home

Gay Athletes and Homophobia

John Amaechi, former NBA player and UConn Penn State star, disclosed that he is gay. Dan LeBatard wrote:

"I feel exhausted already," he said. "All this is about to happen, this complete unknown. I like structure. I've planned my entire life to this point. This wasn't in there. I'm in the vehicle, but I'm a passenger now. There is no driver. But I did choose to open the door and get in, and it's the right choice for a number of reasons. I'm sure that will become plain soon." It just wasn't plain in the moment. What's the saying? Courage isn't the absence of fear but the ability to overcome it? Amaechi has never been so scared, which says plenty. Consider: When asked if he ever felt free in the NBA, he said, "Never. Just lonely and isolated and afraid." The biggest relief in his career? When he got the call that it was over. He felt, in his words, "the deepest and most profound of sighs -- every muscle in my body relaxing at once."

What an indictment on the homophobia that permeates sports. And Tim Hardaway, unapologetically confirmed that bigotry, flatly stating that he would not want Amaechi as a teammate and that homosexuality simply should not exist period.

I guess Timmy never heard of the ancient Olympics. But of course, in many ways, this was the attitude Karl Malone reflected when he balked at Magic Johnson's return to the NBA after he had retired when he was diagnosed as carrying the AIDS virus.

Just an ugly reminder of how far we still have to travel as a society.

< Justice Scalia's Daughter Arrested | The Defense Rests >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    No squeaky (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 08:42:47 AM EST
    No squeaky, most pro atheletes aren't gay. My guess would be that the percentage match the percentage in the overall population.

    cpinva is correct that it starts in high school sports. It was used by some to try and intimidate. To be called a "fag" by someone meant that you had to fight. Period. To not fight meant that the person's place in the "pecking order" would be at the bottom and you risked being excluded from the group. That's a powerful lever on any teenager, even more so when a team association was involved.

    We're a better world because we recognize such actions are wrong, and in many places, not tolerated.

    Really? (none / 0) (#56)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 09:13:25 AM EST
    Most gay people don't look gay. and are very private about their sexual preference.  Same with straight people. Hetero marriage is no clue either.

    So I'll just have to take your word that most pro athletes are not gay. Glad to see that you are on top of it all.

    Parent

    Spite for spite's sake? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 09:22:35 AM EST
    Squeaky, explain to me what this is about.

    I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, especially when you reply to Jim, but at least he made an argument with his assertion. He wrote that it made sense that the frequency of homosexuality in pro sports is probably similar to that of the general population. This leads him to believe that most pro players are not gay.

    You, on the other hand, are guilty of the very thing you claim that Jim has done: made an assertion that we're just supposed to take your word for. Are you being argumentative just for the sake of arguing, or do you actually have an argument to make?

    Parent

    General Population (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 09:40:29 AM EST
    What is the frequency of homosexuality in the general population?

    Is the frequency of homosexuality in the general population the same as in the arts ? the military? other professions?

    I haven't seen any studies yet so please enlighten me.

    Besides if my contention is correct that it is impossible to know who is gay or not if they are not out about it, how can you or anyone know anything about the ratios?

    Parent

    Studies (none / 0) (#59)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 09:52:44 AM EST
    A good starter list of studies can be found here. It notes the difficulties associated with studying sexuality and then (scroll down) provides a list of studies by country. As always, take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, but it usually provides a good place to start a more in-depth examination of a subject.  The summary:

    In general, surveys quoted by anti-gay activists tend to show figures nearer 1%, while surveys quoted by gay activists tend to show figures nearer 10%, with a mean of 4-5% figure most often cited in mainstream media reports.


    Parent
    So what (none / 0) (#60)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 10:00:37 AM EST
    You have not provided a breakdown by industry.

    The point of the thread is that homophobia is rampant in our society. Obvioulsy that is true. That fact skews any statistic since there is no blood test for being gay.

    Parent

    AfI and Rampancy (none / 0) (#61)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Feb 19, 2007 at 02:15:40 PM EST
    Squeaky, you haven't provided a breakdown by industry to support your assertion that "most professional athletes" are gay, either.

    At best, yours is an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy whereby you assert your position simply because it hasn't been unproved. You haven't actually provided any reason to believe that most pro athletes are gay, you just want to believe that because...well...just because.

