condone segregation of ablution facilities based on gender but not on expressed sexuality.
2. You accuse Akermanis of homophobia then, as an insult, turn around and accuse him of being latently gay.
3. you accuse me of "persona; attacks" when there have been several pages from you and the rest of the nitwitterati that contain nothing but personal attacks on me and on Akermanis
4. You constantly play the victim while hiding behind an "appeal to popularity" to make nasty personal attacks on others
5. you accuse me of "attacking the arguers, not the arguments", but you have not put forward an argument, merely childish innuendo and insult, while I have put forward a coherent and cogent argument that you continue to ignore in favour of said puerility. That might play well with the kiddies on their library tours, but it won't wash here.

Now, would you like to have a go at the topic, or are you going to continue with the grade 5 innuendo?

Cornflower, don't confuse the poor things with facts, you know how that confuses their pre3judices...

AKER is quite right.

He says he is uncomfortable about those who are OPENly gay ..

REASON ? should be obvious..if you know they are gay you will feel an awareness that they might be ogling you. If you don't know.. you won't have that awareness, perhaps you would only detect such behavior if it became more overt and noticable, in which case, with or without the 'public proclamation' you would still feel uncomfortable.

So.. homing in (Pericles) on the "only If I know" aspect is rather flimsy I feel.

Knowledge or orientation leads to a change in perception of others. Aker would still feel uncomfortable about being perved at by a man...it's as simple as that.
So would I...eeeeuuuuwwwwww one might say. The "openly" gay bloke in the locker room would definitely cause discomfort rather than the sly one you have to 'bust' eying you off. One he is busted.. you would have the same feeling. yuk.

The word 'homoPHOBIA' means an 'irrational' fear.. this is not about fear ..it is A)rational and B)NOT about fear as much as plain comfort zone.

You will not feel uncomfortable because you are 'afraid' but because you are ANNOYED about being leered at by men who have an unnatural and devient sexual fascination with male body parts and orifices.

Unfortunately, for even writing that last sentence, a person could be jailed in the UK. So..this is a very important debate.

GLASGOW, April 1, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – An American street preacher has been arrested and fined £1000 in Glasgow for telling passersby, in answer to a direct question, that homosexual activity is a sin. Shawn Holes was kept in jail overnight on March 18, and in the morning pled guilty to charges that he had made “homophobic remarks…aggravated by religious prejudice.”

NOTICE THIS "in answer to a direct QUESTION"....

Charges were dropped later.. because it is clear he was not 'irrationally fearful' of gays.
Be afraid.. be very afraid (Maurice Strong is coming:) OR.. YOU CAN VOTE THESE SCUMBAGS OUT! and CHANGE THE LAW-2 ELECTIONS COMING UP.

ALGOREisRICH:".if you know they are gay you will feel an awareness that they might be ogling you."

Quite so. I womder how many people here would knowingly shake hands with their garbo without going and washing them afterwards, but happily shake hands with all sorts of people in ignorance of what they might have been doing a few minutes before.

Knowledge changes perceptions.

I'm still interested in the reason that so many people feel that Akermanis's comfort and presumably that of others who feel similarly is so unworthy of consideration. Is anyone prepared to have a go at that?

In many workplaces, a claim that the behaviour, especially sexualised behaviour of a fellow emplyee makes one "uncomfortable" can lead to action against the other employee, up to and including dismissal. Why should that principal not apply to football? A footballer who declares as gay is making a statement about his sexuality which is highly inappropriate in the context of a roomful of men who have every right to feel comfortable and relaxed with each other's presence in a vulnerable situation - naked in the shower.

I think you'd have to be pretty insecure about your sexuality if you're worried that some other guy is looking at you with sexual interest, clothed or otherwise. Men who like to spend time together naked should just assume that some of their peers are gay, because some of them undoubtedly are, whether or not they're out of the closet.

PYNCHME from your link;

Alan Turing, 41, a mathematical genius, master decoder of Nazi ciphers and arguably an inventor of the modern computer, was arrested on homosexuality charges and sentenced to a year of "conversion" hormone treatment. Also accused of subversion, he committed suicide in 1954, apparently by eating a cyanide-laced apple.

So...I guess that's the final persuasive argument eh ? SMART people who have made MAJOR contributions to science and our security justify a more accepting attitude toward homosexual behavior.

Well.. here is the 'next step' for that interesting argument.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8296578.stm

Awwww GEE.. the poor persecuted minister.. *pout*

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/223201_west06.html
Another account of wrongful persecution of a totally "wholesome" gay man.. boggles the mind....right ?

But this one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Carleton_Gajdusek

Same reasoning..

-Smart
-Nobel Laureate
-Genius..
-Contributed to Science and Medicine.

but... one minor problem. (or...IS IT ? according to you)

AiR, there is absolutely no similarity between houndings of gay men and Gajdusek, apart from the fact that he was gay too. The point with Gadjusek was that he was a paedophile who abused a position of trust to further his lusts. The French minister may or may not be a paedophile, but the trouble he is in has nothing to do with being gay and everything to do with the age of the south-east Asian male prostitutes he slept with. The US situation deals with hypocrisy and also with breach of fiduciary duty.

Your last post doesn't advance the argument at all.

And speaking of advancing the argument, I've just been reading this thread and a wide cross-section of you appears to be doing a good job of abusing each other. I'll just delete posts if this continues from this point on. And hand out suspensions.

Rich pickings!

Pericles,

What if a man secretly dressed as a woman entered the female change rooms. OK by you? Now I'm sure all the woman would be fine with it if they never knew she was really a he. But then if they found out that the she was really a he, the next time this man dressed as a woman wanted to enter the womens showers, I'm sure the cops would be out in force.

CJ,

You must be like a pig in mud with this topic. I know you salivate about using the words homophobia and homoerotic nearly as much as you do using the words racist and biggot.

Although I'm sure anti probably is homophobic, I cant see how anyone has addressed r0berts plain and simple post. Of course because r0bert is polite and genteel, he's no homophobe like the abusive antiseptic. I think really, any man who doesn't kiss another man on request is homophobic. That seems to be the state of play.

Personally, I think it's just a part of life. I used to frequent a gym in Soho where guys used to 'cruise' up and down the showers, I've been in toilet cubicles where guys were obviously jacking off next door and 'tapping their feet', I've been propositioned at gay bars. I've been uncomfortable with some of these situations to varying degrees, and sometimes flattered, and even sometimes curious;-) but imagine being gay and having to be uncomfortable all the time. Let gay people be. As r0bert said, how are you going to screen them form the AFL showers.

But, also, let people who are uncomfortable with their sexuality, and prudish people be too. Why call them homophobes?

My simple solution:

Have the change rooms and showers at sports grounds turned into cubicles.

BTW: Foxy. DO your research. The guy was responding to a rumour some gay magazine or group had decided to offer $100k for the first gay AFL player to come out. That's what started it all.

Pericles and CJ,

But KNOWING changes the group dynamics. That's all the guy is saying. I don't reckon that's homophobic. Also, he seems genuinely concerned about the pitfalls of a player taking the easy money to come out without thinking through the changes that will make to their life. Which I suppose is like telling a Jew in Nazi Germany that Jews aren't popular.

I do think it's underestimating the maturity of team mates though. Sure the dressing room 'vibe' will change, but so what. I never knew the showers was the most important part of the game or the vital ingredient for success in AFL.

septic,

'A footballer who declares as gay is making a statement about his sexuality which is highly inappropriate in the context of a roomful of men who have every right to feel comfortable and relaxed with each other's presence in a vulnerable situation - naked in the shower.'

But, what if a footballer just lives his life in an openly gay way, introducing his boyfriend and showing normal affection in public. That has the same effect as 'declaring' himself gay. Why should a person have to hide who they are just for the comfort of team mates who may imagine he is perving on them? It seems a lot to ask to me.

I've never really understood this coming out business. I've never felt the need to declare myself heterosexual, or felt I was letting other heterosexuals down by not coming out.

Houllie:

>> I've never really understood this coming out business. I've never felt the need to declare myself heterosexual, or felt I was letting other heterosexuals down by not coming out. <<

Because being hetero is the majority, the 'norm' if you like. One is assumed to be heterosexual until proven otherwise. Therefore, Houllie you didn't HAVE to do anything. It takes courage to 'out' oneself as different from the accepted 'norm'. People have been known to lose their jobs, physically attacked or just denigrated for admitting to having less common sexual preferences. I feel like I have just pointed out the bleeding obvious to you. So I wonder what your true agenda was by making such a dumb comment.

Having been hit on in the change room of my local gym, it is no big deal, I just deal with the situation as I would being chatted up by a male in a pub; flattered but not interested.

If homosexuality was understood as a part of the human sexual spectrum, then there would be nothing for the homosexual athlete to fear by admitting his or her sexual preference.

Dear Antiseptic,

A few questions:

1) Out of my few posts on this thread kindly show
me where I state that I am happy to condone
segregation of facilities based on gender
but not on expressed sexuality.

2) Kindly show me where exactly I accuse Akermanis of
homophobia.

3) I did not accuse him of being gay - I only
suggested that he "may" be, due to his fear of
having gays come out of the closet. It was not an
accusation - merely a question as to the
reasons for his insecurity. It was also done
"tongue-in-cheek" and I even placed a "smile"
at the end of that sentence, as a hint, but
the subtlety was obviously lost on you.

4) Where on this thread did I make personal attacks
on you and Akermanis?

5) Where exactly do I play the victim on this thread and
then attack others?

Kindly don't try to force your reality onto me,
or put words into my posts. When I've reacted to
you in the past it was because of your provocation.
You can't apply one set of rules to yourself and
another to other posters. If you push hard enough
Sir, you will get a reaction. I've always tried
to remain polite with most posters - except in
your case that's often not easy to do. However,
on this thread I have tried to get you to lift
your bar above your usual style of posting.
Ah well, we can only try!

Dear Houellebecq,

I appreciate your taking the trouble of
doing your research.
Please keep it up. It makes for more
interesting discussions.

Well this is a change, I am feeling some sympathy with Antiseptic on this thread. If this post had been instigated someone other than Antiseptic, I wonder if the responses would have been the same.

Most women's change rooms I have attended are of the cubicle variety with shower area and small dressing area with hanging space for clothing. You have complete privacy. My high school was the same. My uni dorm had unisex showers and toilets but we used cubicles and the only thing you had to worry about was guys stealing your towel as a joke (if you were silly enough to hang it over the door).

The only time I experienced different, was at a camp where all the women showered in a large open area - a bit odd given many women also felt uncomfortable being naked in front of other women whether lesbian or not (we were self-conscious teens). Personally it would not matter to me either way, I would just prefer some privacy if I was given a choice.

This is a personal issue, you cannot really argue something is wrong or right, if someone feels uncomfortable they feel uncomfortable, end of story.

I can completely understand why some men might feel uncomfortable showering in front of a homosexual male. This does not make them a homophobe (although statistically some might be).

Houlley has made the most pragmatic suggestion - turn all sporting change rooms into cubicle arrangements. Simple really, everyone has privacy and no-one has cause to feel objectified. We all know how concerned footballers are about sexual harrassment and objectification. :)

Pelican

I guess visiting a nudist beach isn't on your list of things to do.

A lot of our discomfort with communal change rooms stems more from our issues with sexuality and our appearance, than it does hold actual real and threatening consequences.

Someone of the same sex to you looks you over - what is the problem? As a woman, you would be aware of being perved on every day by men, why is it 'worse' when the person doing the perving is of the same sex?

'. I feel like I have just pointed out the bleeding obvious to you. So I wonder what your true agenda was by making such a dumb comment.'

Oh the irony Severin. Keep going with that. It may dawn upon you. Thanks for the entertainment. You're so close!

Houllie

Does your last post mean that you are about to 'out' yourself, as, er, something or other?

Oooooooh, the antici....pation.

well no problems IMHO with the funny ball game but what of those "packing down" with Ian Roberts when he came out closet?

A bit of the old "stem the rose" to use Brokeback Talk

Strewth, there are some delicate flowers out there in the "silence is best" or " I'm OK with it if I don't know" brigade!

I would agree with H if it was a perfect world...."it's no biggy" but in truth the world isn't perfect and there are homophobes out there who pretend to be reasonable while harbouring all manners of dark fears. Severin is correct in reality.

To me, the comments of the footy boy are in keeping with his limited ability to think issues through.

I see no reason why gay people including adolescents shouldn't have sporting heroes (gay) they can identify with if they choose.

Personally, I find this "man shower culture" dynamic some what symbolic (primal) of homosexual anyway.

Additionally the underlying assumption to some of the comments implies that homosexuals are uncontrollable in their lust actions.
This is sheer nonsense.

"Being hit on" how dumb and fearful are they. One wonders if these individuals go around 'hitting' on women because their there or attractive. In truth When in the market I hit on women who *clearly showed interest* , it is a poor indictment of someone who can't distinguish between being "there" and "available". A blonk is a blonk regardless of sexual orientation.

I've played rugby and wiped bums/washed (nursed) women who can't for various reasons and not got excited, as do other men daily. Why assume that gays are any more primal that others. Not every footy boy is as dumb/ thick as the mud they play in. So why cater to a minority who think with their gonads

IF I had heroes it would be for their actions their sexual orientation IS irrelevant unless one is either a closet homophobe or needs to get both a life and perspective.

Dumb topic.

Severin
Understand where you are coming from, but there is no assumption of privacy on a nudist beach and all participants enter that domain in full knowledge that everyone is naked - men and women alike.

I am used to being perved on by men out in public but I would not want them in the shower right next to me when they are doing the perving.

My premise on this subject comes from thinking that none of us has the right to tell someone what they should feel.

If a man was to feel uncomfortable being perved on in the shower why should that not be respected and change rooms re-designed to reflect changing times. ie. that being where homosexuals are equally accepted within the game of football.

Maybe most men regardless of sexuality would prefer some privacy in ablutionary activities as opposed to this Aussie macho culture about men showering in front of each.

It is an easy problem to solve, why are we complicating it - just build private cubicles.

Pelican

I guess we are poles apart on this privacy issue. Two weeks ago I was changing out of my costume with a variety of people; all ages, sexes, in a tent on location. We were more interested into getting into our street clothes than perving after a 12 hour shoot.

It's just not a big deal. I would rather gyms spent their money on the quality of their staff and equipment rather than on separate little cubicles - which limit the number of people who can change at any one time.

I really wish more people would be more comfortable with their bodies and sexuality in general. Our paranoia merely creates a climate for the true pervert to prevail. Just think; holes drilled into change room walls, 'up-skirting' etc.

Gawd, I recall reading that young girls were told never to wear shiny patent leather shoes because someone might see their underwear reflected in them. Unbelievable.

Severin
I agree with much of what you say in respect of feeling comfortable with nudity.

There are plentiful examples of the ridiculous in regard to sexuality and nudity such as the patent leather shoe example.

However, I don't think this debate falls within that category and if women have the benefit of private cubilces I cannot see why men should be denied.

