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.