    On the other hand, Jim (and I) suggest that there is no reason to believe that pro athletes have any more likelihood of homosexuality than the general population. I went a little bit further and mentioned that studies lead us to believe that homosexuality occurs in somewhere between 1 and 10  percent of the population. I also noted that studies like this are difficult, thus the wide range of findings.

    Also, describing homosexuality as rampant is inaccurate because studies, to the extent that they can show us, show otherwise (taking "rampant" to mean "profusely widespread" and we have no reason to believe that it occurs in anything but a fraction of the general population. In any case, even if it were the case that homosexuality were "rampant," this doesn't help your argument that most pro athletes are gay.

    Parent

    Gayness test? (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 20, 2007 at 05:29:30 PM EST
    Squeaky, you haven't provided a breakdown by industry to support your assertion that "most professional athletes" are gay, either.

    Hardly an assertion, I said:

    I always thought that most professional athletes were gay. But then again, what do I know.
    Maybe it is just taboo to utter it.

    Then I said:

    Most gay people don't look gay. and are very private about their sexual preference.  Same with straight people. Hetero marriage is no clue either.
    So I'll just have to take your word that most pro athletes are not gay. Glad to see that you are on top of it all.

    Neither of us can prove gayness of pro athletes, which happens to be my point.

    Your assertion is hogwash.

    On the other hand, Jim (and I) suggest that there is no reason to believe that pro athletes have any more likelihood of homosexuality than the general population.
    Pro athletes have are not representative of the general population.

    Also, describing homosexuality as rampant ...

    Has the topic of homosexuality impaired your reading ability or are you just flummoxed by big words.

    What I said was this:

    The point of the thread is that homophobia is rampant in our society. Obviously that is true. That fact skews any statistic since there is no blood test for being gay.


    Parent
    The guy interviewing Hardaway (none / 0) (#1)
    by glanton on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 10:49:49 PM EST
    showed some decency, actually called the former star out as a bigot.  Good for him.  And good for corporate ESPN to resist spinning it away in an effort not to offend Republicans who watch the network.  

    But then, on gay rights issues I'll give it up for Disney, they've been at the fore for decades.  

    There is rampant homophobia in the world of American Sport, of course.  It's a hyper insecure sub-culture in many ways, and very, very hyper-protective of an imagined intersect between hetero-masculinity and worth.  

    Hardaway is a both a bigot and an idiot, and so is anyone else who agrees with, or sympathizes with, what he said.

    Amaechi's college (none / 0) (#2)
    by knibilnats on Wed Feb 14, 2007 at 11:32:13 PM EST
    Just wanted to let you know for the sake of accuracy, Amaechi played one year at Vanderbilt, then transferred and starred for Penn State, not UCONN.

    I thought I remembered (none / 0) (#5)
    by unbill on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:03:22 AM EST
    him as a State College guy.

    Parent
    Strange (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 12:47:40 AM EST
    I always thought that most professional athletes were gay. But then again, what do I know.

    Maybe it is just taboo to utter it.

    Gay Sportsmen (none / 0) (#6)
    by PaulStott on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:27:56 AM EST
    Things are probably worse here in the UK.

    Only one footballer (soccer player to you Yanks) has every come out as gay - Justin Fashanu.

    He ended up committing suicide.

    bigotry (none / 0) (#8)
    by diogenes on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 09:21:34 AM EST
    In the 1940's to 1950's, much of baseball was very bigoted against black players, but the National League teams (Dodgers, Giants, Braves) who signed them up left the allwhite teams in the dust.  
    Likewise, if one or two teams (SF Giants? Forty-niners?, Warriors? :) projected themselves as gay-friendly, presumably the gay athletes would play there, even for pay cuts, thus bringing home championships galore and forcing the others to be more openminded.

    If it takes.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 10:04:48 AM EST
    sone openly gay players on the Knicks to make them respectable again...by all means Isaiah sign them up!

    Can you shoot the 18-footer consistently?  Are you a force on the offensive glass?  That's all that really matters, or all that should matter.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 11:30:08 AM EST
    Being gay doesn't makes you a better athlete.. or a better or worse "anything."

    Parent
    Isn't that what I said? (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 11:51:20 AM EST
    If a gay guy can drain the 18-footer consistently...sign 'em up.  If not, don't.