Privacy is in the eye of the beholder, what is for some important won't be for others, which is why I think it better to assume the expectation of privacy rather than not.

Moving along even faster. What fun.

We seem to have boiled it down to "does the fact that you know someone to be gay affect your own behaviour".

Not just towards them one-on-one, as individuals. But when they happen to be nearby.

Houellebecq asks me...

>>Pericles, What if a man secretly dressed as a woman entered the female change rooms. OK by you?<<

Certainly not OK.

There is a clear agreement, signalled by the sign on the change room door, that it is for women only.

Are you suggesting that there is some kind of equivalence between men infiltrating the female change rooms, and homosexual men using the male changing rooms?

That would be an interesting, if illuminating, attitude.

I can't imagine what else you were trying to say. One solution for you might be to have four categories of changing room.

>>Pericles and CJ, But KNOWING changes the group dynamics<<

This is obviously the nub. And it is also the part that I least understand... Divorce Doctor expresses it best:

>>But what of those "packing down" with Ian Roberts when he came out closet? A bit of the old "stem the rose" to use Brokeback Talk<<

Interesting point. But the know/not know problem still doesn't go away.

Say you were Hoppo'ed, what would you think?

"Uh oh, it's that gay bloke, he's just looking for a date" (Apologies to Roy and HG for that one).

Or would you think... "I think he's straight, but..."

What would the difference be, in fact, between a) knowing the bloke was gay or b) thinking the guy was straight.

Because under Acker's rules, you can never be sure... eh?

only court case I remember was ET one where female journo photographed ET in the shower and he got damages award based on photo made him look "easy", but no homo undertones

Pelican,

Yours is a fair assessment and I agree with it. However the sting in the tail about footballers and "sexual harrassment and objectification" was unnecessary and unfair stereotyping. Few footballers are like that and it is wrong to disgrace them all.

By comparison, women sports have long had to live down a homoerotic tag and worse that anti-sports bigots indulge in (why?). Homoerotic labels against women sports and sportswomen are part of the reason why sponsorships are less forthcoming and why girls are still turned away from certain sports.

In decrying male sportsmen as homoerotic and possible gays, the usual offensive few on OLO are contributing to the overall stereotyping of sportspeople and that reflects on women and youth (boys and girls) as well.

OK I've heard about Freaky Friday, is this Mad Monday, where I find myself agreeing with Cornflower? Again?

Anti, man, don't bogart that joint my friend, think I need a toke right now.

"However the sting in the tail about footballers and "sexual harrassment and objectification" was unnecessary and unfair stereotyping. Few footballers are like that and it is wrong to disgrace them all."

Yes, fair enough, I take my slap fair and squarely Cornflower - not all footballers are like that. It was an opportunistic dig at some of those who continue to support the bad behaviour of those few footabllers without question. However it would also be foolish to pretend that there does not exist a football culture which sometimes at it's worst, reflects that worst side of some players.

I must live in a different world to some, as I have never picked up on the homoerotic stigma regarding women in sport.

I just see them as women who play sport. I would have to disagree that it is for this reason sponsorship is not forthcoming. I could be wrong, but I would have thought that most sponsorship and advertising is based on the number of fans and attendance records ie. more people to market to. Women's sport has never been as popular but that is changing.

Cornflower: << Homoerotic labels against women sports and sportswomen are part of the reason why sponsorships are less forthcoming and why girls are still turned away from certain sports. >>

I've never heard of this either. I don't suppose you have a reference to support this assertion?

Pericles,

'Are you suggesting that there is some kind of equivalence between men infiltrating the female change rooms, and homosexual men using the male changing rooms?'
No.

Do you think that male and female change rooms being segregated has nothing at all to do with women being uncomfortable being perved at by men? If no, as r0bert said, do you class women as heterophobic?

'I can't imagine what else you were trying to say'
I think you well imagine by reading the rest of your post. It's to do with 'knowing', and the social 'agreement', however naive, of some showering footballers. ie. 'We shower together in the safe knowledge nobody here is gay, so nobody is interested in checking out each others bits.'

'What would the difference be, in fact, between a) knowing the bloke was gay or b) thinking the guy was straight.'

Like a wife who knows her hubby is cheating and gets upset when someone points it out, because then she feels she has to do something about it, sometimes the reality makes all the difference.

The difference between all players being comfortable with the shared nudity situation (all under the same level of 'suspicion'), to one where some players would definitely be uncomfortable about some *particular* players. Personally 'I'm not bovered' either way, as I have said, but I'm surprised your imagination doesn't stretch to any of these footballers needing to believe none of their team is gay in order to shower together.

BTW: The Hoppoate comments strike me as naive. These people show a lack of understanding about sport I reckon. It's blatantly a simple case of 'physical sledging' in poor taste. Does anyone think a boxer hitting below the belt is gay? Sometimes I think the homophobe accusers are the ones with the homophobia rather than the supposed homophobes they point at. The latent homosexuality they see in everything that they think is denied by homophobes is actually not there, and the very reason they see this homosexuality is because they are the ones with issues.

pelican,

"However it would also be foolish to pretend that there does not exist a football culture which sometimes at it's worst, reflects that worst side of some players."

That is what negative stereotyping and scapegoating is all about isn't it, besmirching the many with the behaviour of the few? It is like seeing some black offenders on a US cops show and believing that all are like that. You would rightly object to that and so would I.

There are male and female Bogans and ferals aplenty in all walks of life and especially out on Friday and Saturday nights. From those who happen to attract the attention of police, there is no evidence whatsoever that footballers are worse than hairdressers or salespeople, or are men worse than women. There are troublesome people everywhere and they do not necessarily wear football guernseys.

Out of the thousands who play the various football codes in Australia just how many have been convicted of sexual crimes or crimes of violence? Rather than cause problems the availability of a sporting interest has given and is giving many young people, both male and female, the self respect and encouragement they don't get at home.

pelican, "I must live in a different world to some, as I have never picked up on the homoerotic stigma regarding women in sport."

It is prevalent, just use Google as you might normally do. I am not going to add to the grubby speculation about particular sports except to acknowledge that it is the teams sports that have attracted the sleazy comments from the anti-sport detractors. By way of another example, women's sports coaches were copping the homoerotic and 'homo' flack long before the malicious rumour-mongering turned to male coaches. Of course it only takes the odd rare example to confirm the 'knowledge' of critics. - Just as your sledging of footballers is 'confirmed' by the odd example sensationalised by a media usually relying of suspect sources and unproven allegations.

I really can't believe so many people are so hung up about the human body. While I don't want to offend anyone by my own nakedness (although I don't know why I should) why are we taught that it is something that is shameful ?
Several hundred people paraded in front of the Opera House recently to get their photo taken and I can't believe the old chestnut about them all being perverts or exhibitionists. I don't recall any reports of sexual molestation.

People are curious about what they can't see in the same way some may like to see Molly Meldrome's bald pate. So the public always get some sort of titillation from what is not always on show. It must be a hangover from religious dogma where murder and slavery was sanctioned, but anything remotely related to anything sexual is forbidden.

Perhaps I am unconcerned about this sort of thing as I was raised in two English schools where we always swam naked, showered together naked and thought nothing of it. I have even made pocket money as an artist's model and spent time on nudist beaches. What's the big deal?

Well we will have to disagree on some points Cornflower. Regardless, I do think there is a football culture which in some ways is aided and abetted by the media both cashing in on the 'outrage' and the 'boys will be boys' attitudes. They are also not backward in besmirching the character of any of the women involved.

pelican,

I am OK by that. I am sure we are not heading for entirely different goals although the paths might be different. Having read it again, the last sentence of my previous post did not do justice to your position as I have understood it from this thread and previous ones.

Pynchme,
<<What is it that makes them feel uncomfortable? I wonder if any can articulate that.>>
I'll articulate it for you.
The vagina is for sexual relations.
The anus is for defecating.
The normal woman associates her vagina with sexual activity.
The normal man does not associate his anus with sexual activity.
He is repelled by the concept.
This is normal and natural.
The idea that some man is looking at him imagining that he would like to penetrate his anus is beyond repugnant.
If a woman would feel uncomfortable sharing a common shower with a male she is not sexually interested in, even though she has complementary sexual apparatus, how much more uncomfortable would a normal man feel sharing a shower with a man who wanted to stick it up his rectum.
Are you from a different planet or something?
<<wouldn't men who are sexually desirable to other men also hold all the power because they own the gateway>>
The anus is a faecal exit, not an entrance.
Either you are being deliberately obtuse, or you have surrendered your capacity to reason.
What is wrong with you people?
Having been approached on a number of occasions in my adolescence by degenerate homosexuals in public toilets, I think it is beyond time that this sort of behaviour is criminalised.
You morons act as if it's normal.

I think that Proxy's latest comment above is one of the best examples of blatant homophobia I've seen here. Personally, I think that people who espouse such hatred are far more of a problem to humanity than those who are homosexual - either in or out of the closet.

Mind you, I also find it entirely unsurprising that they are attracted to Antiseptic's paranoid view of human sexual diversity.

One of, for all that concerns when football is concerned, is HIV and other pathogens when body interactions takes place, and the man in question, understands this well with health as a priority with blood-sports as a commonsense absolution. Being gay is not the problem, its how you conduct your sex life, most are concerned.

TTM

CJ Morgan,
Homophobic? How so?
Do you think homosexuals propositioning adolescent boys in public toilets should be sanctioned by law?
Do you think men should be allowed to go into women's shower rooms and watch them shower?
Do you think the anus is the sexual equivalent of the vagina?
Maybe you missed biology lessons, so I'll give it to you straight:
The natural order:
Vagina - penis in, baby out
Anus - faeces out

Absolutely right there CJ!
What an interesting subject you have here Antiseptic. Nice to see you having a go at men for a refreshing change - albeit gay men!

Woulfe - <"This thread's too funny. Possibly, but I wish I could get rid of this vision of Antiseptic and co showering together in their jocks, backs resolutely to the wall, furtively eyeing everyone else in the place for signs of ho-mo-sexuality." Rofl!

For goodness sakes, the ignorance of the homophobes rallying together on this thread is astounding.
There have always been gay men playing sports all along boys.
How is it your 'gaydars' haven't spotted them before now?

Could it be that most of these athletes are just like you are, except that they prefer other gay men as sexual partners?

Here's the thing boys, gay men will usually only come on to other gay men.
All men and women 'LOOK' at each other if they are nude- it is simply human curiosity.

Go change in a toilet if you are worried that your manly beauty will attract all gay men in the vicinity.
My guess is that you won't have a problem with that.....

suzieonline writes what she wishes

'Here's the thing boys, gay men will usually only come on to other gay men. '

Tell that to the homosexual clergy who assaulted young boys.

Proxy: Thanks for doing your best to articulate the source of discomfort; sorry though but you give me the giggles. It brought to mind something a neighbour said about 20 years ago, "If God meant for me to have an operation he'd have given me a zipper."

Following your premise, the mouth is for food in. So strike kissing; head jobs and the like off your list of allowable human sexual behaviour.

Not all gay blokes practice anal sex ( see man2man alliance, for example) because some gay men consider it feminizing and demeaning. There is a variety of ways that men-men have sex; anal sex is just one way that they might share sexual affection.

Anyway, having individual stalls built is a fair suggestion. Do you think it might herald a revolution in the way that footy players relate to each other?

Btw: historically some warriors bonded by loving it up amongst themselves. There are plenty of fellows today who are gay who don't conform to any stereotype. As CJ points out, it's best if blokes who share facilities assume that a proportion of those present are gay because it's almost a certainty that some will be.

Btw: The gateway comment was specifically addressed to Antiseptic who had coined the phrase on another thread, but I don't think he was talking about female receptivity. He was arguing that the desired female holds all the power; while the pursuing male is at a disadvantage. If that were true, then it would hold true in any human encounter where one is desired by the other. Therefore, the case would logically follow that the desired male (the ones who are scared about being desired by another man) holds more power than the one who is wanting to get close.

Well, we seem to be making some progress. The thinking posters are able to grasp the essential point here, which I articulated early on. The usual dimwits are stuck in their usual "I hate antiseptic so he must be a poof or something, btw he's got a small dick you know" mode. Do try to grow up.

The point was comparing two analogous situations and looking at the different ways we, as a society, respond to them. The two situations were the presence of a person of opposite gender in a changeroom and the presence of someone of opposite sexual orientation. The suggestion of separate cubicles, while it may address the particular concen expressed by Akermanis, doesn't address the response that Akermanis was subjected to. He was vilified, denigrated, attacked personally in the most vile way for merely suggesting his discomfort, yet much of the justification for the gay lobby's claims rests on the discomfort felt by gay people in particular situations.

One of the grounds for making a claim of sexual harassment is that the harasser was behaving in a way that made the claimant "uncomfortable". The NSW Govt offer the following:
"In terms of anti-discrimination law, harassment is any form of behaviour that:

* you do not want;
* offends, humiliates or intimidates you; and
* targets you because of your sex, pregnancy, race, age, marital or domestic status, homosexuality, disability, transgender (transsexual) status or carers’ responsibilities."

The HREOC offers this:"Sexual harassment is a type of sex discrimination. Sexual harassment is any unwanted or unwelcome sexual behaviour which makes a person feel offended or humiliated and that reaction could reasonably have been expected in the circumstances."

Why then, was Akermanis's further harassment by the media acceptable? If he'd been a gay player complaining about not being welcome in the change rooms would he have been treated the same way? What if he was complaining about a transgendered person rather than a gay one?

[cont]

Mt point, of course, at the risk of being labelled "heavy-handed", is that we, as a society are implementing a socially-engineered double standard. We are saying that a straight man has no right whatever to express his disconfort on the grounds that if he does so someone else may feel discomfort. IOW, we have set up a situation in which a minority may wilfully oppress a majority, which is grossly undemocrtatic in what is purported to be a democratic nation.

This may have come about with the best of intent, but it illustrates nicely the dangers of allowing powerful minority lobby groups with agendas that may or may not be congruent with their "constituents" to drive Govt policy-making. We even have feminist groups who try to pretend that women, who comprise over 50% of the populace are a "minority group", showing how powerful such a claim is felt to be.

Is this reasonable, or should we be thinking first about what is best for the majority and only then accommodating the expressed desires of minorities?

Dear Proxy....

you are making a very unwise assumption in your debate with Herr Morgan :)

you are assuming he is 'rational'!

big...mistake, where the evidence is clearly demonstrated in his post.

YOU... make a reasoned outline of why heterosexual males feel uncomfortable with the idea of homosexual behavior.

HE... calls you 'homophobic' rather than address even one of your points.

i.e...CJ resorts to irrational name calling rather than rational reasoned debate. Welcome to my world :)

Please keep up your well reasoned posts. There are a large number of people who read them with interest. In fact my opening gesture on OLO is going to the USER index and looking for 'Proxy''s last few posts..

The one thing which should comfort us from paranoid irrationality as you see well demonstrated in 'certain' posts is that this battle is ultimately political rather than ideological.

