The gay NBA?

A lot of the comments above about all those closeted macho men in the NFL and the like are based on wishful thinking verging on gay sex fantasies.

It’s fun to keep a list of some of the unlikely male athletes whom gays and sportswriters have claimed are homosexual (e.g., Sandy Koufax, who has been married twice and currently lives with First Lady Laura Bush’s old college roommate). My favorite example is that frequent subject of rumors, Mets catcher Mike Piazza.
Piazza, a muscular hunk long rumored to be a steroid user, is a natural object of gay sex fantasies.

Yet, the slugger has lived with about ten different lingerie models over the last decade. I have actually heard the argument made, “Well, that just shows how hard he’s working to cover up his being gay. Why else would a man want to sleep with a lot of centerfolds? ”

Piazza is also a metalhead whose obsession is playing heavy metal tunes on his electric guitar. Trust me, a guy whose favorite band is AC-DC isn’t AC-DC himself.

The question of whether there are lots of homosexually inclined dudes who either like women too much or like being thought of as chick-magnets so much or else like being thought of as ultra-masculine so much that they remain closeted–whther actors (cary grant) or nba point guards (magic johnson) or politicians (jim mcgreevey)–well… who knows how many of these types there are. But I think sebastian and alec, being gay, are much more trustworthy on this topic than steve (who incidentally writes on his blog that he is “educating” the readers here.)

Kimura’s sex difference article from Scientific American is also still a useful read.

The same M-F difference in spatial abilities is found in most mammals, can be manipulated with hormones in animals, and predictably varies in humans by exposure levels prenatally and during the lifespan.

“So if we can agree that gays are likely to be somewhat scarce in some fields (because after all they’re somewhat numerous in others) … Well, which ones are they scarce-ish in? Perhaps certain pro sports. Perhaps not, of course. But let’s at least admit that there are *some* fields where the percentage of gay guys is lower than average. Perhaps we can even edge up to the speculation that gays are more numerous in some pro sports than in others. Would that be too outlandish a guess for you?”

I don’t even have a problem with the suggestion that gay men are somewhat less likely to be found in certain pro sports. My problem with Steve is in magnitude. He seems to suggest that we should expect the ‘somewhat less’ to be ‘vanishingly few’. I suspect there may be 15-20% fewer than the general population. So if there is 5% in the general population there would be 4% in football. I might even buy 20-30% fewer. But it sounds like Steve is suggesting 75-80% fewer, and that is ridiculous. And he is totally wrong about the military. If anything there are slightly more homosexual men in the military than in the general population. If I go to work in a small business, I don’t always expect there to be other gay people. Put me in a similarly sized group of military guys and I fully expect to see at least two or three other gay men. And those are among the ones I can tell!

Dancing is a field that includes mostly feminine-behaved people, male or female. And most would agree that feminine gay males are infinitely more likely to be “out† than their masculine counterparts. Demographic statistics on gay men account for nothing more than those men who say they are gay, men who are out of the closet.

The societal image is to identify with the characteristics one’s gender, sexually or otherwise. Men, regardless of culture or society, are expected to be masculine “macho-men.† BUT what is expected of that man’s sexual orientation and behavior varies by cultural norms, ask any anthropologist. Men have been, are, and will be expected to be masculine, nonetheless. More specifically, today, if one is a man, he must uphold the image of being a macho heterosexual. In Ancient Greece the men were macho homosexuals.

Because of gender roles and upholding a public image in today’s society, among other reasons, there is sufficient reason to believe that countless (masculine, “straight-acting†) gay males actually exist and will NOT be “out,† and therefore significantly distort the integrity of any statistical study on male homosexuals. Therefore, one cannot know the true “national average of gay men;† one knows at most “the national average of men who say they’re gay,† which, with no doubt in my mind, are two radically different statistics.

Your stats are virtually meaningless. There is a societal image that must be upheld. End of discussion.

I think this whole idea of the ancient Greeks being gay is simply a gay fantasy. If homosexual behaviour was more common than today it was probably due to a female shortage. Most pagan socities praticed both female infanticide and polygamy. This creates a gender imbalance whicj leads to more homosexual behaviour. you seem the same thing today in prisons- heterosexual men cimmitting homosexual behaviour because no women are around.

None of this explains golf, though. But then, nothing really explains golf.

