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...