Can you imagine if CJ and ilk had the balance of power in the Senate? aaargggh *cringe*...perish the thought.

Feel free to email me via the administrator... I feel there is much we could do on these matters.
cheers

Ah so very true C J Morgan

Ah, so very pointless, Belly.

Would you care to have a go at the topic, rather than Morgan's puerile dog-whistling?

<"The HREOC offers this:"Sexual harassment is a type of sex discrimination. Sexual harassment is any unwanted or unwelcome sexual behaviour which makes a person feel offended or humiliated and that reaction could reasonably have been expected in the circumstances.">

It says "unwanted or unwelcome sexual behaviour" - the offender has to DO something that involves the offended party.

You are saying people feel uncomfortable just knowing that someone different exists.

Pynchme:"You are saying people feel uncomfortable just knowing that someone different exists."

So next time I feel like a wee I shouldn't bother checking if it's male or female one? As long as I don't actually try and pick one of the ladies up they should just accept my presence?

the offender has to DO something that involves the offended party.

That's like driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. You may not actually have an accident but you're still under the influence.
Anyhow, with so much research going on everywhere I wonder if any is being done into the phenomenon of homosexuality.
If homosexuality were somehow to become extinct we'd have less entertainment, hardly any politicians & sports people, academics, the list goes on. Many homosexuals are very smart people how else could they attain very high ranks in public life, unless of course it's via nepotism. Highly unlikely though in Australia, eh ?

Indeed, Pynchme. I find it interesting that homophobes almost always focus on anal sex, as if that's the only sexual activity in which gay men engage - or indeed as if it's only homosexual men who engage in it. I suspect that those with such a narrow view of human sexuality probably have extremely boring sex lives - I mean, have they never heard of oral sex?

Cornflower, I did a Google search looking for anything about homoeroticism and women's sport, using various different search terms. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any of the prolific discussion that you claim exists on the subject. My search did, however, produce lots of links to articles discussing homoeroticism in male sport (particularly contact games like Rugby), and to numerous sites dedicated to promoting lesbian sport.

But nothing at all about homoeroticism in women's sport. Should we just take your word for it, or would you care to provide some evidence for your assertion?

CJ,

http://jss.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/3/266

Denise Annetts once got sour grapes. Apparently she wasn't picked for Australia because they're a bunch of heterophobic carpet munchers.

Fred Nile's wife got in on the act...

http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/nswbills.nsf/0/bac8425f486d59c34a2567e70021140d/$FILE/E%20Nile03.pdf

You can thank me later;-)

Anti,

You remind me of Beavis and Butthead

http://flimmr.passagen.se/movie/beavis_and_butthead_sexual_harassment.action

You never answered my question; What if a footballer just lives his life in an openly gay way, introducing his boyfriend and showing normal affection in public. That has the same effect as 'declaring' himself gay. Why should a person have to hide who they are just for the comfort of team mates who may imagine he is perving on them next time they're in the shower? It seems a lot to ask to me.

'We are saying that a straight man has no right whatever to express his disconfort on the grounds that if he does so someone else may feel discomfort.'

Yeah he does. Ackers did and a lot of people here have.

BTW: I'm absolutely in awe of your ability to relate this to feminism! Wo ho ho, I'm not worthy! You're a living treasure.

Great post, Howler :)

Thanks for the links, but I'm still none the wiser about homoeroticism (as opposed to homosexuality per se) in women's sport.

The B&B vid was hilarious. I do believe I'm warming to you.

OMG - just as well we're not members of the same footy team, eh?

I see we have shifted focus a little, Antiseptic.

>>we seem to be making some progress. The thinking posters are able to grasp the essential point here, which I articulated early on... The two situations were the presence of a person of opposite gender in a changeroom and the presence of someone of opposite sexual orientation<<

Errrr... really? I thought that it was about sharing the changeroom with someone who was openly gay, as opposed to sharing the changeroom with someone who was gay, but had not declared himself so.

The rest of your argument seems to stray towards the latter, after all.

>>...as a society are implementing a socially-engineered double standard. We are saying that a straight man has no right whatever to express his disconfort on the grounds that if he does so someone else may feel discomfort.<<

Let's deal with them one at a time, so you can get the confusion out of your head once and for all.

No-one is suggesting that the presence of someone of the opposite sex in your changeroom is acceptable behaviour.

Ok with that? Or are you telling us that someone other than yourself has introduced the concept?

As for the "discomfort" part, I think you are misreading the situation. Probably deliberately.

It is clear that Akermanis would be uncomfortable, should one of his playing colleagues "out" himself. He is entirely entitled to his discomfort. No-one will tell him to be comfortable, because that is entirely his choice.

What he is trying to do, though, is to influence other people's choice - i.e. the choice of someone to openly declare their sexual orientation.

You make a lot of noise, here and on other threads, about the imposition of the minority view on the majority.

>> we have set up a situation in which a minority may wilfully oppress a majority, which is grossly undemocrtatic in what is purported to be a democratic nation<<

Could you perhaps define a little more clearly how you see this "oppression" manifesting itself in this situation?

And please, Antiseptic, try to stay on-topic

>>So next time I feel like a wee I shouldn't bother checking if it's male or female one? As long as I don't actually try and pick one of the ladies up they should just accept my presence?<<

Irrelevant.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of declared/undeclared sexual orientation in the football changeroom.

It is simply a red herring that you have introduced for reasons that are quite unfathomable to me, but might originate from some insecurity or other.

Either way, your problem.

But I may be missing some subtlety, some convoluted logic that is too complex for my simple thought processes. In which case, please enlighten me.

The question: what has the presence of an openly gay football player in the changeroom to do with the presence of Antiseptic in the ladies changeroom, claiming the right to pee wherever he likes?

I have had a bit of a rethink on the private cubicles - 'cos they're private - could be very, very useful in lustful situations.

:P

CJ

The complete lack of imagination espoused by homophobes when they attempt to explain their disgust with homosexual sex... just leaves me speechless. Their own sex lives must as exciting as watching paint dry; maybe homophobia IS just an expression of envy.

And another thing....

When I was at uni we had mixed sex toilets. No problems - just private cubicles, no urinals, therefore less smelly than men's toilets usually are. And yes, I have used men's toilets when nothing else was available.

Seems to me that Anti is creating his own problems - as Pericles has pointed out.

Severin writes
'Their own sex lives must as exciting as watching paint dry; maybe homophobia IS just an expression of envy.'

Its pretty hard to envy something so unhealthy and perverted.

An interesting take on the issue in today's 'National Times':

<< Akermanis merely highlights what we've long suspected

DMETRI KAKMI
May 25, 2010

Homoerotic locker-room antics rely on a strange principle of denial.

Another day, another heterosexual man making pronouncements about things he knows little about. This month, it's sportsman Jason Akermanis telling gay football players it would be best to stay in the closet. The game is not ready for them, says he. Not surprisingly, he was pounced upon by the injured and indignant. ''Homophobe,'' they screamed. ''Ignorant knucklehead,'' they howled.

Well, I'm going to stick out my neck and say that Akermanis has not been given a fair go. There is something interesting afoot here and it's worth investigating. So, what are the crimes of Jason Akermanis? >>

http://tiny.cc/ec5yv

and the response from the lefties and militants is quite predictable. Stop free speech or we will become violent.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/jason-akermanis-furious-after-car-and-house-targeted-by-egg-throwers/story-e6frf9jf-1225870940571

Why am I surprised?

I don't understand why this topic is such a hot potato - the point is if some players feel discomfort at being nude in front of a gay player why cannot they be better accomodated. Mocking someone's need for privacy is as bad as mocking someone for being gay.

We are better off if gay players can freely come out of the closet without having to pretend they are straight. If we accept this as a good thing, there might need to be some changes in bathroom design.

To quote Steve Austin 'we have the technology we can rebuild them.'

runner

I hadn't realised the perpetrators had been caught. Could you link to where the arrests were made and how you know they were lefties? I hate to disappoint and intrude on your worldview, but there are gay men and women in the Right Wing as well. Sexual orientation is not linked to political leanings.

Talk about casting judgements and aspersions...sheesh.

Would you be writing those words against violence if the egging been targeted at some poor homosexual minding their own business. I can't say for sure but I doubt it.

Severin,
<<Their own sex lives must as exciting as watching paint dry; maybe homophobia IS just an expression of envy.>>
Envy of what?
- feeling a compulsion to trawl public lavatories for anonymous sex?
- dealing with faecal contamination of sex organs?
- dealing with anal injuries and cancers?
- rates of HIV infection 40+ times that of normal men?
- high rates of gonorrhoea, syphilis, the hepatitis', MRSA, etc
Normal men don't need that kind of "excitement".

pelican, "I don't understand why this topic is such a hot potato - the point is if some players feel discomfort at being nude in front of a gay player why cannot they be better accomodated. Mocking someone's need for privacy is as bad as mocking someone for being gay."

Those are my thoughts entirely.

C J Morgan,
That you found what you wanted to find and couldn't find anything that challenged your bigotry comes as no surprise at all, it is just par for the course.

Only a fool would deny that girls' fears of homophobia can contribute to some girls not participating in athletics and sports. Likewise it has affected the number of women in coaching positions, which is most unfortunate given the number of talented women who are forever lost to sports coaching.

It is reprehensible that some with secondary gain in mind would continually beat up 'homoeroticism' in sport thus making it even harder for for gays and lesbians, while at the same time creating more barriers for girls and boys to take up sport.

Shorter Cornflower: "I really meant to say 'homophobia' in women's sport, but I can't bring myself to admit it."

Incidentally, I agree with you that homophobia with respect to women's sport could well be one reason that it is marginalised when compared to men's sport, and could also deter some women from participating. My interest in your alleged discussions about homoeroticism is because I hadn't heard of them before. If there are any articles about it of which you're aware, I'd be genuinely interested in reading them.

But I shan't hold my breath.

C J Morgan

Good, you have 'discovered' something that you couldn't find before.

Now keep that reverse gear engaged and admit that the 'homoerotic' sledging you hurl at male footballers is for secondary gain - exclusively to give you jollies in your parlour game of labelling and baiting other respondents to win attention for yourself. Hiya and high fives for that, eh CJ?

However such sledging does have the harmful effect of spilling across to vilify all sport and all participants. The sledging is always counter-productive and you know it.

Yours is the stupid, malicious name-calling that could easily find homoeroticism in all-boys' or all-girls' schools or in all-boys' or all-girls' sports. Equally you could find homoeroticism in the platonic friendship of boys, men, girls and women. However in this forum you are decidedly reluctant to admit the existence of your favoured subject of homoeroticism in any but male sporting pursuits.

You do it just to stir and get attention, nothing positive or constructive in that. Your slant in this thread is a dead giveaway as ememplified by your silly, conflict provoking statement earlier that, "Men who like to spend time together naked should just assume that some of their peers are gay". As all are aware, the male locker rooms are sparse and make no concessions for comfort or privacy and this is the problem. They are not there to be naked together, as well you know.

I suppose you would assert that the shower and toilet facilities in airport club lounge facilities, or wash-rooms in better hotels must have been designed by 'homophobes' (another commonly used CJ label) because they do offer privacy.

The reasonable solution is for administrators and architects is to think laterally and come up with designs that can offer privacy. It is done in many women's toilets, change facilities and gyms and so it should be.

No need to get cranky, Cornflower. I haven't attacked you personally, and it was you that brought up the subject of homoeroticism in women's sport. While I'm aware of prolific articles that address homoeroticism in men's sport, I'm still not aware of any with respect to women's sport - which is in itself interesting.

That there are well-documented homoerotic aspects of men's sports - particularly with respect to football (at least of the Rugby codes) is inarguable. I didn't make them up, and I don't think that there's necessarily anything negative about them - except in the context of homophobia of the sort expressed by Jason Akermanis. As you know full well, I'm not talking just about men showering together. Other negative manifestations have been said to include such activities as the gang bangs and circle jerks that attracted so much media attention a year or two ago.

My earlier suggestion that "Men who like to spend time together naked should just assume that some of their peers are gay" is simply an acknowledgement that in any group of men, including footballers, at least some of them are likely to be homosexual. Rather than being threatened by that reality, I can't see why footballers can't learn to deal with it like sexually well-adjusted adults do. Houellebecq actually made a good point in that respect.

They've apparently learned that gang bangs and circle jerks aren't a necessary part of the footy ethos, so I'm sure they can get over their apparent homophobia too.

[Deleted for abuse]

Pelican said, "...it would not matter to me either way, I would just prefer some privacy if I was given a choice."

Same here. I never had a problem with shared shower areas unless I had a heavy period. I'd want to be able to wash 'down there' in private, and even with only women present, I'd prefer if they didn't see blood streaming down my legs. It wouldn't make any difference to me at all whether they were lesbians or not.

I find shower blocks and changing rooms the most non-sexual places. Dirty clothes all around you, smelly bodies; sex is the last thing on my mind in a place like that. Apparently, for some (or all?) men the scenery doesn't make much difference.

I think this is just so simple- instead of footballers making a big drama out of showering with homosexuals, puhleasse let them have some cubicles so that the ones who want privacy have that option. Problem solved. Drama over.

I'm sure that in time -give it another 30 years or so- with the zeitgeist, homosexuals and Same Sex Marriage will be much more accepted.

Suzeonline <" 'Here's the thing boys, gay men will usually only come on to other gay men.'

Runner <"Tell that to the homosexual clergy who assaulted young boys."

As usual Runner, you are confusing the terms homosexual and paedophile.
I don't know how many times the differences has been spelled out to you on these pages... but obviously you aren't understanding us?

Proxy thinks that 'normal' men (like you I suppose?) wouldn't be envious of the homosexual sexlife or lifestyle.
I agree with that.
But I also think most 'normal' men would not feel threatened about anyone different from themselves if they felt comfortable in their own skin.

Homophobes must have low self-esteem.
Real men are understanding and tolerant people.

>> [Deleted for abuse]

Ironic that petty insults directed at one or two people get removed from OLO, but the filthiest calumnies against whole classes of people remain.

Just sayin'

woulfe,
<<filthiest calumnies against whole classes of people>>
Which "filthy falsifications or misrepresentations" would you be referring to?
Who is falsifying what?

I prefer to quote from those who can speak from direct experience:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/sep/08091011.html

suzeonline,
<<As usual Runner, you are confusing the terms homosexual and paedophile.>>
You're the confused one.
To you, a man who engages in homosex with an 18 yo is a homosexual but a man who engages in homosex with a 17.99 yo (fill in appropriate age of consent less one day here) is a heterosexual paedophile by definition.
This is very convenient but it is dishonest and misleading,
which is no doubt the intent of those promulgating this view.

Proxy, are you suggesting that the clergy paedophiles who molested children in their care were actually homosexuals?
What about the girls who were molested by male clergy?

All those children were school age Proxy- hardly the age of consent.
If you are an adult who sexually abuses children of either gender under the age of 16, then you are a paedophile, no matter what sexual orientation or religion you were born with.