    Parent
    Kdog (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 02:49:24 PM EST
    My response was to Diogenes

    Parent
    Duh.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 03:37:36 PM EST
    Apologies Jim.  Still getting used to the new look I guess.

    I should learn to cherish the times we agree:)

    Parent

    kdog (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:55:36 PM EST
    ;-)

    Parent
    That would work (none / 0) (#37)
    by Pancho on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 10:41:47 PM EST
    if gays were superior athletes who were only held back by discrimination.

    I'm still waiting for a Fortune 500 company to seize upon all the classes of people who have held back by white males. There must be a treasure trove of brainpower ripe for the picking for the first enlightened corporation willing to give them a chance, right?

    Parent

    I'm as big a sports fan the next guy... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 10:17:39 AM EST
    ...as far as the games go, but i have little interest in what the athletes think.  Do we run the risk of making athletes'  opinions on social issues (or anything else other than their sport) seem more signifant than they deserve to be by focusing on them.

      Tim Hardway's views on sexual orientation issues are similar to those one might find among countless guys sitting at some bar watching him play.

     Being good at a sport endows one with no special insight on anything beyond that sport. Who cares what a basketball player thinks about gays or a football player thinks about school prayer or a baseball player thinks about abortion?

    Update (none / 0) (#12)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 11:42:15 AM EST
    Hardaway has now "apologized" for his comments, saying he shouldn't have said what he did.

    Note he doesn't take it back, or investigate his own soul.  He just wishes he'd kept his hatred to himself.

    It's a start (none / 0) (#18)
    by roy on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 12:44:42 PM EST
    The less of this stuff people say, the less there is to hear, the less will be internalized, and the less will be believed.

    Parent
    second that (none / 0) (#20)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 12:48:41 PM EST
    Not without incentive (none / 0) (#36)
    by Repack Rider on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 09:44:57 PM EST
    As a five time all-star, Hardaway was scheduled to appear at several events in connection with the all-star game.

    Once the NBA heard the remarks, he was dumped.

    Then he got contrite.

    Too little, too late.

    BTW, some years ago a former member of the 49ers came out. Dave Kopay was an excellent receiver from the '70s.  I don't believe he was all pro, but he was a solid player.

    Parent

    It's worth mentioning.... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 11:49:43 AM EST
    that fundamental brands of christianity are quite prevalent in the NBA and other major sports.  Ex-Knick Charlie Ward comes to mind...he was always saying something stupid in the papers like dinosaurs never existed and gays are blasphemous and such.

    k-dog (none / 0) (#15)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 12:16:00 PM EST
    Did you see Barkley's response to the whole flap?  I really love that guy as a commentator, and agree with a lot of his politics, though he's a bit too libertarian for my tastes.  In any case he was on PTI yesterday or the day before, pretty much brushed off gays in the NBA as the "who cares?" question that is poses.  

    He was very clear that it is bigotry to approach it otherwise.  Well done, Chuck!

    Parent

    I didn't catch it.... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 12:40:35 PM EST
    but I do love the outspoken-ness of Sir Charles.

    My favorite Barkley-ism was from when he was thinking of running for office as a Republican.  He said his momma scolded him saying "only rich people are Republicans" and Charles replied "but momma...I am rich!"

    Parent

    k-dog (none / 0) (#21)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 01:01:22 PM EST

    Here ye go, buddy. He brushes it off pretty quick, like I said.  You might find his reflections on his much-publicized gambling addiction of interest as well.

    Parent
    Thanks glanton.... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 01:21:14 PM EST
    I'll check it out at home with audio.  

    Parent
    kdog (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 02:57:45 PM EST
    test

    Parent
    Interesting.... (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 05:09:41 PM EST
    Charles says he played with 2 or 3 gay guys...I only assume he means in the NBA.  So gay teammates are no problem...just openly gay teammeates are a problem, to some players that is.

    I wonder, what's the difference?  Just the desire of some players to live in denial?

    Good call glanton...I did enjoy it.

    Parent

    Denial? (none / 0) (#28)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 05:27:26 PM EST
    Just the desire of some players to live in denial?

    There are many things each and every one of us keeps private from the world at large, for whatever reasons. I don't know that I'd call that denial, maybe just personal privacy?

