Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by BTURNER, Nov 18, 2017.
I remember that. It was an ugly comment which made me think less of her.
You don't have to announce anything...........all have been pretty public who they are with. The fact they don't have to make a big deal about is good. They are with who they wish to be and are very open about it.
If they are out competing then the earlier generations would have come out by now since they are long retired and not deceased. Yes a few men will come out as gay or trans. I still maintain that especially given today's climate if there are scores of closeted male athletes they would be out by now; by choice or by coercion. If 10% of the general male population is gay that does not mean that 10% of the athletes are.
yes, there could be less athletes or more, but we don't know that because the climate you are talking about is far from great for being openly gay, especially in sports which are still very much a macho thing, and not very open for gays. I am not talking about professional sport only, but sport in general, in schools for example; my point is there is a stereotype which says that boys who like boys don't like sports and are bad at it, and then not only that they are unwelcome in teams but many of those boys act upon those stereotype, and then of course many others, especially those who don't "appear gay" would hide or even repress their sexuality and play sports.
Have you heard David Chappelle’s “One P€nis Per Fantasy Rule”?
Many years ago it was generally thought that most great female athletes were Gay, whether they were or not, primarily because some of them were less pretty and more muscular than the average female. Being Gay, or just considered Gay was the worst thing a male could be called till about the 90's or so. Even today, in the male athletic world, there is still a negative stigma in being Gay.
One word or name:
If we had to search for just one gay man in tennis, anyone, someone maybe 500 in the world, maybe I'd agree with you. But this one man is close to the top of any list of ATGs or GOAT lists.
Sure, he could have been THE exception of the last century. But more likely his sexual orientation would have stayed a secret if he had not been outed for pedophilia.
Until coming out of the closet is no longer a huge problem for making money - endorsements, fan support - male athletes will continue to hide. The moment a couple gay guys, really good players, are accepted by teammates and fans, the dam is going to burst and we'll find out the truth, if I'm right.
Things can change REALLY fast. Just look at what is happening right now with sexual misconduct. Just go back a couple months and compare with the present. Then compare with what was happening a couple decades ago.
Things are changing FAST.
And it doesn't mean they are not. We won't know until there is no more pressure to stay in the closet.
Easy one: lesbians intimidate. Usually people ascribe traits of the opposite sex to gay people. Hence, gay men are perceived as more feminine, and gay women as more masculine. Guess which trait (femininity or masculinity) is more helpful when playing tennis.
I don't even think it's about endorsements or anything like that, although I guess that makes sense too.
Tilden was gay? I had no idea. Which stick did he like to play with?
See what happens? Easy jokes.
Of the top 100 men and top 100 women tennis players I would wager that fewer than 10 men are gay and far more than 10 women are lesbians. We will never really know. I believe that is the truth if we could poll the top tens in 1930, 1940, 1950 and so on and so on.
In other words, you have an opinion that you are going to stick to with zero facts to back it up.
"I don't know it for a fact, I just know it's true."
Yeah, his comments are rather bizarre and based only on prejudice, it seems. Such as the assertion that men who are attracted to other men can only be good at interior design and not sport!
Sometimes people just keep repeating the same opinion over and over again, with no support of facts. That's what is happening here.
This is a good general point, but don't you think it's likely women attracted to sports have more lesbians amongst their ranks than the general population of women, and men attracted to sports have less gay men than the general male population?
I have not seen any evidence . Your problem is that you are connecting the orientation to a stereoype of manhood or womanhood, and then using those stereotypes to define the interest in sport, or lack thereof right back on to the orientation. You are trying to replace any evidence with your notion of 'common sense' which is just lousy way of cementing those stereotypes and interest onto the orientation. Your generalization may eventually prove to be valid for whatever reason, but how you got there is not at all.
Another way to put this, is you got nuthin but a hunch based on guess.
I don't know, because we have no facts to say one way or the other.
Generally lesbianism and sports are viewed as more compatible because lesbians are perceived as more "manly" women while gays are seen as girly and weak. this is of course really Sexist due to a variety of reason but it might be the reason.
That pretty much sums it up.
Tilden's sexual orientation has been discussed at length in a great deal of longform tennis writing over the last 3-5 years.
Without getting into it, there is also a lot of writing about his sexual misconduct which is totally unrelated to his sexual orientation.