It is the law in this country that says an adult can't legally have sex with anyone under the age of sixteen. If they do, they are charged as child sex offenders or paedophiles.
What part of that law don't you understand Proxy?

Houellebecq:"What if a footballer just lives his life in an openly gay way, introducing his boyfriend and showing normal affection in public"

Then I daresay he'd find he was simply not welcome in the showers. As "Deccles" said in response to the Dmetri Kakmi piece that Morgan liked so much: "As a gay player who was in the closet and then out. All Akermanis is saying is the way it is".

Football culture is not gay culture. Why must football culture be forced to adopt the mores of gay culture? Is gay culture forced to adopt the mores of traditional football culture? Should it be?

As I said though, I'm more interested in the way in which Akermanis was attacked through the media for simply expressing a pretty personal view.

Are gay people so insecure in their sexuality that a simple statement "I would feel uncomfortable knowing that the bloke standing naked next to me in the shower is gay" deserves such a bitter and sustained response? As I said, lots of gay people have been prepared to say "this situation makes me uncomfortable, so you must change" and if anyone was to respond in the same way that Akermanis was treated they may find themselves facing charges.

Pericles:"I thought that it was about "

I'm sure you think a lot of things, but that doesn't make them correct.

Pericles:"No-one is suggesting that the presence of someone of the opposite sex in your changeroom is acceptable behaviour."

And why not? Because it would make the other occupants "uncomfortable".

Yet they are suggesting that the presence of someone known to be of opposite sexual orientation is acceptable and should be forced upon people if they object. In fact, they're suggesting that merely saying "I feel uncomfortable" is sufficient justification for public abuse "maybe his "maleness" is a bit small (tee hee)". The two situations are directly analogous and your response is a double standard.

[cont]

Pericles:"What he is trying to do, though, is to influence other people's choice - i.e. the choice of someone to openly declare their sexual orientation. "

Not at all. He's simply saying "we don't do that here". Many groups do that: for example, my local shopping centre has many signs up prohibiting the riding of skateboards, etc on their premises. Are they trying to "influence other people's choice" or are they simply saying "do it somewhere else"? Would it be acceptable for "skateboard activiats" to go on radio and personally vilify the people running such centres?

Pericles:"Could you perhaps define a little more clearly how you see this "oppression" manifesting itself in this situation?"

I've already done so. Perhaps a short course in reading for comprehension would sit well with that other one.

Severin:"When I was at uni we had mixed sex toilets"

Ditto, but we also had segregated ones for those who felt "uncomfortable" using the unisex ones.

I've still yet to see a single logical argument to justify the storm of vilification that the gay community and the rather sad football-haters have heaped on Akermanis.

The private cubicles idea is flawed, since a large part of being in a foorball team is that you have complete trust your teammates. You don't need to worry about putting yourself in a vulnerable position because they will watch your back, so to speak. Private cubicles undermine that to a degree.

Perhaps if there are so many gay men wanting to play football they should start their own clubs? I'm sure the AFL, NRL amd ARU would be pleased to add more potential players to their roster and expand their competitions. The showering protocols would be up to the clubs and their players...

Antiseptic: << Perhaps if there are so many gay men wanting to play football they should start their own clubs? >>

They're already playing football, old son. It's just that some sexually insecure types want to keep them in the closet.

"The private cubicles idea is flawed, since a large part of being in a foorball team is that you have complete trust your teammates. You don't need to worry about putting yourself in a vulnerable position because they will watch your back, so to speak. Private cubicles undermine that to a degree."

I can't agree with that Antiseptic. I understand the concept of trust and cameraderie on the playing field is important...but in the change room you are just having a shower. Private cubicles do the same job. Is it necessary to build on that team trust in the shower room? Why?

Homosexual police officers watch the back of their fellow officers in the course of their duties. Sexual orientation does not diminish a person's duty of care or trust any more or less than in heterosexuals.

Morgan:"They're already playing football"

Are they? Where's your evidence that there are hordes of gay men playing football? I can recall about 2 or 3 high-profile "outings" and there are many hundreds of top-level football players. Commonly, they wait until they've retired to come out.

Pelican:"Homosexual police officers watch the back of their fellow officers in the course of their duties"

Dear me, people have an incredible ability to grasp the wrong stick altogether. I'm not suggesting that homosexual people are in any way incompetent, so please don't fly off at a tangent.

The communal shower is part of football culture, it's not "just having a shower" as anyone who's played the game knows. Brendan Fevola said a week or two ago that he felt mildly uncomfortable at the Lions because the players kept their underwear on in the shower. I can see what he means. It's kind of saying "I trust you to play football, but I'm mot quite sure whether I can trust you completely". I think the private cubicle thing is taking that even further.

In their desperation to twist anything into an anti-gay headline, the Lifesite news people overlooked the fact that Simon Fanshawe is a stand-up comedian, and his tongue-in-cheek film deals with a small bunch of inner-London gay people. Simply not relevant to a discussion about straight men's locker-room anxieties.

>> I prefer to quote from those who can speak from direct experience

I speak from direct experience http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4796

Anti
I know you are not saying incompetent, but you are the one that raised the issue of privacy in the shower room, that is what this is about.

I'm the first to admit I don't know much about the significance of the locker room shower I thought it was all about the game. Football culture is like any other culture, it is capable of change to accommodate a changing world. I played mixed netball for a while and we were all in it together, we trusted each other and did the best for our team despite the fact we had seperate shower rooms.

Accepting current culture, why is there no room for change? All this does is encourage gay men to stay in the closet.

Antiseptic: << Where's your evidence that there are hordes of gay men playing football? I can recall about 2 or 3 high-profile "outings" and there are many hundreds of top-level football players. Commonly, they wait until they've retired to come out. >>

You seem a bit confused. Who said anything about "hordes"?

While nobody could possibly know how many gay footballers are currently playing - largely because they are pressured to remain in the closet - there are undoubtedly some. You acknowledge this when you say "they wait until they've retired to come out".

Also undoubtedly, there would be many more gay men playing football if it wasn't for its obviously homophobic "culture". Indeed, that's what you're really afraid of, isn't it?

Morgan:"While nobody could possibly know how many gay footballers are currently playing -[...] there are undoubtedly some."

Undoubtedly. But they are a very tiny minority, I suspect. The proportion of footballers is not high even within the general community and it is likely to be much lower within the gay community, which is already only a small minority (about 1.5%) of men, meaning it must be a very tiny portion of the footballing population indeed.

Why should such a timy minority be able to dictate to the overwhelmingly large majority and demand they change their culture? You're supposed to be an anthropologist, this should be interesting.

Pelican:"Accepting current culture, why is there no room for change? All this does is encourage gay men to stay in the closet."

There is no REASON for change that I can see.Gay men can be out or otherwise, as long as they keep it away from the club. That's just the way it is. Some jobs carry prerequisites: priests must be paedophiles, politicians must be liars, footballers must be straight...

Demanding change for its own sake is not reasonable

Anti
"Demanding change for its own sake is not reasonable."

But noone is demanding change for its own sake. There is a reason - the one you raised in relation to privacy.

"Some jobs carry prerequisites: priests must be paedophiles, politicians must be liars, footballers must be straight..."

Well this is where I bail out - this issue is nothing to do with privacy then?

We would all prefer priests not to be pedophiles and politicians not to be liars - are you implying those cultures should not change?

Sexual orientation on the other hand does not determine whether one is suitable for football or any other sport. It is about merit and skill.

Anti,

Keep digging.

I accept your broader point about the treatment of people who say they are uncomfortable being naked with homosexual men and if you notice I have said a few times that the homophobe calls are unfair. I agree it was a 'a bitter and sustained' response.

But, my point still stands.It's unreasonable for someone to have to hide who they are just so you don't feel uncomfortable around them. Own your discomfort. Request a cubicle or grow up. Is it really that scary?

'Football culture is not gay culture. Why must football culture be forced to adopt the mores of gay culture? Is gay culture forced to adopt the mores of traditional football culture? Should it be?'

Nobodys saying he wants to bring a Mardi Gras float to the shower. He just wants to have a shower, and in his life outside football not to have to sneak around like a criminal. He's a person not a culture. He's a person who likes football so ipso facto he is part of the culture.

You really are staring to sound like you see gay people as a tiny bit less than human. What 'mores of gay culture' has football been asked to take on? I'm asking it to make a choice between growing up or cubicle showers.

'The communal shower is part of football culture, it's not "just having a shower" as anyone who's played the game knows. Brendan Fevola said a week or two ago that he felt mildly uncomfortable at the Lions because the players kept their underwear on in the shower. I can see what he means. It's kind of saying "I trust you to play football, but I'm not quite sure whether I can trust you completely". I think the private cubicle thing is taking that even further.'

That really gave me a giggle. I've been in teams that use communal showers, and if someone said that they'd never live it down. Sounds like it's from the mouth of Roy Slaven.

What do you think of this. I think it's quite reasonable...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/21/2906126.htm

Jack Marx was a little less kind, as expected

http://blogs.news.com.au/jackmarxlive/index.php/news/comments/a_reply_to_jason_akermanis/

As Jack says...

That depends entirely upon what particular “fabric” the club is made of. If it’s material so weak as to be destroyed by a single man’s sexual orientation, why not rip it to shreds?

Anti

Are you judging gay men by the behaviour of some straight men?

Walking through the crowds of a bar or night-club to get a round of drinks, losing track of the number of times my bum was pinched; women tolerate a lot of poor behaviour from some men. And YOU are paranoid about being looked at? Sheesh.

Most gays are fully aware that they are in risk of being beaten up if they look at a straight the 'wrong way'.

And please make your mind up: are you advocating cubicles or not? As I previously pointed out privacy does have its advantages for a bit of hanky-panky. As for footballers showering with their jocks on - WTF? After being groped, pinched and had unwanted body parts pressed against me, in such public areas as bars or public transport, you are nothing more than precious. Either get over it or show some empathy for women (in future) who are under constant scrutiny and worse.

Many people judge others by their own behaviour. This may well explain Anti's and other homophobes overreaction to just the thought of sharing a change room with people who might be gay.

anti,

'Gay men can be out or otherwise, as long as they keep it away from the club. That's just the way it is.'

How? Players are under constant media surveillance. Players will know eventually if a gay guy just lives his life like anyone else. So what you are asking is really for gay guys to stay in the closet, because some people cant deal with who they are or find practical solutions to showering after a game.

Just face it, AFL isn't about showering. In NRL the media go into the change rooms to titillate the female (and homosexual) viewers. Let this sacred shower ritual go, the game is bigger than showers.

How wrong was I that by suggesting that private cubicles would be the end of this ridiculous drama!

It was not just about being naked in front of others, now it's about how homosexual players don't fit into that 'normal' macho football cult and it was even suggested that homosexual players should have their own team.

As soon as they come out, they are no longer trusted by the 'normal' football player?
Wow, apartheid all over again! Sexual orientation is the new race behind the scenes of the football cult.

Sounds to me that football, like some religions, will remain in the dark ages for some time yet. Even the armed forces have moved on for most part.

About 10% of the male population are homosexual, and as pelican said, cultures can and do change. Perhaps some classes- not only to be edified about how to treat women, but how to treat homosexuals, too?

Celivia, after reading this entire thread it's obvious there was a wider anti-homosexual agenda right from the beginning. The language within the posts clearly shows that.

Homophobic is indeed the correct and accurate word to describe some of the people here.

If someone commits a crime, they are a "criminal". It's not name calling to call that person a criminal, whether or not they admit to the crime they committed.

If someone dislikes people because they are aboriginal, then that person is a racist. It's not name calling to call that person a racist, whether or not they admit to the racism.

If someone regularly assaults people because they are smaller and physically weaker, then that person is a bully. It's not name calling to call that person a bully, whether or not they admit to being a bully.

AND - - - - if someone is uncomfortable with homosexual football players because of their sexual orientation, then that person is homophobic. It's not name calling to describe that person as homophobic, whether or not the person admits to being homophobic.

That was never in doubt for a moment, benq, right from the start.

>>...it's obvious there was a wider anti-homosexual agenda right from the beginning.<<

But what is really fascinating is the "rights" that have been claimed along the way. There's a lot of them. Some are quite extraordinary.

>>...his right to shower free of the sense that he may be being "perved on"<<

"Free of the sense..." is a "right"? Why must you be responsible for the way others "sense" things?

>>Doesn't his right to "feel safe" from someone else's possible titillation outweigh someone else's right to use the facility?<<

There go summer afternoons on the beach, guys. The girls in bikinis have a "right to feel safe from your possible titillation", apparently.

>>...players have a right to privacy <<

Fair enough. Although they probably compromise that right a touch by taking off their clothes in a crowded dressing room.

>>...does the "right" of a gay man to share a shower block with straight men trump the "right" of those straight men to feel comfortable in such a setting?<<

There's the clincher. The "right" to feel comfortable.

I feel uncomfortable when I have to sit next to a guy with foul body odour on the train. Can I complain to State Rail that my rights are being violated.?

Even when qualified a little, it's questionable.

>>...the right of someone to feel safe and comfortable in a vulnerable position.<<

What about the "right" not to put yourself in a vulnerable position?

Oh, sorry, that's being facetious.

Uh-oh. Here comes a Human Right.

>> the absolutely valid human right of a person to privacy from leering from perverted people of the same sex...<<

I've checked with the UN. They haven't heard of this one either.

Here's another.

>>the human right to dignity and privacy<<

"Dignity" in a football changeroom? That's a good one.

>>...a roomful of men who have every right to feel comfortable and relaxed with each other's presence in a vulnerable situation<<

It's that "right to feel comfortable" again.

I think that's enough "rights" for one day.

A women's shower room is a desexualised zone.
If men, who are naturally sexually attracted to women, were allowed into a women's shower room it would become a sexualised zone.
Most normal women would feel uncomfortable knowing that men would be looking at them in a sexual, albeit natural, way.

A men's shower room is a desexualised zone.
If open homosexuals, who are unnaturally sexually attracted to men, were allowed into a men's shower room it would become a sexualised zone.
Most normal men would feel uncomfortable knowing that homosexuals would be looking at them in an unnatural, sexual way.

Women have a right to a desexualised shower room.
Men should also have a right to a desexualised shower room.
Anything else is just homo-apologic yada yada.

Private cubicles are not the answer.
These would only lead to homosexuals engaging in their unnatural activities in the privacy of cubicles.
This is amply demonstrated by the homosexual propensity to go cruising in public toilets and other "beats", as they like to call them.

It's interesting to note that when Democrat Mayor Jim Naugle of Fort Lauderdale in Florida proposed the installation of "robotic" public toilets as a response to local complaints about persistent homosexual cruising, homosexual activists engaged in rampant protests and discrimination suits.
The Dutch had a different response. They now have specified areas of parks where homosexual men can go to engage in homosex.
The parks carry warning signs to advise the unwary.

That is the sort of "progress" we can expect in Australia unless enough people protest the relentless encroachment of homosexuals upon public and private space.