    On the main though, I agree with Sir Chuck. A gay athlete should be a non-issue...like that'll ever happen.

    Parent

    I think... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 05:56:15 PM EST
    I wasn't clear.  I'm not refering to any gay players in the NBA not being "openly gay", or iow out of the closet, being in denial. That's everyone's personal business whether they want to put their sexual preferences on public display.  I agree with you there.

    I was refering to players who say they wouldn't tolerate a gay player being in denial about the fact the odds are they have definitely played against or with a gay player already.

    Parent

    Oh (none / 0) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:02:32 PM EST
    I get it now.

    Parent
    Glad you liked it (none / 0) (#29)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 05:38:25 PM EST
    And I like how upfront he is with the whole gambling thing.  It would be well within his rights to tell people, look a$$holes, it's none of your freakin businness and drop it there.  But he goes the extra mile, knowing people are very interested in what goes on with him, and graciously opens himself up for introspection and discussion.  "Graciously"?  Who would have thought that word would be used in association with Sir Charles, back in the gnarly day!!

    Back on topic, his comments on playing with gay teammates I took a little differently.  I thought he was saying he would have been fine had the teammtes been open about it.  Implying, without belaboring it, that its players like Hardaway who have the problem, and that this is the shame.  

    Parent

    That's twice I failed to get.... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:01:51 PM EST
    my point across.  I wasn't refering to Barkley, by some players I meant guys like Hardaway.

    And yeah, Barkley strikes me as honest as they come.  I'd vote for him...maybe we should recruit him for 2008.  Some straight talk for a change.  

    Parent

    All-Star Weekend (none / 0) (#19)
    by Peaches on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 12:48:22 PM EST
    Barkley will be having a race with veteran NBA referee Dick Bavetta. The race sprung from Barkley quipping that no 67-year-old man, well-conditioned ref or not, could beat him in a foot race. Barkley is 43 and not anywhere in his NBA shape anymore

    The two will run 235 feet, from baseline to baseline and back, then to the half-court line. The league and the cable network will donate $50,000 to the Boys and Girls Clubs of Las Vegas. And I'm sure the Casinos will make much more. I'm not sure of the odds. IT should be fun. I'm rooting for the old guy even though I love Barkley.

    Parent

    My money's (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 01:08:59 PM EST
    on Bavetta.  Charles has grown rather large since retirement.  In fact...I think Bavetta's a lock.  

    Parent
    The most important (none / 0) (#16)
    by glanton on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 12:25:36 PM EST
    thing in this story, to me anyway, has everything to do with the awesome way ESPN has stepped up to the plate.  I know I mentioned this before but it's just so refreshing to see a major corporate entity takle such a thing head on, even at the possible expense of a few dollars.

    Not that they're crusading, or, preaching, or anything like that.  But all the talk shows and Sportscenter segments, as far as I've been able to tell, have been uniform in condemning Hardaway and those who would agree with him.  And the power of ESPN is considerable, its narrative reaches a staggering number of men (and not a few women), many of whom most certainly struggle with homophobic issues.  Perhaps it will benefit some of these unfortunates to see it framed in its true colors.  

    This is an example of MSM channeling its vast power responsibly, and it deserves acknowledgement.

    response to bigotry (none / 0) (#33)
    by diogenes on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:21:59 PM EST
    It's good to see people unite to slam those who are homophobic bigots.  Who knows, maybe one day we'll all unite to slam anticatholic bigots and their webblogs :)

    Optimist (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Feb 15, 2007 at 06:58:27 PM EST
    Reality (none / 0) (#39)
    by Slado on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 10:57:59 AM EST
    As a former college athelete I can speak from experience regarding this issue.

    It starts at a very young age.  When you are playing ball (all kinds) as you develop as an athelete you are constantly judged by your skill set, your attitude and your "heart".   All of this is defined roughly as your manliness.

    The very essence of male compitition results in those who can't keep up being labled or singled out through jokes and peer pressure.  You are ranked by your skill level and those who are the most talented and successfull decide what goes on in a locker room and in the overall sports culture.