Again the average difference between gay and straight males on a targeting task was approximately 1 SD! Golf requires strong visuospatial skills which are determined, in part, by male sex hormones at timed developmental stages.

Unsurprisingly, lesbians, who are disproportionately masculinized in prenatal stages, have higher visuospatial skills, and are overrepresented in golf.

East Asians are another group high in visuospatial ability. I predict they will eventually earn more honors in golf.

samslick wrote: “I think this whole idea of the ancient Greeks being gay is simply a gay fantasy. If homosexual behaviour was more common than today it was probably due to a female shortage. Most pagan socities praticed both female infanticide and polygamy. This creates a gender imbalance whicj leads to more homosexual behaviour. you seem the same thing today in prisons- heterosexual men cimmitting homosexual behaviour because no women are around.†

I’m sure there were no female shortages in Ancient Greece. The land was not controlled like a prison where men must be separated from women.

But I do agree when you say men in prison, especially American prisons, do engage in homosexual behavior at a higher rate; anyone would agree. And maybe that’s because there are absolutely no women inmates. But the cause of that homosexual behavior is just as likely to be because they are in an environment to further explore their instinctive homosexual desires, their instinctive homosexual orientation. But who or what can undeniably prove a person’s instinctive homosexual desires? No one and nothing.

Moreover, you overwhelmingly have acknowledged a distinct difference between “homosexual behavior† and “homosexual orientation† in your argument. The point I, among others, are making is that “homosexual behavior† is less common today because of cultural norms, while “homosexual orientation† is too veiled to study with reasonable integrity.

And this “Ancient Greek homosexuality is a gay fantasy† is bullshit. To be more explicit, the men of Ancient Greece had relations with BOYS. That, in no way, shape, or form, is a fantasy of mine or most homosexual men.

Here is something I see going on: “If what most people believe is true, then it must be true.† AND “I believe what most people believe. Therefore, what I believe is true.†

Most people believe that one’s sexual orientation is known by his behavior/mannerisms. Therefore, it’s true.

Most people believe that a man’s masculinity usually implies is heterosexuality. Therefore, it’s true.

Most people believe that the majority of men are heterosexual because the majority of men have masculine mannerisms like (deemed) heterosexuals. Therefore, it’s true.

Most people believe that the NBA is almost entirely heterosexual. Therefore, it’s true.

[[More info on this fallacy: (http://www.answers.com/topic/argumentum-ad-populum)]]

—-

Samslick wrote: “Homosexual behavior is less common today because of a more equitable male/female ration†

Humans have a 50 % chance of being born male and 50% female. What would give you a reason to believe that there was a gender imbalance in Ancient Greece that caused more men to exist? Women didn’t fight wars.

From an article (http://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/askascientist/highlight.pl?kw=&file=answers%2Fgeneral%2Fans_019.html):
“If there is a large imbalance in sex ratio (if for, example a war killed off most of the males in a human population), there is no mechanism in humans for the remaining individuals to produce more males to take their place. Part of the tragedy of World War I in Europe was that so many men were killed (the so-called “Lost Generation”) that a great many women from that generation never married-in part because there really was a shortage of men.

After reading that, ask yourself: Sure, many women didn’t marry, but is it likely that the effects of World War I made many women become lesbians because of an unbalanced gender ratio?

—-

Samslick wrote: “We do indeed have different cultural norms today; but what shapes them? Society’s attitudes shape them.†

To Samslick: So what shapes society’s attitudes? Many things do; most notably, religion. Religion (and society’s attitude toward religion), doesn’t necessarily shape culture by itself but it is a considerable factor. Culture (and society’s attitude toward culture) unquestionably shapes the behaviors and views of its people. So religion is a considerable factor in shaping the behaviors and views of its people.

And let’s forget about Ancient Greece because it is history and it is only one cultural comparison.

Here’s an additional cultural comparison:

One can go to New Guinea, today (right now), and witness the ritual homosexuality of the Etoro tribe with his OWN eyes. What is the homosexuality rate of that culture? If homosexuality is defined behaviorally as Americans define it, then the rate of homosexuality of that tribe is around 100% (which is comparable to the deemed heterosexuality rate of the NBA) because Etoro men are expected to behave homosexually.