Proxy get over it. Would you rather have homosexual's try to be "normal" which to easily leads to misery to all involved?

If their sexual orientation is not towards people of the other gender and social/legal pressures make that the only real choice they have other than celibacy (and a lack of all the other stuff that comes from partner type relationships) their lives, the lives of those they marry and the lives of any children which result may all be harmed.

I can see why people would be bothered sharing shower/change facilities with known homosexuals (just as I see why many would be bothered having to share those facilities with members of the opposite sex).

The only way to avoid the issue is use a private cubicle and try not to look under the door to see what others might be doing in their cubicle. Easier just to accept that it does not really matter.

Even if you outlaw homosexuality and try and force everyone to be straight it won't really work, the inner orientation will still be the same and possibly the desperation for a perve will be far stronger.

It would be a far better world if we got over our body hang up's, our concern over who might be looking or what they might be doing and just got on with life.

R0bert

Good grief Proxy.

I have used many women's private cubicles at pools, gyms and educational institutions and so far I have not heard anyone having sex in them.

The only time I have ever heard about a footballer having sex in a private toilet was a with some other footballer's wife.

Gee whiz...

<< ...the relentless encroachment of homosexuals upon public and private space >>

More classic homophobia expressed by Proxy.

Hey, back off with all the pressure, guys!

This perception of homosexuals as relentless sex machines is kinda flattering, but it also raises the performance expectations. Now you're getting me nervous about how things will play out when my partner and I are tucking under the doona tonight.

That would be after footy training, I guess, woulfe.

>>Now you're getting me nervous about how things will play out when my partner and I are tucking under the doona tonight.<<

Hardly a surprise you're nervous, following on from all that changeroom action.

You guys.

Pelican,
I'm presuming you're a woman as you state "I have used many women's private cubicles at pools, gyms and educational institutions and so far I have not heard anyone having sex in them."
Women generally don't go trawling public toilets for anonymous sex
as many homosexuals are inclined to do, so I don't see your point.
I think that part of the problem with female apologists for male homosexuals is that they project their own female thoughts onto them.
Thus Annie Proulx can write a romantic love story about the 20 year love affair between two homosexual cowboys and women can automatically relate to and empathise with homosexuals.
More realistic to show the cruising of public toilets for anonymous sex with strangers.
This reality explains the 40+ times higher rates of HIV/AIDs infection among homosexual men.
In short, you're delusional

Surprise, surprise.
Yet another heterosexual paedophile priest, this time evilly disguised as a homosexual activist!
"Homosexualist Activist Priest Arrested for Sex Abuse of Teen in Milan"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10052601.html
"Pezzini, a professor of English linguistics at the University of Verona, is a celebrity for homosexualist activists in the Catholic Church in Italy. In the 1980s, he helped to found a group, called The Source, similar to that of New Ways Ministry in the U.S., that attempted to pressure the Catholic Church to accept homosexual activity. He has authored several books defending homosexual behavior."
It's important to repeat that there is definitely no link between homosexuality and paedophilia.
That those heterosexual paedophile priests who sexually abuse young males should pretend to be homosexual is beyond hateful.
It's homophobic.

"Homosexuals In Military Three Times More Likely to Sexually Assault Than Normal People: Survey"
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10052613.html

So much for the chance of a reasonable discussion around this topic. Have fun picking on Proxy, folks, but you still haven't told me why you support a double standard on this issue.

Why must footballers and their culture, which has quite an extensive history and traditions. be forced to change willy-nilly?

The trouble with you lot is that you're so desperate to feel properly "liberal" and "tolerant" that you can't see the wood for the trees. The same people who are demanding that footballers assimilate gay culture into their cultural practises are, on another thread telling an Aboriginal person that assimilation is bad. Here's a tip: football is played by Aboriginal people too. They seem to do well in the cultural environment. All codes of football have strong development programs within Aboriginal communities and regional towns and many young aboriginal men have become quite wealthy through football.

It seems that you people are very badly disaffected by mainstream Australian culture. May I suggest a visit to the next football game played in your city/town? Who knows, the experience of participating in a group activity might be good for you...

Antiseptic: << Why must footballers and their culture, which has quite an extensive history and traditions. be forced to change >>

Because they exist in Australian society, in which discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation has quite rightly been made unacceptable, if not always illegal.

Your analogy with Aboriginal players is specious. In case you didn't know, there's lots of gay Aborigines.

Keep on digging, old chap.

CJMorgan:"In case you didn't know, there's lots of gay Aborigines."

There's not "lots" of gay people of any race. About 1.5% is the best figure available.

Your argument on the basis of an "appeal to popularity" fails.

Keep aquirming, little fella.

'demanding that footballers assimilate gay culture into their cultural practises '

I still don't understand this anti. Nobody is asking the players to wear fishnet vests. What 'gay culture' is football being asked to take on. The communal showers already exist.

What you're really saying is football is being asked to accept gay people exist, and deal with their own discomfort from the astounding revelation 'one of them' may decided not to hide their homosexuality in their day to day life.

'Who knows, the experience of participating in a group activity might be good for you...'

As long as you're not gay of course, as football shouldn't be forced to assimilate your culture.

BTW: I'm generally with you on the assimilation thing with indigenous cultures. It's fun watching people pick and choose what parts of ancient cultures have to be preserved. If you're anti-assimilation it's a job lot as far as I'm concerned, so you have to accept genital mutilation and such as part of the deal. Otherwise your moral relativism fails at the first hurdle.

So I'm with you that IF football culture is to be preserved, gays should be outlawed. It just happens though that I'm for-assimilation of footballers into the general community.

Proxy
Yes I am a woman. You do realise that even heterosexuals are known to partake in casual sex - not my thing either, but given you are so big on freedoms and rights I am sure you would agree we should not judge those who live different lives. Why do you isolate homosexuals specifically in regard to casual sex? What about the mile high clubbers?

You are delusional for the reason is that you cannot see past your own views, you cherry pick the worst examples of one set of people and display them as the norm. Prevention of Aids/HIV is about safe sex practices, heterosexuals can spread the virus as well.

Anti
Where is anyone saying that footballers should adopt gay culture. Aboriginal football players aren't suggesting that all football players embrace their culture (to use your analogy). A number of us have suggested cubicles to provide a solution to the showering issue. There is no double standard.

Being gay is a sexual orientation not a race or an ethnicity, you cannot compare it with being Aboriginal. Homosexuals can be of any ethnic group. I don't get the connection in regard to assimiliation. Gays are assimilated even though they continue to be discriminated.

It is a travesty that to be FOR equal rights for homosexuals is considered 'liberal'. Or even 'tolerant' for that matter, what is there to tolerate? It is no-one's business.

Well said Pelican.

Anti - why do you fear so much?

Gays, women, anyone with a different POV?

Man, you carry a load.

Antiseptic, I answered the question that you claim nobody's addressed. Your response, as usual, is to attempt to insult me.

It's not me that's "squirming" here.

Yeah Proxy,

I have to confess, I have had sex in a Boeing, and also in the girls toilets more than once. I have also had anal sex and been promiscuous. And I'm not gay, so do you think I'm un-natural? Natural is as natural does, and I'm not Robinson Crusoe.

'Thus Annie Proulx can write a romantic love story about the 20 year love affair between two homosexual cowboys and women can automatically relate to and empathise with homosexuals.
More realistic to show the cruising of public toilets for anonymous sex with strangers.'

Both happen Proxy. People can be in love (even gay people) and people have casual sex. Gay or straight. In public and in private. There is a seedy heterosexual underworld and swingers clubs and bondage and I'll even take you down to Salon Kitty's one day if you don't believe me.

So, can you accept you have a 1-dimensional view of homosexuals, and that the activities you despise are also widespread amongst heterosexuals?

I mean, if you were constantly on about the promiscuity and public sex and anal sex of anyone I can understand, but you only seem to be worried when it's homosexuals involved.

Houellebecq:"What 'gay culture' is football being asked to take on."

It is being asked to accept within its own culture the presence of openly homosexual men, when the culture is overtly and I believe essentially heterosexual. You claim this is "mainstreaming" football, but there are already precedents for groups reserving their own right to continue practises that might be considered discriminatory in other circumstances and their right to do so being upheld.

As I said, it's a simple case of "we don't do that here", not "you musn't do that at all".

Houellebecq:"As long as you're not gay of course, as football shouldn't be forced to assimilate your culture."

Participating as a spectator is hardly forcing anyone to assimilate anything.

Pelican:"Aboriginal football players aren't suggesting that all football players embrace their culture"

No, they're both polite enough and smart enough to try to fit in without causing a fuss. On the whole, Aboriginal players who've tried to play the race card don't last long at the top level.

Severin:"why do you fear so much?"

"Fear"? What on earth would I be araid of? Why are you so afraid o anybody who intelligently expresses a view at odds with your prejudices?

CJMorgan, your argument was that because openly homosexual men exist in the broader society, then football must accept them as part of their own culture, willy-nilly. That's rubbish I'm afraid "old chap". It's an "appeal to popularity" and is a pretty basic fallacy that is often heard on the more salacious current affairs program.

Antiseptic: << CJMorgan, your argument was that because openly homosexual men exist in the broader society, then football must accept them as part of their own culture, willy-nilly. >>

Please don't misrepresent me, old chap. That wasn't my argument at all. This was my argument:

<< [footballers and their culture] exist in Australian society, in which discrimination against people on the basis of sexual orientation has quite rightly been made unacceptable, if not always illegal. >>

That's not an "appeal to popularity", it's recognising that a football culture that demands that gays either live a lie or not play football is discriminatory on the basis of sexuality, and therefore inconsistent with the laws and standards of the society in which it exists.

Your homophobic agenda isn't assisted by either insults or dishonesty.

CJMorgan:"That's not an "appeal to popularity"

'fraid it is "old chap". http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

I quote:"The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.

The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim. "

Glad to have cleared that up for you.

Antiseptic, you're not stupid, so I have to conclude that you're being obtuse.

To discriminate against people because of their sexuality in Australia is generally unlawful. You are proposing exactly that.

Your attempt to deploy erroneously the 'appeal to popularity' fallacy is another specious argument that indicates the intellectual and ethical paucity of your position. If anything, yours is the 'appeal to popularity', by implying that because most footballers are supposedly homophobic, then it's OK to discriminate against the minority of footballers who are gay.

Glad to have cleared that up for you.

Pelican,
<<You are delusional for the reason is that you cannot see past your own views, you cherry pick the worst examples of one set of people and display them as the norm. Prevention of Aids/HIV is about safe sex practices, heterosexuals can spread the virus as well.>>
Let me repeat for the slow of learning:
1.5% of the population has an HIV/AIDs prevalency of 40+ times the normal population.
Your <<heterosexuals can spread the virus as well>> claim carries the implication of some sort of equivalency.
The statistics resoundingly refute your misleading claim.
"You (ignore) the (plethora of bad) examples of one set of people and" and pretend they don't exist.
You do this in an effort to normalise a high-risk abnormality.

CJMorgan:"If anything, yours is the 'appeal to popularity', by implying that because most footballers are supposedly homophobic, then it's OK to discriminate against the minority of footballers who are gay."

Not, actually old chap. Your original claim was that because the broader population (including footballers, in their role as citizens) jad moved to a certain view, then the minority in football clubs should just copp ir sweet. A straight-forward "appeal to popularity", as favoured in the tabloid media.

Do you have any other reason for oppressing footballers who just want to be footballers?

'Participating as a spectator '
Good one. I'll use that next time my partner does the housework.

'As I said, it's a simple case of "we don't do that here"'

Like drinking Chardonnay? Does that mean if a player drinks Chardonnay in a cafe in his own time he is threatening football culture even if he has a beer like the rest of them after the match?

Once anyone spots them drinking Chardonnay and it becomes known they are a Chardonnay drinker, no matter how many beers they drink in the change rooms, they're still imposing their Chardonnay culture on football?

You're acting as if someone not hiding their gayness is an aggressive assertion of gay culture over football culture. I say that's more than a little bit bullsh1t.

It's like your putting the onus on the world to protect football players and their fantasy that everyone who plays football is straight.

If that belief is that important and easily justified, the authorities of the game should make it official that no gay players are allowed to play. Have the courage of your convictions.

I repeat for the slow of wit:
"A women's shower room is a desexualised zone.
If men, who are naturally sexually attracted to women, were allowed into a women's shower room it would become a sexualised zone.
Most normal women would feel uncomfortable knowing that men would be looking at them in a sexual, albeit natural, way.

A men's shower room is a desexualised zone.
If open homosexuals, who are unnaturally sexually attracted to men, were allowed into a men's shower room it would become a sexualised zone.
Most normal men would feel uncomfortable knowing that homosexuals would be looking at them in an unnatural, sexual way.

Women have a right to a desexualised shower room.
Men should also have a right to a desexualised shower room."

It's just commonsense,
which is, unfortunately,
exceedingly uncommon
amongst homo-apologists.

Antiseptic, you're just being obtuse. Have a read of Howler's latest comment, with which I agree.

What's your real reason for oppressing gay men and boys who just want to be footballers?

CJ, the real reason has nothing to do with logic, as evidenced by his immature and abusive posts.
It's homophobia, pure and simple (but you already know that). It's pointless engaging in conversation with those types. Logic is a foreign word to them. I don't know why you bother - - - amusement maybe?

For the slow to comprehend:

Cubicles remove the sexualisation of the shower room.

This is the same as in unisex bathroom facilities in many institutions.

benq - you're quite right. I think we've now reached the point in this discussion where reason has reached its limit and all that's left is thinly disguised phobia.

Your objective analysis seems pretty spot-on to me. Welcome to OLO, and see you on another thread :)

Pelican,
So you finally admit that the presence of open homosexuals would result in "the sexualisation of the shower room".
That's something at least we can agree on.
Your solution to this problem is to install cubicles.
I think Akermanis' solution is better.
Why should the camaraderie and traditions of the overwhelming majority have to give way to the demands of the 1.5 per centers?

Sexualisation Proxy, I was assuming given the posts here that many men think they will be perved on by gay footballers. That means to them there is some sexualisation whether real or imagined. This is about perceptions thus the private cubicle solution.

I can't believe that the group showering activities of footballers is given such high importance in the culture of football as though the act of hygiene depicts some great testament to trust and to the game. This emphasis on turst did not stop a few footballers coveting another's wife or girlfriend. If I were a married male footballer I would prefer a private cubicle rather than someone trying to seduce my wife.

But yes I think CJ is right, this topic has run it's course.

Proxy, with all your talk of "desexualised zones", you forgot to account for homosexual females. Women's showers would also contain a proportion of females who are homosexual.

The comparison between men/women is a bit strained anyway because females haven't got an equivalent to footy culture, or at least not on that scale. I've never heard of any women getting in a tizz because another female might be gawking. Come to think of it; I've never seen any women gawking at others in change areas.

I think Houellebecq put the case really well.