    Someone mentioned that christianity plays a roll in the NBA.  That's only half the story.  The lifestlye of modern sports is a lifestyle most young men only dream about.  Road trips, booze, parties and groupies.  Read any book or watch a Real Sports special on it and you quickly learn that being a modern athelete gives you the opportunity to live the ultimate bachelor life.  All the money, women and fun a guy could want.   Hardly the environment condusive to openly gay men.  

     

    So was I (none / 0) (#41)
    by Peaches on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 11:40:24 AM EST
    a college athlete and I think, Slado, you are being over-simplistic. I got laid, and partied a lot harder, after my college athletic career was over. In college, atheletes (at least the successful ones on successful teams) are focused training and winning. As a team, there are wide variety of background with varying interests and the only thing that matters to successful team, coached properly, is that the team come together in spite of differences on game day to win.

    There is also a wide variety of personalities on a team. There are introspective intellectuals, artistic types, extroverts, and of course, stereotypical jocks, though these aren't necessarily the majority. There is lockerroom talk and talk about girls. But this has more to do with age then sports.

    After college I lived with a gay man and rumors were that a member of the professional Minnesota Timberwolve  was gay (since proved to be false by evidence of his married status-but, you never know). Well, judging by the members of gay community I associated with, this professional athlete could have gotten all the affection he wanted as well, so your sexual preference does not have to negate the rock star status of pro athletes. The most successful athletes are the ones who have the most talent and dedication. I doubt sexual preference has any influence on this.

    on a side note, I was never uncomfortable around gay people. I had and have many friends who are. I suspect one reason I am comfortable is that I have always been so gosh darn horny for the female species and was always a little amused and even flattered when I was hit on by gay men. My best guess is Tim Hardawy has some seriuos homosexual tendencies he's been repressing. Not because of his belief that homosexuality is wrong, but because of his statements that he hates them. His intolerance is symptomatic of his own sexual tendencies.

    Parent

    I've never found (none / 0) (#43)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 11:57:31 AM EST
     the overcompensation theory very compelling. While there may well  be some men whose repression of homosexual desires causes them, consciously or subconsciously, to adopt a virulently anti-homosexual personna, I think the theory falls more into the  realm of "clever table-turning" than valid explanation.

      Some men irrationally  hate jews, blacks, muslims, you name it and few of them are fighting a concealed identity with the target group. Most times  nasty intolerance is just nasty intolerance.

    Parent

    Agreed, most of the time (none / 0) (#47)
    by Peaches on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 12:15:20 PM EST
    but, sexual preference does seem to have different characteristics. And there have been some cases reported of neo-nazis with jewish hatred and then there is specualtion that Hitler had Jewish ancestry. I am talking about extremes. The Ted Haggerds, and Tom Foleys. Or the Catholic Priests. I think one should be careful when using the "overcompensation theory" and most anti-gay sentiment would not fall under this umbrella. Probably, often it is used as a "clever table-turner." But, I was struck by Hardaways matter -of-factness in his interview on espn. He just said, "I hate gays." not I disagree with their choice, or they are wrong in God's eyes. I am just specualting, and I could be wrong, but his statements fell into that extreme category that I don't think most in professional sports, christain or not, share. So, I wouldn't be surprised if he were overcompensating for some deep seated desires.

    Parent
    well... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 12:22:43 PM EST
      it's not speculation that hitler had Jewish had Jewish ancestry. He did.  I think you may have a point too about people who choose to follow (or lead) a belief system that places exteme emphasis on anti-homosxuality. I hate to play armchair psychologis because it is so often BS, but I do think some people are so "afraid" of their subconscious desires they chose lives antithetical to them.

      But, Tim Hardaway's just a basketball player with a big mouth and an intolerant attitude.

    Parent

    this may sound like (none / 0) (#40)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 11:22:50 AM EST
    or even be BS, but

      could the taboo against homosexuality be traced to a source similar to the taboo against eating pork and shellfish and other dietary "laws."

      In antiquity, the survival of "the tribe" was a far from secure thing. Behaviors which imperiled survival needed to be discouraged. People could grasp intuitively that certain behaviors such as eating things that for some unknown reason often caused fatal illnesses or not fathering as many children as possible in societies with very high infant mortality and very low life expectancies made the ultimate survival let alone growth of the tribe less likely. So, it was proclaimed that the Gods or God as the case may be forbid such things.