Here’s the problem: There a ridiculously high population of deemed homosexuals in one culture (men of the Etoro Tribe) AND a ridiculously high population of deemed heterosexuals in the other (men of the NBA, or men of America). It’s not believable. It’s impossible to believe that vast majority of the Etoro men are “true† homosexuals just as it’s impossible to believe that the vast majority of the NBA are “true† heterosexuals. Nature is just much more balanced than that.

Think outside of the box.

(http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=246) “Homosexuality is a behavior produced and interpreted in different ways by different societies at different times.†

marc is the man. listen to him.

Craig, you are partially right. There is no substantial proof of the homosexuality rate (other than the art, literature, etc., that were left behind to be interpreted by scholars) because Ancient Greece is long gone. There were no statisticians back then like we have today. And I agree, the fact that men dominated the society does not prove its gayness; that was NOT my argument.

But I do remember giving a few unbiased internet resources to back up my argument (that the homosexuality of Ancient Greece is comparable to heterosexuality today). When speaking of an ancient culture, like Ancient Greece, one doesn’t depend on statistical proof as one would today. One depends on what was left behind to be studied and interpreted by professional historians. And one depends on Answers.com to share with us those professional studies.

[[(http://www.answers.com/pederasty%20in%20ancient%20greece): "The Greeks considered it normal for any man to be drawn to the beauty of a boy.†]]

Assuming that pederasty (a relation between a man and a boy) was actually considered “normal,† like the source claims, then the word “normal† automatically puts it on a level with the (“normal†) heterosexuality of today.

And maybe Answers.com may not be THE authoritative source of historical information on Ancient Greek culture but I have no reason to believe their data is significantly biased or untrue. (Moreover, if you so desire, you may sue that website for millions for giving false information if YOU can prove that their claims are false. Go for it.)

As I’ve said, I’m using Ancient Greece as a cultural comparison. I also remember using a second cultural comparison: the Etoro tribe of New Guinea. What have you to say about them? That the tribe doesn’t exist? That my anthropology professor lied to me? That Answers.com is wrong again? That most of those men are actually heterosexuals in their hearts?

The only thing that can be proven today is that ideas of homosexuality are different in different societies. For example, one doesn’t need to read historical literature to witness the homosexual behavior of the Etoro tribe today. Some cultures accept homosexuality while others don’t, it’s that simple.

——

Other factors may exist for why the majority of men are (deemed) heterosexual in the NBA, but the social factors that I speak of shall not be ignored or belittled. I’ve always wished that sexual orientation could be reasonably justified genetically just to give society a scientific reason to be more accepting, but genetic explanations of sexual orientation are weak. Social factors have the strongest explanations. Here’s why:

Think of this way (and please, use your imagination):

Chinese people tend to eat Chinese food, not necessarily because Chinese people strictly like Chinese food but because the Chinese culture encourages Chinese people to strictly eat only Chinese food. There’s no genetic relation to being Chinese and eating (nor liking) Chinese food; that is cultural. Any Chinese person may, in fact, not like Chinese food. There is a sound reason to believe that maybe (and, it’s just guess) the majority of Chinese people, if they grew up in an environment that did not encourage eating Chinese food, may, in fact, not like Chinese food because they eat some other food. If a Chinese person grew up in America, occasionally eating Chinese food, he may find he actually likes both Chinese food and American food.

Analogically, there’s no genetic relation to being heterosexually-oriented and engaging in heterosexual behaviors; that is also cultural.

American men tend to be heterosexually-behaved, not necessarily because they strictly like girls (are heterosexually-oriented) but because the American culture encourages American men to strictly behave heterosexually. There is no genetic relation to being an American man and behaving heterosexually (nor liking girls, being heterosexually-oriented); that is cultural. Any heterosexually-behaved American man may be, in fact, not heterosexually-oriented. There is sound reason to believe that maybe (and, it’s just a guess) the majority of American men, if they grew up in an environment that did not encourage heterosexuality, may, in fact, not like girls (not be heterosexually-oriented) because they are engaging in homosexual behavior. If an American man grew up in a culturally non-heterosexual environment (like Ancient Greece, or the Etoro Tribe), he may find that he’s both heterosexual and homosexual; that he’s actually bisexual.