Antiseptic: Your posts are actually getting to be pretty funny. Like so over the top it's possible you're just presenting a parody of a homophobe (sorta like Dame Edna sending up middle aged; middle class women).

woulfe: haha!! !! Great post. Seriously though, I don't know how you manage to keep your sense of humour.

G'day benq and CJ :)

Hi Pynch :)

I dunno - I reckon Proxy's a pretty good parody of a homophobe too, on the basis of what he posts here.

Mind you, it's hard to tell which is better. There's a fair bit of Bazza McKenzie in our Antieverything.

Enough ;)

Lmfao CJ. You're right!

Yes mate - it's enough now hey.

Onward and upward to other topics for me :)

Houellebecq:"Does that mean if a player drinks Chardonnay in a cafe in his own time he is threatening football culture even if he has a beer like the rest of them after the match?"

Now you're starting to get it. It's a matter of "when in Rome, do as the Romans do. For example, when you attend a social studies department, it's politeto pretend to be not very clever, even if you DO know more than one way to tie your shoes. And using logic is right out...

Houellebecq:"Once anyone spots them drinking Chardonnay and it becomes known they are a Chardonnay drinker, no matter how many beers they drink in the change rooms, they're still imposing their Chardonnay culture on football?"

No and noone has said that, not even Akermanis. He simply said don't make it the principle characteristic defining you by coming out. Don't be an "activist". Don't rub our noses in your sexuality. If one of the consequences is that gay men don't wwant to pl;ay football, I can't see football suffering too badly for the lack. This is about what footballers want, not about what gay men may want. On the whole, any gay men who play football have been doing it since they were boys, They are comfortable in the cutlure in a way that people like Morgan simply can't grasp. I suspect that for some, possibly all of them the sense of acceptance within a greater whole is part of their motivation and they would not want to come out and place that at risk.

Why must one group accept another group within it merely to suit the political agenda of a third group?

Calling me homophobic or any other epthet designed for the weak of mind to avoid thinking doesn't change that, but it does illustrate nicely the hysterical response that Akermanis was subjected to by the pink press.

Morgan:"you're just being obtuse. "

Au contraire, old chap, I'm being logical. Calling me names isn't addressing my argument, but then, you never had much chance of doing that, did you?

benq:"the real reason has nothing to do with logic,as evidenced by his immature and abusive posts."

LMAO. "I can't find a logical hole in his argument so I'm going to stamp my little feet and have a tanty".

Welcome to the Forums benq, you'll find a wide, if not very deep audience for your antics. Next time, try to use a few CAPITALISED words for EMPHASIS and throw in a reference to misogyny and having a small penis. You know you want to...

In the meantime, your own "appeal to popularity" also fails, along with your ad hominem and the rather weak attempt to "poison the well". Still, not bad for an early effort, although you were a bit slow to respond to Morgan's dog whistling.

Morgan:"I think we've now reached the point in this discussion where reason has reached its limit"

It's only your reason that has reached it's limit, old chap. My logic is sound, as you would know if you were to ask someone who understands logic.

I recommend you also get to know a few foorballers and possibly attend a few games, maybe even switch the telly on to Ch 9 around 7:30 of a Friday night. Who knows, once you start to see them as human, you might even get past your irrational fear of them...

CJMorgan:"antieverything"

Oh dear, you're a one trick pony, aren't you "old chap"?

Thanks Pynchme

>> Seriously though, I don't know how you manage to keep your sense of humour.

How could I not? We have a group of people here who think that if I walk into a men's locker room, my ho-mo-sexual powers will reduce everyone else there to puddle of sexual anxiety. Apparently we need to protect the straight users of mens changerooms from the shattering experience of not being found attractive by any gay folk who wander in.

These posters have no idea how profoundly silly they make themselves look: "Men should also have a right to a desexualised shower room." Yeah, right, and that would work precisely how? Guys who find themselves quietly wondering about whether to take home oysters, champagne or both will immediately remove themselves from the changeroom?

And it goes further. These defenders of heterosexual male sensibilities trawl tabloid papers and antigay websites for ever-more lurid recounts of man-on-man action. What's that all about?

With jokers like these around, keeping a sense of humour is not the challenge; it's avoiding a seizure from uncontrolled laughter.

Woulfe

>> We have a group of people here who think that if I walk into a men's locker room, my ho-mo-sexual powers will reduce everyone else there to puddle of sexual anxiety. <<

ROFL

The gay super-power.

Cheers m'dear

[Deleted for abuse]

woulfe:"We have a group of people here who think that if I walk into a men's locker room, my ho-mo-sexual powers will reduce everyone else there to puddle of sexual anxiety"

Oh dear. Tell me woulfe. how do you dress when attending social events? Do you try to find out the dress standard that applies and conform to it, or do you wear your favourite string vest with the darling leather pants and Docs regardless? Would you feel uncomfortable if a couple of bogans turned up to your local gay club wearing flannoes and torn jeans with cigarette packets stuffed in the sleeves and acting overtly hetero? Would the bouncers even let them in?

The point, of course, is that it's not about you, it's about those with whom you wish and choose to interact. In the case of the subject, it's about the footballers, not about gay men. It is footballers who should be able to decide with whom they wish to share their space, not "activists" or the pink press or those people who avowedly dislike and are scred of footballers, like Morgan.

Much is made by the same people who wish to foist overtly gay men on football about my posting style. Severin tells me that I "alienate" myself bu choosing to post in the style I employ. Is her view valid? If so, then why is Akermanis' and my view on this not so?

A bit more Aker-bashing: " Akermanis was confronted by president David Smorgon, chief executive Campbell Rose, coach Rodney Eade, captain Brad Johnson and the leadership group last week in wake of his controversial column in the Herald Sun and faces another hostile meeting tomorrow after admitting he had written it entirely himself.

The club had initially backed suggestions the newspaper had added words to the column but was left embarrassed when Akermanis conceded it had all been his doing.

The club has not ruled out imposing a fine, suspension or even termination of his contract."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/end-may-be-nigh-for-aka-20100529-wmju.html

So for merely stating that he would feel uncomfortable, he faces possible termination of his contract?

I wonder which wealthy gay men have threatened the club? Or is it just fear of the pink media which is driving this?

Antiseptic: << So for merely stating that he would feel uncomfortable, he faces possible termination of his contract? >>

That's not quite the full story is it, old chap? From the article to which you obligingly linked:

<< JASON Akermanis' future was in limbo last night as speculation mounted he may not see out the season.

A miserable season on field and inflammatory off-field comments about gay footballers has the Bulldogs contemplating a range of options, including whether to persist with the controversial forward.

[...]

At the very least, he faces sanctioning under the club's strict media policy, written into all of Akermanis' contracts outside the club and detailed clearly to him by Bulldogs' management.

Akermanis, 33, has deals with News Ltd, Channel Nine and MTR, earning more off the field than he does from playing after accepting a huge pay cut this season.

It's understood Akermanis' gay column was not the first time this season he had breached protocol and received a ''strike''. >>

It appears to me that this goose has neglected his actual football playing in favour of his more lucrative media contracts. Controversial stories sell media, and it seems that his gay gaffe is merely another in a series of media stories that have brought his club into disrepute.

And who said I'm afraid of footballers? I may think that many of them are boofheaded oafs, but that doesn't equate to fear. The only fear I've seen expressed in this thread is that held by homophobes who feel threatened by gay men in football.

CJMorgan:"That's not quite the full story is it, old chap?"

Are you suggesting that if Akermanis' on-field performance was better then he would not be in trouble for expressing his discomfort about overtly gay men being in the dressing room?

No, old bean. I'm suggesting that if his on-field performance was satisfactory he wouldn't be facing possible termination of his contract, rather than just criticism for his public expression homophobia.

You only told part of the story, quite deliberately I'm sure. You said "for merely stating that he would feel uncomfortable, he faces possible termination of his contract". That's just untrue.

CJMorgan:"No, old bean. I'm suggesting that if his on-field performance was satisfactory he wouldn't be facing possible termination of his contract, rather than just criticism."

I'll quote the full article:
"Aside from his on-field troubles, Akermanis was confronted by president David Smorgon, chief executive Campbell Rose, coach Rodney Eade, captain Brad Johnson and the leadership group last week in wake of his controversial column in the Herald Sun and faces another hostile meeting tomorrow after admitting he had written it entirely himself.", etc.

The article clearly says he was in trouble for his comments, not his on-field performance. Every player has a few bad games occasionally, but they are not sacked summarily as he is facing simply for expressing his own personal discomfort. Why should he face any kind of punishment at all, when he is not inciting any form of violence or discrimination, merely suggesting a standard of behaviour. Someone said "great minds discuss ideas, mediocre minds discuss things and events, tiny minds discuss people". I think you made a wise choice in anthropology...

Antiseptic, I'm sympathetic to Akermanis's position, but using your own logic, surely it is up to the football club who they are comfortable having play for them. If they are uncomfortable with Aker's position, then under your argument, why can't they discipline him?

CJ, I thought you were going?

[Deleted for abuse]

[Deleted for abuse of the moderator. If Severin wants to contact me she has my email address, given the extensive correspondence between us in the past. She complains that she is getting server errors. Is anyone else getting them?]

GrahamY: << CJ, I thought you were going? >>

Hi Graham.

I just popped my head back in to politely correct a couple of factual errors, rather than continue the silly argument.

The first was Antiseptic's omission of the lead paragraphs of the article he cited, which negated his claim that the main reason that Akermanis' contract is under threat is because of his poor performance on the field this season. The article clearly says otherwise, as evidenced by the positioning of his performance at the lead of the story, with the homophobia stuff subordinately introduced after the lead.

The second was Antiseptic's gratuitous and erroneous personal insult that I am "scared" of footballers. That's simply untrue, and indeed I would have thought that it constituted "flaming" or "abuse" under your rules.

Dang. I obviously meant to say "his claim that the main reason that Akermanis' contract is under threat is NOT because of his poor performance on the field this season".

Curse the absence of an edit facilty, again.

I see there is a need here for the equivalent of the European Gay Lesbian Sport Federation which advocate things like, "enable and support the coming out of gay and lesbian sports men and women":

http://www.eglsf.info/eglsf-news.php

>> 2nd EGLSF Conference Football Against Homophobia.
More than 30 representatives from gay and lesbian football clubs, LGBT sports and football organizations, supporters’ groups and football alliances from countries all over Europe met in Berlin from 22nd to 23rd May at the 2nd Football against homophobia conference.
The participants presented their various work and initiatives in the struggle against homophobia and for the recognition of LGBT presence in all areas of football and set out to plan future activities on a pan-European level. EGLSF activist Tanja Walther- Ahrens who was responsible for the organization regards the meeting as a further step forward: “It is especially important to get together shareholders from various areas of football. Clubs, players, football associations, supporters’ groups and LGBT organizations inside and outside football alike have to join forces against homophobia.”<<

And to keep updated about homosexuality in top sports, one can be enlightened through following the news here:

http://www.gaysport.info/gaysport-news.php

CJ, I just went and read the article, and it appears to say what Antiseptic says it does.

"The club had initially backed suggestions the newspaper had added words to the column but was left embarrassed when Akermanis conceded it had all been his doing.

The club has not ruled out imposing a fine, suspension or even termination of his contract.

At the very least, he faces sanctioning under the club's strict media policy, written into all of Akermanis' contracts outside the club and detailed clearly to him by Bulldogs' management."

And

"Coach Rodney Eade yesterday stressed Akermanis' form wouldn't have any bearing on any ramifications over his column. ''If he had kicked 10 goals and had 15 Brownlow votes at this stage, whatever sanction or discussion that is going to happen with Jason would be exactly the same,'' Eade told Triple M."

This can only refer to his newspaper comments. The article does mention poor form and is confusing, but Antiseptic appears to be substantially right.

You're both into jostling. I didn't see him say you were afraid of footballers, and you didn't bring it to my attention. And we don't argue about moderation decisions on the forum. Want to complain send me an email with an explanation.

Fair enough Graham, but what club would sack a good player over such a trifling incident? Looks to me like the Bulldogs want to get rid of him, and Akermanis is providing them with a good reason in repeatedly breaching his contract.

I wasn't complaining about your moderation, nor did I think the insult was worth bringing to your attention - as you say, 'jostling'. Nonetheless, it was both untrue and gratuitous, and warranted refutation.

Cheers :)

GrahamY:"surely it is up to the football club who they are comfortable having play for them. If they are uncomfortable with Aker's position, then under your argument, why can't they discipline him?"

They are perfectly within their rights to do so, as is clear. That doesn't make him wrong though, or negate his sense of discomfort. All it does is continue the huge over-reaction that his comments have caused. We've even had Lindsay Tanner, supposedly a busy Federal Minister, writing a newspaper column attacking Akermanis, using the same flawed arguments that the lesser minds here might employ. It's quite worrisome that one of the better minds in the Federal Parliament is so limited or constrained that he is unable to do better than that.

To continue the analogy of the gay club and the bogans who just want to go in for a drink, would any of the high-profile incumbents who might have a media presence be likely to face criticism from the press or their employer for saying they don't want bogans in their club because they felt uncomfortable in their presence?

Vicki Wilson has not been criticised by her employer, the Qld State Govt or the press for suggesting that Akermanis's "malehood may be a bit small (tee hee)", let alone faces dismissal.

It's the double standard that interests me, as always.

Celivia, the link you provided seems to bear out my contention that this is disruption for its own sake. The EGLSF could only get 30 attendees, including those from specifically lesbian, gay or transsexual sports organisations to a conference specifically about homophobia in sport. That suggests to me the phrase "tempest in a teacup".

the best figures suggest that only 1'5% of the population is gay and I suspect that in sports like football, at any level, the number of gay players is much, much, much less than the population average. The attendance at the event you mentioned tends to support that contention.

I'd go further and suggest that the number of lesbian participants in women's sports is much higher than the number of gay participants in men's sports. Most gay men or boys that I've known are just not interested.

Of course, that should say 1.5%. Bloody greengrocer's apostrophes.

I read this somewhere over the weekend.

"Akermanis has it round the wrong way. It is not homosexuals who should refrain from "outing" themselves in the changeroom. It's homophobes"

<chuckle>

Same source as Aker no doubt.

Tabloids make the news. Still, if it floats your boat, go for it.

Indeed, Pericles. I don't understand why homophobes feel compelled to burden the rest of the world with their inclinations. Too much information, if you ask me.

>> Most gay men or boys that I've known are just not interested.

It would be remarkable if people who've been told their presence in football changerooms is unwelcome responded that they want to play the game.

The Victorian Health Department's Come Out to Play report http://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/Resource-Centre/Publications-and-Resources/Physical-Activity/Sport-and-recreation/Come-Out-to-Play-VU.aspx (released on the same day as Akermanis' article) sheds some light on why those gay men and boys might avoid team sports. Some key findings:
• 41.5 % of respondents reported experiencing verbal homophobia at sometime during their sports involvement.
• 26.0% of males and 9.9% of females reported there were sports that they would like to play but did not because of their sexuality, and 58.3% of transgender respondents reported there were sports that they did not play because of their gender identity.
• The most common sports males would like to play but did not / could not – was Australian Rules Football (45.0%), rugby (17.5%) and soccer (10.0%).