     

    I can buy that theory.... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 11:51:08 AM EST
    Makes sense to me Decon.  Way back in the day, not having kids hurt the tribe.  Nowadays the survival of the tribe isn't dependent on everybody having kids, so we should be tolerant of those whose lifestyle doesn't include reproduction.

    But since so many today are not tolerant of somthing that has no effect on them personally, how else can you explain it except as you did?  

    Parent

    well... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 12:03:59 PM EST
      because the once pragmatic policy hidden behind a religious command over time became deeply ingrained into cultural attitudes and the enmity develops its own existence independent of either pragmatic origination or religious window-dressing. For centuries scorning if not hating homosexuals was a cultural norm so many people did it without much thought. It is only very recently in historical terms where it has really been considered that the enmity is ill founded.

    Parent
    Social Taboos (none / 0) (#44)
    by Peaches on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 12:01:58 PM EST
    usually evolve out of necessity for survival. They also may outlive their usefulness over time. Over time, social customs that don't help a society survive or are harmful to their survival will be cast aside. I think what bothers me this is an assumtion that Homosexuality is not necessary or harmful to societies in the past.

    There are ways to increase the power of a group or tribe. One way is to remove all taboos against reproduction. These taboos will put one group over an advantage of another. For groups that were interested in conquest and expansion, homosexuality would have been discouraged along with all forms of birth control. However, the more interesting side of this question or attention given to social taboos, is why grouops who were not interested in expansion and conquest over the better part of the existent of humans on Earth in our evolutionary past were tolerant of homosexuality and did not have taboos against it. Of course, the evidence I have that homosexuality is scant and limited to a few items and documents and essays on native American culture.

    Parent

    Back in college (none / 0) (#46)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 12:12:16 PM EST
    a bunch of us were sitting around drinking beer before going out one night and somehow the conversation turned to kids being molested by older males.

    Half, literally, of the guys there had been molested by older males when they were kids.

    Wow, (none / 0) (#48)
    by Peaches on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 12:18:58 PM EST
    Well, that might explain Hardawys hatred as well. I remember Axel Rose explaining his homophobia by a molestation when he was younger as well. That is tragic.

    Parent
    That is surprising..... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 12:35:16 PM EST
    both the large percentage of the group and the fact they were so open about it.  I'd imagine it is not something easy to talk about.

    Parent
    I don't for a second propose (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 12:45:55 PM EST
    that that sample is representative of our population at large, however it was an eye-opening discussion.

    fwiw, one of the guys who raised his hand did come out of the closet after college. We still let him hang out with us. ;-)

    Parent

    I hear you... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 01:09:48 PM EST
    and knew that wasn't your intention.

    You just reminded me of another reason I should thank my lucky stars for a happy, healthy childhood.

    Parent

    times have changed (none / 0) (#52)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 01:02:34 PM EST
      I'm a product of pretty typical 60s-70s suburbia and while my crowd was never belligerent or violent, gay jokes and using derogatory slang for homosexual as insults were  pretty much taken for granted.  At that time no one ever really considered that it shouldn't be an insult-- it just was.

      My "sitting around revelation" was not as extreme. One year over the holidays a bunch of us from the old high school crowd were sitting around in someon'e parents' basement getting high when one the guys got all serious and and we got the dreaded "I want you to hear it from me before you hear it..."

      Times were so different none of us had ever even considered the possibility despite the fact that in retrospect we had never known him to have had a date let alone a girlfriend. He wasn't effeminate in any way so it just never occurred to us because it was just a foreign concept.

    Oy (none / 0) (#54)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 01:27:23 PM EST
    He wasn't effeminate in any way so it just never occurred...

    I know you mean well Decon, but this had me rolling my eyes a bit. Obviously, you know now that not all gay guys are flitting fairies. Gays have just as much diversity as straights in terms of mannerisms, body types, and behaviors, though I acknowledge that there is a large and vocal group of gays that makes me want to reach for a fly swatter (or maybe a hammer).

    Please realize that there's also a large group of gays that may be out, but that don't have neon signs floating above their heads and rainbow flags sticking out of their asses. "Stealth-gays," if you will.

    Parent

    yes, i know (none / 0) (#55)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri Feb 16, 2007 at 01:47:29 PM EST
      My point was 35 years ago times were different. that's why I titled it--"times have changed."

     

    Parent