I would refrain from making specific sex "jokes" about Tilden unless you wish to look insensitive, particularly at the moment when the world is undergoing a revolution in terms of confronting and discussing sexual impropriety with a serious tone.
Testosterone vs estrogen. They find mothers of lesbians have high test, while mothers of gay men have high estro. The only genetic proof they can find in reguards to sexuality
Testosterone is better for sports.
spare us the quasi-science please
That is the only science they have as to why people are gay, there was nothing in their dna, even identical twins (one gay, one straight). Scientifically its still a choice.
But my explanation is why there are successful lesbians players, but not gay. No quasi to it
no it is not, there are many theories in different sciences on a topic of homosexuality.
Im talking about physical attributes (dna). Why do you think juicing women take testosterone? The only men using estrogen are using as a masking agent.
Oddly enough they found the gene for schitzophrienia (sp) while researching it. But nothing in reguards to sexuality. Its been researched for over 20 years
I understand that joke is not top of the crop, but the moment you start to restrict freedom of expression regarding humor and things like that, my opinion is that we are going on the wrong direction as a society. There should be a middle term (do not grope or abuse sexually, but some jokes OK?)
I'm not restricting you from making the joke, but I am advising you on how you will appear if you do make the joke and suggesting it's not something I would do. Particularly if you weren't previously aware of the situations regarding Bill Tilden.
Agree that we need to be careful restricting people's freedom of expression.
So Tilden was grabby with other fellows' equipment? I had no idea.
I guess Kevin Spacey studied in Tilden's academy.
I don't get why it's contentious to suggest that lesbians are over-represented in women's sport and gay men are under-represented in men's sport.
I mean that's pretty clearly true on the face of it. Lesbians are more likely to choose traditionally masculine career paths than straight women, and gay men are more likely to choose traditionally feminine career paths than straight men. You see this all the time, and there's certainly nothing wrong with it, but it's true.
Is that suggestion supposed to be offensive or something?
I don't think it's offensive, but it may be wrong.
Straight and gay in 2017 are lot closer to equal than they were in the past, but also a very long way from truly equal.
Think of the current number of cases of men being outed for being sexual predators. The reason this is happening, now, is because it was tolerated until very recently, and the idea that it is absolutely NOT OK is pretty new.
All the women I know and respect confirm that the "good ol' boy behavior" has been a very real thing in their lives, and the idea that men can be "busted" for it is new. And it may be very VERY long time before the behavior of men is significantly changed, for good.
If it ever happens.
So I don't trust "common knowledge", and the idea that gay men are more effeminate and dislike sports - and that gay women excel in sports because they are more aggressive - is still "common knowledge".
Let's see what changes when there is no social stigma involved in being a gay athlete, assuming that time ever arrives.
I hope I live that long.
We first need to get past the stigma of people being gay. Until that happens, non-judgement of gay athletes is a pipe dream.
lots of people who support a naturist perspective use this "it's common sense" argument all the time
it's "common sense" that lesbians are aggressive
it's "common sense" that gay guys are passive
common sense isn't evidence
I won't. But others in this forum may live to see it.
in this context, common sense = the status quo/the way things have always been/it's just how i was brought up
i don't wanna bring politics into this but conservative right wing leaning people love that stuff
is it just a coincidence that so many lesbian players have one handed backhands, aggressive games and/or decent net skills?
you'll find exceptions to every rule but look at the players that are out..
Then I guess the men with 2HBHs and less aggressive games are less straight?
So much of this stuff deals with who we think is gay or lesbian based on their non-sexual behavior, rather than who is gay or lesbian based on who they are actually attracted to. I think the best way to get folks to see this question differently is to ask how many straight men who are a little 'effeminate' or 'metro' are amazing athletes? If there are not many, why not? When you start changing the direction of this, its starts to look as though we might have a different problem in the early locker room experiences that promote confidence as athletes than just orientation More to the point, its about who we thought was gay in MIDDLE SCHOOL. Follow me here
I don't think we are really measuring the right metric here. We are measuring who can survive/ mentally emotionally in that atmosphere long enough to perceive themselves as potential athletes and that has a lot more to do with optics than orientation.
Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense; no one thinks he needs more of it than he already had.
Oooooh, l like it: a one-handed backhand is more masculine.
Optics is a good word. In middle school that pretty much runs the world.