In short, homophobic attitudes are keeping sexual minorities out of team sports, and a large proportion of those who do participate are keeping their sexuality secret:
• Nearly half (46.0%) of respondents involved in mainstream sport were NOT OUT as LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender) to anyone.

This would confirm that in spite of some people's wishes to keep homosexuals out of sporting changerooms, they're already there.

Woulfe,
I'd like to play netball with the girls but I'm not allowed to because of my gender identity.
It's discrimination.
In fact, it's heterophobic!

woulfe

If the report is saying what you think it is saying they have stopped to pee on a very tiny shrub in front of a very large forest.

By far the greatest barrier to children playing sport is that the parent/s don't have time. Make that the parent/s can't make the time available to drop and pick them up. Sometimes that is because the parent/s really are committed, but usually it is because the parent can't be bothered - the Internet or whatever is more attractive to them. Soon the child learns to do the same.

However the Victorian government really didn't have to go off and do a report at all because the knowledge has been available from business and from sporting and recreational bodies for years and regularly updated.

How typical of the Victorian government to waste taxes on political correctness and at the end of it all that was produced was a brochure filled with platitudes. Wow!

Apart from that, you would have to in dreamland to imagine that any coach would pass over any kid that showed promise and the teams are the same. For goodness sakes in AFL girls play in boys' teams and the only reason they don't continue in competition is the increased body mass and strength of the boys.

woulffe:"It would be remarkable if people who've been told their presence in football changerooms is unwelcome responded that they want to play the game."

And it would be remarkable if people who were told their presence in gay men's clubs was unwanted reponded that they wanted to play that game. Now we've got that out of the way...

Top-level footballers start playing when they are very young and pre-sexual. They haven't made their mind up what they like doing to get their sexual kicks. By the time they get to senior levels they are part of the club culture and I suspect that most, unlike yourself, are simply not interested in making a political point about their sexuality. They feel "unconmfortable" about the disruption that would cause to their friends and the club they play for and so they choose not to make a fuss.

The report you linked to supports this view. It says: "Most participants could name a main sport in which they had been active
participants. Involvement in team sports was more likely for women (63.3%) than men (44.7%).
Most (84.0%) participants were involved in a mainstream club and were not generally out in that club- 46.0% were not out, 33.5% were out to some and 20.5% were out to all."

Mind you, it was a tiny survey, only 307 participants. As I said, a tempest in a teacup, but it does illustrate the enormous influence of the gay lobby for such a tiny minority. No doubt Vic Health was also highly influential in the club's response to Alermanis's comments.

You've ignored my example of the bogans and the gay club. Do you think that such a club should allow entry to such people, or would the discomfort caused to the members be too great?

What if they gained entry by dressing and acting like everyone else and then went and changed into their flannoes? Would that cause any discomfort among the others there?

As CJ said way back at the beginning of this discussion:

>> This thread's too funny.

It's still funny.

>> Would you feel uncomfortable if a couple of bogans turned up to your local gay club wearing flannoes and torn jeans with cigarette packets stuffed in the sleeves and acting overtly hetero?

First silly assumption: "bogans" aren't gay.

Second silly assumption: individuals in "flannoes and torn jeans" don't get into gay venues.

Third silly assumption: in order to get into a gay venue, you have to act 'gay'.

>> footballers [...] should be able to decide with whom they wish to share their space

Yes, with the proviso that they must act within the law. Gay venues aren't allowed to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality, and neither are sporting clubs. The University of Woolloomooloo is, fortunately, just a joke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA

woulffe, here's s tip for future discussion: disingenuousness is not making a point, it is just making yourself look silly and petulant.

I've gone a bit further into that report you posted and it mentions several participants (5% or thereabouts) play in "queer-identified" teams, presumably selecting members based on their identification as gay, lesbian or transgendered as appropriate. Perhaps the AFL should investigate this idea, as I suggested way back in this thread? Clubs with a high proportion of players who feel roughly like Akermanis does could become "straight-identified", clubs that didn't care either way could remain as they are in the knowledge that some gay players may be selected and if there were any that were interested, they could become "queer-identified". Sound good to you? The report's authors seemed to regard it pretty highly.

A quote from the report: "The most inclusive sports environments for non-heterosexuals and trans people are those created by and for LGBT communities. Hargreaves (2000) makes this observation in her research on the growth and development of gay and lesbian sport over the past twenty-five years:
The gay sports phenomena is a symbol of the growing demand for homosexual cultural activities, the need to experience greater visibility and solidarity and the quest for an ‘imagined community’. Gay sport create spaces to be an ‘insider’ (rather than an ‘outsider’ in mainstream sport), to enjoy sport in a friendly and inclusive atmosphere and escape from the heterosexism and homophobia of mainstream sport (p. 153)"

So you finally accept that it is homophobia, Antiseptic, as you quote - seemingly approvingly...

"Gay sport create spaces to be an ‘insider’ (rather than an ‘outsider’ in mainstream sport), to enjoy sport in a friendly and inclusive atmosphere and escape from the heterosexism and homophobia of mainstream sport (p. 153)"

Or did you select that paragraph for a different reason?

Pericles:"So you finally accept that it is homophobia, Antiseptic"

No, I was quoting the report, which was quoting gay sportspeople. It is the perception of some within the gay community that mainstream sport is homophobic, which is hardly news.

Nice of you to read along though, even if you're finding the going a bit tough.

The report also points out that most gay sports people, especially gay men, are not "out" within their club. As I said earlier, that is because they feel more included if they don't make an issue of their sexual preference. Presumably activists like woulfe would feel that a "queer-identified" environment would be more welcoming and people such as Akermanis would prefer a "straight-identified" one.

The Akermanis story continues. It seems that due to poor form he's being dropped to the feeder competition, which is reasonable and normal. However, the club has also censored him from making any public comments for 3 weeks, which is something of a backdown from their rather hysterical homophilic position initially.

Would any of the homophilics here like to comment?

Has the time come for the AFL to start thinking about a "queer-identified" team to go with the current ones, which seem to be coming out as straight?

As you say, Antiseptic, I'm finding the going here a little tough.

But I'm still trying to keep up, so perhaps you'll explain this a little more clearly for me.

>> the club has also censored him from making any public comments for 3 weeks, which is something of a backdown from their rather hysterical homophilic position initially.<<

I must have missed the earlier outbreak of hysterical homophilia - could you fill in the details of both the homophilia itelf, and the hysteria that accompanied it?

Incidentally, I don't think it actually means what you want it to mean.

>>Would any of the homophilics here like to comment?<<

"homophilic /ho·mo·phil·ic/ (ho'mo-fil´ik) reacting only with a specific antigen."

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/homophilic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophily

Actually, the fact that you are careless with terminology is possibly one of the reasons it is hard to follow your arguments. Try saying what you mean, for a change, without the unnecessary circumlocution.

If you hate gays, why not come right out and say it?

Pericles:"I must have missed the earlier outbreak of hysterical homophilia - could you fill in the details of both the homophilia itelf, and the hysteria that accompanied it?"

I suggest you read thio thread, it has been discussed extensively. I'm not surprised you missed it, though. It's hard to see much past your nose with a blindfold on.

Pericles:"I don't think it actually means what you want it to mean."

It is at least as sound in its provenance as "homophobia". Still begging the question as usual.

Pericles:"If you hate gays, why not come right out and say it?"

If I did, I would, but I don't, so I see no reason to say so. All through this discussion you and the rest of the homophiles have tried to pretend that my comments are homophobic rather than answering the rather simple questions I pose. Perhaps you might investgate a short course in logical reasoning to go along with your remedial reading and English expression courses?

If you love gays why not come out and say so?

It's quite sad that you and the rest of the homophiles can't actually argue your case, but rely on waspish efforts to paint your opponents as intolerant. It's intellectually dishonest and ethically bereft, but you know all that - don't you?

Tell me, in simple terms, why you think Akermanis is incorrect and deserved all the nastiness heaped on his head. Go on, I dare you.

It is quite instructive that you have been unable to select even one example, Antiseptic, from the entire thread to date.

>>I suggest you read thio thread, [hysterical homophilia] has been discussed extensively. I'm not surprised you missed it, though. It's hard to see much past your nose with a blindfold on.<<

In your own words, "Go on, I dare you" to show us exactly what you mean by the phrase. I suspect it is merely a convenient label that you have chosen, more for the fact that it includes the word "homo" than anything else.

>>[Homophilia] is at least as sound in its provenance as "homophobia". Still begging the question as usual.<<

Interestingly enough, this is not the case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia
http://allphilosophy.com/topic/1784

But I guess it does include the word "homo", which is what attracts you to it.

>>If I did [hate gays], I would, but I don't, so I see no reason to say so<<

Nah, you're just saying that in case the thought police are about, aren't you. Scaredycat.

>>It's quite sad that you and the rest of the homophiles can't actually argue your case, but rely on waspish efforts to paint your opponents as intolerant.<<

No need for the paint job, you're doing just fine on your own.

>>Tell me, in simple terms, why you think Akermanis is incorrect and deserved all the nastiness heaped on his head. Go on, I dare you.<<

Here's one I prepared earlier on this thread:

"What he is trying to do, though, is to influence other people's choice - i.e. the choice of someone to openly declare their sexual orientation"

Now, back to the question.

>>the club has also censored him from making any public comments for 3 weeks, which is something of a backdown from their rather hysterical homophilic position<<

Where's all this "hysterical homophilia" that you were going on about?

All that to keep begging the question. tsk, tsk, tsk. Do you normally get paid by the word?

Now, let's try this again.

Are we to understand that your principle (and only stated) objection to Akermanis's comment is that it may impinge on a choice of a gay first grade footballer to "come out"?

I'll trade you, Antiseptic.

I'll answer your question, if you'll answer mine.

>>Are we to understand that your principle (and only stated) objection to Akermanis's comment is that it may impinge on a choice of a gay first grade footballer to "come out"?<<

I actually preferred my own phraseology, but if this is as far as you can understand then yes, something like that.

Were you expecting something different?

All the rest of my observations here have concerned the peanut gallery's attempts to paint it as some kind of heroic stance against an onrushing tide of homosexuality in the last bastions of Aussie maledom.

Now it's your turn.

Where's all this "hysterical homophilia" that you were going on about?

Or do you just like the sound of the words?

I still can't work out why anybody would want to "come out"
People generally don't proudly proclaim their incestuousness.
People generally don't proudly proclaim their bestiality.
Why would you be proud?

Dear Proxy,

Homosexuals are drawn together not only
by a shared sexual orientation but also
by a common social experience of stigma
as deviants. Some spend a lifetime denying
their homosexual tendencies to others, and
perhaps even to themsleves. Most however, find
ways to resolve the conflict, and many do so
in the gay and lesbian communities,
subcultures in which they can be resocialized
by learning new roles, norms and values.
The new climate helps to neutralize earlier
conceptions of homosexuality as perverted
or sinful, and enables gays and lesbians to
build positive self-concepts. According to
Masters and Johnson, the great majority of
gay men tend to form long-lasting, affectionate
relationships, and lesbians seem to maintain even
more stable and enduring relationships than
heterosexuals.

Perhaps that may explain why they feel that they
no longer have to hide their sexual orientation.

I'm not sure though about your reference to
incest and beastiality. I wasn't able to find
any information in my research to connect those
two references of yours to homosexuality.

Foxy,
<<According to
Masters and Johnson, the great majority of
gay men tend to form long-lasting, affectionate
relationships, and lesbians seem to maintain even
more stable and enduring relationships than
heterosexuals.>>
How then do you explain the far higher preponderance of STD's amongst MSM,
if not from a much greater propensity to promiscuously engage in high risk practices?
Or is it all those "heterosexual MSM" cheating on their wives?

Pericles:"Where's all this "hysterical homophilia" that you were going on about?"

Here's some I prepared earlier, so to speak:
" Akermanis was confronted by president David Smorgon, chief executive Campbell Rose, coach Rodney Eade, captain Brad Johnson and the leadership group last week in wake of his controversial column in the Herald Sun and faces another hostile meeting tomorrow after admitting he had written it entirely himself.

The club had initially backed suggestions the newspaper had added words to the column but was left embarrassed when Akermanis conceded it had all been his doing.

The club has not ruled out imposing a fine, suspension or even termination of his contract."

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/end-may-be-nigh-for-aka-20100529-wmju.html

Now, let's examine your objection to his comments. Your view is that he deserves all he gets because he mau have influenced somebody else's choice. Are we then to assume that you are also opposed to any other comments or behaviours that may impinge on someone else's choice of behaviour?

Foxy:"Homosexuals are drawn together not only
by a shared sexual orientation but also
by a common social experience"

And as you correctly point out, may of them find that being among like-minded people, whatever the common cause may be, is more important than making an issue of their sexuality. The report that woulfe helpfully provided showed that very many gay sportspeople are not out and I suspect that very many of them have no intention of ever doing so. That is their choice and should also be respected. It seems to me that this whole problem has been created by and for political operatives, not footballers; gay or straight.

Just as I suspected, Antiseptic.

Ya got nuthin'.

>>"Akermanis was confronted by president David Smorgon, chief executive Campbell Rose, coach Rodney Eade, captain Brad Johnson and the leadership group last week..."

Ooooh. A confrontation. Hardly "hysterical homophilia", though, is it?

C'mon, admit it. You just liked the sound of the words, didn't you?

But much more to the point:

>>Your view is that he deserves all he gets because he mau have influenced somebody else's choice. Are we then to assume that you are also opposed to any other comments or behaviours that may impinge on someone else's choice of behaviour?<<

That is a pathetically simplistic parallel, and you know it.

The "influencing of somebody else's choice" here, is in fact the creation of a hostile environment that is deliberately and maliciously designed to limit a colleague's freedom of expression.

It is effectively a threat.

And yes, I am opposed to threats of that nature. In this particular case, it threatens someone's livelihood.

Or do you see it more as a friendly finger-wagging admonishment?

Pericles:"Hardly "hysterical homophilia","

To be threatened with the sack for expressing your own discomfort? Interesting...

Now, let's have a look at what makes you uncomfortable. You say:"The "influencing of somebody else's choice" here, is in fact the creation of a hostile environment that is deliberately and maliciously designed to limit a colleague's freedom of expression.

It is effectively a threat."

So, by expressing his own sense of discomfort, he ls expressing a threat, so the club is acting reasonably in threatening him with the sack?

Curiouser and curiouser.

You'll have to help me here. He must limit his freedom of expression, whiuch is merely an expression of his own feelings so that someone else may feel freer in expressing theirs? Is that it in a nutshell?

Pericles:"In this particular case, it threatens someone's livelihood."

Yes, it does: Akermanis's, apparently.

