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?