This is not about who is gay. Its about who was treated as 'gay'. If you want to develop a great athlete in any sport, you have to make athletic experiences with peers positive experiences early on. While gay youth may internalize the slurs surrounding them in locker rooms, once they see themselves as gay, effeminate boys receive them direct mail, long before.
I think I agree with you, but what does this mean?
"effeminate boys receive them direct mail, long before."
It means that even though gay boys can hide what they are, so that the harassment is absorbed indirectly with third person comments about 'fags' they feel but need not publicly register, effeminate boys really can't hide what they are, so that it is clearly directed to them. Attacks are clear 'direct mail' without any 'to whom it may concern' for ambiguity. they are also identified as sissies or misidentified as gay, long before some sophomore coming out. it starts happening in fifth grade..
youth sports competition cannot happen in an emotional vacuum. You build friendships and alliances that promote the self confidence and in turn are fueled by self confidence. If that is compromised or absent, from early years, its damn near impossible to make that up.
“So-called common sense is a fallacy that has been foisted on us by our culture of ideology (any ideology that wants to tell us what we should think and do) that prefers us to be stupid, ill informed, and poor decision makers. Sorry to get a bit political here, but common sense is even used as an ideological cudgel by conservatives in which so-called coastal elites lack common sense and, as a result, are out of touch with "real Americans" who apparently have an abundance of common sense. But, if we use our elected representatives as examples (though I can't vouch for how representative they actually are), I think it's safe to say that unsound judgment, that is, the absence of common sense, doesn't discriminate based on political ideology.”
The trumpeting of common sense is, also, usually part of an anti-intellectual or anti-higher-education agenda. It implies or strongly suggests that “real people” with common sense don’t need to be educated because they are already, innately intelligent enough to make correct decisions as they go through life, based on their real-world experiences. Real people don’t need to go to college, because college will only fill their head with crazy ideas taught be liberal professors.
Einstein was right about common sense. “Common sense” is a propaganda myth offered by those who want to keep the populace as dumb as possible. If the politicians tell the people they don’t need to go to college, that they are already wiser than those college-educated eggheads, then people will see no value in being more and better educated. If people feel they don’t need to go to college they will listen to these same politicians forever. The populace will be caught in a feedback loop of ignorance begetting ignorance. They will continue to elect persons who flatter them by telling them that they are already wiser than the college-educated elite. They will not learn how to challenge and ask questions of their own assumptions, gather data and evidence to test hypotheses, or objectively evaluate competing points of view. The glorification of ‘common sense’ is what makes actually ignorant, unenlightened, unintelligent people feel smug, superior, and good about their rejection of information and expertise.
Let me offer this: that common sense is what we had in the Middle Ages when the local barber was the person treating that strange growth on your abdomen and tellling you that everyone knows that the sun goes around the earth because you can see it with your eyes—plain as day and night.
To put it in very simple terms, do you truly want an un-college-educated person with common sense performing brain surgery on your daughter or attempting to get that probe to Mars or even trying to fix your computer?
(Sorry for the soapbox tirade here, but there is a figurative war on education going on in the US today. And the glorification of common sense, what the author of that article calls the “sanctity of common sense,” is one of its major strategies.)
In what way is it "common sense" that gay men are passive? that is not common sense, that is a stereotype being called common sense so it doesn't sound like an insult. As a gay man, there are people the the LGBT that range from extremely passive to extremely aggressive. Our personality types are no different than heterosexual people. I know gay men who walking down the street no one would clock them as being gay unless they saw them walking out of a gay bar. Not all gay men are Richard Simmons and not all Lesbians look like Janet Reno.
My comment was about your sentence "They find mothers of lesbians have high test, while mothers of gay men have high estro." There are different studies with different results on this topic, also different conclusions about the same results, this phenomenon is a focus of many different sciences, there are different researchers with different perspectives etc. that was my point.
Nobody said that hormons have nothing to do with sexuality. and nobody said anything about dna reasons for being homosexual, I don't know why u keep bringing that up.
that's what i mean, it's offensive stereotypes
to a lot of these people it's just "common knowledge" that gay men are a certain way because their prejudice/upbringing told them that
for them then it would follow that gay men would not be very good at sports
no research or science behind it no, it's just "my common sense" and "anyone with a brain could see it's true" which is garbage thinking
Separate names with a comma.