Dear Proxy,

It is true, that male homosexuals are more
promiscuous as a group, than heterosexuals,
according to studies done. This is not
surprising. Men in general are expected to
be more promiscuous than women. We would
therefore expect to find, and do find, that
sexual relationships involving only men are
more promiscuous than those involving
men and women, while those involving only women
are the least promiscuous of all. In the first
decade or so of gay liberation, in fact, some
gay men seemed to initiate their own sexual
revolution, reacting to their new freedom by
almost celebrating promiscuity.

The appearance of AIDS has abruptly chastened that
attitude, and encouraged many gay men to revert to
more traditional practices of dating and settling
down with a single parter. The Gay community's
collective response to AIDS - especially through
the support services it has proved to gays,
drug addicts, children, and others stricken with
the disease - has cemented its bonds in a way that
promiscuous sex never could.

I'm just wondering what percentage of you have actually read Akermanis's column. Couldn't find a link to it anywhere in this thread, so here it is http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/gay-still-taboo-in-afl/story-e6frf9nx-1111117242829.

What he said, and what he is said to have said, both here and in the other media reports that have been linked to, appear to be two different things.

Having read the piece I'm not even sure what he is saying exactly, it's a bit impenetrable, but you couldn't describe it as homophobic. He expresses admiration for a couple of gay footballers, for example.

Graham, that's a very old story you linked to. The current issue is to do with this piece: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/stay-in-the-closet-jason-akermanis-tells-homosexuals/story-e6frf9ix-1225868871934.

You're right, but he's consistent between the articles. If this is the first time in this thread when there has been a link to the actual article you all ought to ask yourselves why. It's easy to get worked up into a lather about what he's imagined to have said, but I'd be interested to see some forensic dissection of this article.

First thing I'd point out is that it is in the context of a rumour that someone was going to take money to come out. In which case I can understand why players might want to discuss it.

What is there to dissect?

The story was based on scuttlebutt and no decent, self-respecting editor would have touched it with a barge pole.

It was the sort of salacious, speculative gossip that tabloids run daily for a bogan audience for whom brainless arguments about faux controversies fill the void between rolling out of the sack with a hangover and collapsing paralytic on the couch at night with the Box still flickering. Big Brother is sadly missed by some.

Aker is just one of many human headlines that the tabloid media develops and cossets for cheap sensationalist chaff. Unpack chaff and it is still the same.

More tragic coming out storys:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1063620/incest-charge-fear-driving-family-lovers-underground
"Ninemsn found one forum dedicated to the condition Genetic Sexual Attraction (GSA) where a 16-year-old NSW teen revealed she and her cousin were having sex just one week after meeting.
The pair hadn't seen one another for five years but instantly hit it off, she said. They eventually moved apart again but not before contemplating coming out to their families and having children."
"Ms Howse said GSA-affected couples and singles didn't even risk asking a therapist for help because doing so meant exposing themselves.
"They live in quite considerable amount of fear that something will sneak out somewhere and ruin their lives or wind up with an incest charge," she said."
Homosexual coming out >
Incestuous coming out >
etc, etc, etc
And why not?
"It's their human right."
"It's perfectly normal."

Dear Proxy,

Could you please explain why you cited the
link that you did on incestual relationships for us
on this thread, and what it has to do with
the topic of the thread?

What's the connection?

Foxy,
There are 8 "coming out" references in this thread (excluding my 4 above, which you apparently take exception to).
Isn't that what this thread is about?
My previous post was about people of different sexual orientation "coming out".
Isn't that what this thread is about?
My post was about the difficulties and prejudice that these people risk by "coming out".
What is your point?
Do you have a problem with people of different sexual orietation to those you personally find acceptable, "coming out"?
Are you really that narrow-minded that you would deny the validity of the declared love between two people, just because you have problems with their sexual orientation?
It's time for you to see beyond your own ignorance and bigotry
and accept that these people have the same right to happiness and love
as anybody else of any other sexual orientation.
I'm really surprised at your lack of inclusiveness and your intolerance of the other.

Dear Proxy,

First of all in one of your earlier posts
you mentioned incestuousness and bestiality
in regards to homosexuality and then you
asked "Why would you be proud?" I tried to
answer that question. Now you refer to
incestuous relationships again, and even provide a
link that deals with them. It appears that
there's a pattern developing in your posting.
I was merely questioning what the connection
was as you saw it with homosexuality,
because from your posts
one could possibly jump to the wrong conclusion.

What you need to keep in mind is that you need to
keep your posts within the general topic area of
the Forum - which is actually homosexuality.
Not incest, or beastiality. My tolerance is not
in question here. And again posting inflammatory
extraneous off topic messages is considered as
baiting users into responding. You have to stop
doing that.

Grahamy:"If this is the first time in this thread when there has been a link to the actual article you all ought to ask yourselves why."

I disagree. My concern in raising the issue was the response to what he had said, including, as I said in my first post or so the comments made by Vicki Wilson and others.

I'm not a follower of the AFL, so it was only because the subject was discussed on 4MMM's Saturday sports coverage that I happened to hear about it and the comments that were made piqued my interest.

The article itself is pretty benign. all he is saying is that coming out is unnecessarily disruptive in the context of a football team in the middle of a comp, so please don't do it.

I'm still waiting for Pericles to help me with his last post. As far as I can see, he's simply making a "special pleading" with no ethical or logical underpinning. He's saying that it is OK to coerce someone "in a good cause", which he defines in this case as a gay man coming out. I say that's bunkum, and contradicts his own position.

Just so long as you don't hold your breath, Antiseptic.

>>I'm still waiting for Pericles to help me with his last post. As far as I can see, he's simply making a "special pleading" with no ethical or logical underpinning. He's saying that it is OK to coerce someone "in a good cause", which he defines in this case as a gay man coming out. I say that's bunkum, and contradicts his own position.<<

You can call it what you will, because the statement that you kindly made on my behalf is your own invention.

Where did I suggest that "it is OK to coerce someone"?

Where did I mention "a good cause"?

You further announce that I define this good cause "in this case as a gay man coming out".

It would appear that you have invented everything - the special pleading with no ethical or logical underpinning, the coercion, the good cause...

Does it not occur to you that putting words into someone else's mouth, and then arguing against them, is a fairly stupid approach? If you wish to illustrate a point, at least have the nous to use my own words - otherwise it just seems that you are arguing with yourself.

With this level of understanding, your introductory apology, "as far as you can see", sums it all up quite beautifully.

In your own words, to boot.

Pericles,I'm merely stating the rather frightening general case that arises from your position.

If it is OK to prevent Akermanis from speaking his mind through the use of a coercive threat such as that of being sacked and you approve of that, which you have done, then you approve of coercion.

With me?

You say that the reason it is OK to coerce him is that in commenting on his knowledge of football clubs and his own discomfort he is potentially influencing the choice of a hypothetical AFL player who may be thinking of coming out as gay, which may imfluence the choice of that gay player to come out. Presumably you see the protection of the choice of this hypothetical gay player as a "good cause".

Still there?

It isn't hard to see, then, that you approve of coercion in the employ of a "good cause", wouldn't you agree?

And since this particular "good cause" is the choice of the gay player to come out, then despite my rather clumsy phraseology this morning (thanks for pointing that out, BTW), my point stands.

Far from putting words in anyone's mouth, I'm simply clarifying the essential points as I understand them. As I said originally, I'm seeking your guidance to understand your position.

The special pleading is in the claim that the discomfort or damage caused to your hypothetical gay player by having his choice to come out influenced by Akermanis's rather mild comments is so serious that it justifies the threat to sack Akermanis. Presumably you don't regard Akermanis's welfare as seriously as the hypothetical gay player's?

Now, let's look at the threat that you claim is implied...erm...I can't actually seem to find it anywhere, would you mind pointing it out?

Antiseptic....

you observed about Pericles as follows:

//I'm still waiting for Pericles to help me with his last post. As far as I can see, he's simply making a "special pleading" with no ethical or logical underpinning.//

At which point I almost had a seriously religious moment :)

Check this out from 'logical/ethical' Pericles.

//I have absolutely no interest in discovering the origin of your fear and loathing,//

But it get's better.

//for the gazillionth time, I have absolutely no interest in discussing comparative religion with you, or anyone else.//

//I am an atheist, and as such I have no sympathy for anyone who uses their religion as a weapon against others.//

For 'atheist' above. we can insert bigot.. on the basis of his own confession.

"Bigot" a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race(Dict)

In other words.. "Play by my rules or getout"..hmmm I've heard that before.

Pericles..the bottom line is this..

Any person who has been provided information about the basis for another persons point of view.. has an ethical duty to at least examine that information and make an assessment. "Rubbish".."True" or something in between.

But, Antiseptic, in his 'fear and loathing' comment he indicates his intolerant prejudice up front.. good that he is honest on that front at least.

He assumes that criticism of Islam equates to 'fear' and 'loathing' but in Pericles surreal mind.. he also engages in transference, and projects his own fear and loathing onto another person he has never met.

In a mad scramble of self justification..he scurries around like a frantic chipmunk with the onset of winter..gathering every acorn of spin he can...and in each case again demonstrating his own intolerant bigotry and prejudice. He presents his own prejudicial spin as 'fact' but the only 'fact' he presents is his own intolerant prejudice.

Antiseptic...for the record...only a prejudiced person would NOT see a group of superheavyweight administrators coming down to 'confront' them as anything BUT Coercion/threat/intimidation.

You are spot on mate.

Minor correction to my post above, to ensure nitpickers remain satisfied.

Replace "which may imfluence the choice of that gay player to come out"

with "which may negatively influence the choice of that gay player to come out"

Thanks.

Hmmmm. I think I've touched a nerve somewhere along the line.

>>For 'atheist' above. we can insert bigot..."Bigot" a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race(Dict) In other words.. "Play by my rules or getout"... in his 'fear and loathing' comment he indicates his intolerant prejudice up front... He assumes that criticism of Islam equates to 'fear' and 'loathing'... he also engages in transference, and projects his own fear and loathing onto another person he has never met. In a mad scramble of self justification..he scurries around like a frantic chipmunk with the onset of winter..gathering every acorn of spin he can...and in each case again demonstrating his own intolerant bigotry and prejudice. He presents his own prejudicial spin as 'fact' but the only 'fact' he presents is his own intolerant prejudice.<<

I'm rather glad I've finally managed to get through to the underlying Boaz.

That outburst was probably quite cathartic for you. Bravo.

Your reaction tells me that you have absolutely no interest in defending your position - which is that you attack Muslims at any and every opportunity - but instead you turn all the accusations I have laid against you over the years, chronicled here quite neatly, back onto me.

Cute.

Sorry for the interruption, Antiseptic, now where were we?

Ah yes.

>>If it is OK to prevent Akermanis from speaking his mind through the use of a coercive threat such as that of being sacked and you approve of that, which you have done, then you approve of coercion.<<

I do not approve of the threat to sack Akermanis. I don't believe I ever said that I did.

>> Presumably you see the protection of the choice of this hypothetical gay player as a "good cause".<<

Why would you presume that? I simply pointed out that saying what he did constituted a threat. "Come out, and you'll have problems"

cf. "Ignore my advice, and there'll be consequences"

Is preventing someone from uttering threats against others a "good cause"?

I think so. You don't.

Pericles:"I do not approve of the threat to sack Akermanis. "

Aah, we're moving on nicely. So what action in support of your good cause do you approve of? Anything coercive at all?

Pericles:"Is preventing someone from uttering threats against others a "good cause"?"

Oh, indisputably, but I'm still trying to find where this threat is that you're talking about. He was warning of a danger, not threatening a consequence. In return he received a very real suspension from his writing and presumably the income therefrom. How is this justified?

Semantics, Antiseptic.

>>He was warning of a danger, not threatening a consequence.<<

The warning was explicit. The threat was implied.

As in "without our insurance, your shop looks highly combustible".

>>So what action in support of your good cause do you approve of?<<

Personally, I would have recommended counselling.

Since it is pointless trying to show him that what he said was in fact a form of threat ("but... but... but... some of my best friends are poofs"), the counselling should be conducted by the team's PR agency. They could advise him on what not to say to the press, or write in the press, or have ghost-written on his behalf for media consumption.

From his asking questions like "why the f%#k can't I say that?", he might actually learn something to his advantage as a human being.

Pericles:"Personally, I would have recommended counselling. "

We're making lots of progress, aren't we? You don't condone the actions of the club in coercing Akermanis then. See, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Now, what do you suggest this "counselling" that you propose should be about and who should conduct it? Should the "counsellor" try to influence Akermanis's choices in any way? What if Akermanis exercises his choice and rejects the offer of "counselling"?

And what of your hypothetical gay player? Should he also be counselled prior to coming out? Should the counsellor try to influence his choice in any way?

"oh what a tangled web we weave" when first we practise to ask for a special pleading, eh Pericles?

You obviously - once again - only read the bits that you want to see.

>>Now, what do you suggest this "counselling" that you propose should be about and who should conduct it?<<

"Since it is pointless trying to show him that what he said was in fact a form of threat ("but... but... but... some of my best friends are poofs"), the counselling should be conducted by the team's PR agency. They could advise him on what not to say to the press, or write in the press, or have ghost-written on his behalf for media consumption.

From his asking questions like "why the f%#k can't I say that?", he might actually learn something to his advantage as a human being."

Incidentally, sarcasm is a difficult trick to pull off effectively on this forum. It can so often be confused with sincerity.

Just a thought.

Anti... do you see it ? :) notice this and you will understand why Pericles is so 'at you'...and note also his method.

PERICLES said (of me it appears)

//1/ Your reaction tells me that you have absolutely no interest in defending your position -

2/ ...which is that you attack Muslims at any and every opportunity -

3/ but instead you turn all the accusations I have laid against you over the years, chronicled here quite neatly, back onto me.//

Wow..THAT cracked me up no end. In the days when I did 'attack Islam' directly.. u know.. full frontal headline conclusion followed up with bullet points... and a liberal dose of supporting evidence, nost of what I said WAS defending my position.

Anti.. you need to understand that if you are criticising 'Homosexual behavior' or.. attempts by them to change the law.. you ATTACKING GAYS and you are an incouragable HOMOPHOBE in Pericles dark mind.

Notice how he claims I have been "Attacking Muslims".... when in fact.. I have attacked the beliefs and teachings of Islam. but such facts are lost on Pericles. He sees a hint of criticism and launches out into a rant which is based on ONLY the 'criticism' rather than the underlying or supporting evidence.

In fact Pericles has no interest in 'underlying evidence' as he says things like "For the gazilionth time, I have no interest in comparative religion" :) Oh how glad I am that he posted his prejudice and bigotry at full mast like that.. I really don't need to do more than simply remind him occassionaly.

ANTI..but you must realize you are dealing with the same creature mate.

Don't expect the PERICLES/FOXY/CJMORGAN cabal to look at your evidence...they simply will not do it.

Their rules are "If you criticize.. ur A GONNER"

I've found that cautious discussion with those as yet uninfected by the cabal's dark orhodoxy produces impressive results.