Cultural standards put an “idealistic† veil over the true nature of people, their desires and instincts, sexual or otherwise. Out of the world’s population, there is likely to be an extremely small percentage of people who are strictly homosexual or strictly heterosexual (just as there’s likely to be a small percentage of Chinese people who strictly like Chinese food). The vast majority of the world population would find that they would like both men and women if they were raised in a “sexually-blind† culture (where philosophies and ideologies of sexual behavior do not exist). I identify myself as a homosexual, but am by no means strictly homosexual. As they say, “don’t knock it until you try it.†

Sexual orientation is not simply black or white. One is not simply gay or straight based on his (sexual or nonsexual) behaviors. It’s more complicated. Think of sexual-orientation like a smooth spectrum from black, to dark grey, to grey, to light grey, to white. Where “black† represents homosexuality, “white† represents heterosexuality, and “shades of grey† represent bisexuality. Most people would be some shade of grey in the spectrum, some kind of bisexual. I believe the “central limit theorem† would apply to this aspect of human nature as well. The minority of the population is strictly homo- or heterosexual. The vast majority is bisexual, half of those are bisexual with a gay preference, half of those bisexual with a straight preference.

(Explanation of the “central limit theorem:† http://www.answers.com/topic/central-limit-theorem)

(Explanation of “normal distribution:† http://www.answers.com/topic/normal-distribution)

“Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual. The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories… The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects” — http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/research/ak-hhscale.html

“…some men may identify as heterosexual because the only activities they engage in with other men do not involve anal sex (or more commonly, do not involve being the bottom in anal sex). This kind of ambiguity is problematic because some people maintain that exclusivity is part of the definitions for monosexual orientations, others feel that only one’s current situation is what matters (if one is in a heterosexual marriage, they are straight)” — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisexuality

“Measuring the prevalence of various sexual orientations (e.g. heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality) in a large population can be a surprisingly difficult task. One reason is that survey data regarding stigmatized or deeply personal feelings or activities are often inaccurate. Participants often avoid answers which they feel society, the survey-takers, or they themselves dislike. ” –http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation

I said, “Through this reasoning, I strongly believe the majority of men actually have, have-had, or will have some form of homosexual desire that is not, was not, or will not be acted on because socialization represses homosexual behavior and encourages heterosexual behavior.†

Here’s a small point that I forgot to add:

If the majority of men have, have-had, or will have some homosexual (or heterosexual) thought or feeling of any magnitude, as I believe to be true, then the majority of men are more or less both heterosexually and homosexually oriented; that is, the majority of men are to some degree bisexually oriented. And whether the majority admit it (or act on it) is only relevant to the majority’s behavioral choices; it is not relevant to the majority’s true sexual thoughts or feelings, its “orientation,† as I am concerned.

As argued previously, one’s behavior (e.g., speaking of, or acting on one’s sexual orientation) is irrelevant to one’s actual orientation (e.g., one’s actual sexual thoughts and feelings).

This article is one of the best that I’ve found to make this way of thinking understandable:
http://www.answers.com/demographics%20of%20sexual%20orientation

Sexual behaviors are both influenced and instinctual but are always chosen by the individual. And one’s behavioral choices are influenced in this way or for this reason: cultural standards (i.e., the majority who need to feel accepted by their peers) or defiant instincts (i.e., the minority who behave regardless of cultural views).

On the other hand, sexual orientations (i.e. sexual thoughts and feelings) are not chosen, but they are able to be kept hidden AND actually are kept hidden for a variety of reasons, (i.e., societal standards or one’s personal beliefs). For that, the actual sexual thoughts and feelings of the population, without a doubt, can only be assumed.

The majority of the American population undeniably behaves heterosexually, there’s no argument there. But that is completely irrelevant to what should be of concern which is the actual homosexually-oriented thoughts and feelings of the population.

Luckily, the sexual arousal of a man is observable and damn near impossible for a man to hide (that is, men have an “erect penis† physiology, if you don’t know what I mean). And what sexually arouses a man would make the assumptions of his orientation, his sexual thoughts and feelings, more credible. It would do well if demographic studies on male sexual orientation were based accordingly (i.e. measure his reaction to variety of “stimuli†). Only in that case will demographic studies be able to assume (with reasonable integrity) the true population of “homosexually-oriented† men.

And because this forum has kept quiet for a while, I’ll probably back off after this post.

ya i think that having a gay in you team will cause others to feel uncomfortable to dress and shower with him. That is just the way we grow up.

uniwill Amilo A-1630 A1630 UN258 laptop battery

thank you very much for this article