Is watching football a homoerotic activity for men?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You done stepped off into the deep end, Op.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow, see? Straight men are pretty touchy about their feelings about other men.

You’re really just laying your gay hate out there for the world, aren’t you.

You’re a shitty person, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sound homophobic, OP.

How is it homophobic?

It embraces a specific (and problematic) view of masculinity and then assumes anything that doesn’t fit that view must be “gay.” Never mind that those uniforms might be better for performance, “real” men don’t wear skin tight clothes so it must be to appeal to gay men. And “real” men would be too uncomfortable to see other men in tight clothes, so “real” men would prefer lower-quality gameplay in order to not see men in tight pants. “Real” men avoid all physical contact, so a chest bump must mean they’re gay.

Huh? No. That's not what I meant at all. It has nothing to do with rejecting or assigning a certain type of masculinity to anyone. Where did that come from? I was talking about WATCHING football, not being a football player. And I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay either. (I guess I forgot to add "Not that there's anything wrong with it" to my post so of course you must assume I'm homophobic )

Oh, I think it’s exactly what you meant. You assumed that only gay men would be comfortable watching a sport where the male players wear skin tight clothes and come into physical contact with each other, presumably because watching the sport otherwise wouldn’t appeal to heterosexual men.

Well I'm enjoying it.

Men are in charge of football. Men are in charge of the uniforms. Men watch the football....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, see? Straight men are pretty touchy about their feelings about other men.

You’re really just laying your gay hate out there for the world, aren’t you.

You’re a shitty person, OP.

I have no gay hate. That you can read that sentence as "gay hate" is crazy.

[Anonymous]

Damn OP. Wait until you see what the guys who row wear. Don’t even get me started on the cyclists and swimmers. All of it is a conspiracy to be gay.

[Anonymous]

Literally NO activity is homoerotic to straight men.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sound homophobic, OP.

How is it homophobic?

It embraces a specific (and problematic) view of masculinity and then assumes anything that doesn’t fit that view must be “gay.” Never mind that those uniforms might be better for performance, “real” men don’t wear skin tight clothes so it must be to appeal to gay men. And “real” men would be too uncomfortable to see other men in tight clothes, so “real” men would prefer lower-quality gameplay in order to not see men in tight pants. “Real” men avoid all physical contact, so a chest bump must mean they’re gay.

Huh? No. That's not what I meant at all. It has nothing to do with rejecting or assigning a certain type of masculinity to anyone. Where did that come from? I was talking about WATCHING football, not being a football player. And I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay either. (I guess I forgot to add "Not that there's anything wrong with it" to my post so of course you must assume I'm homophobic )

Oh, I think it’s exactly what you meant. You assumed that only gay men would be comfortable watching a sport where the male players wear skin tight clothes and come into physical contact with each other, presumably because watching the sport otherwise wouldn’t appeal to heterosexual men.

Well I'm enjoying it.

Men are in charge of football. Men are in charge of the uniforms. Men watch the football....

You really can’t see any advantage to form-fitting rather than loose clothing? If not, you clearly don’t understand anything about the game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sound homophobic, OP.

How is it homophobic?

It embraces a specific (and problematic) view of masculinity and then assumes anything that doesn’t fit that view must be “gay.” Never mind that those uniforms might be better for performance, “real” men don’t wear skin tight clothes so it must be to appeal to gay men. And “real” men would be too uncomfortable to see other men in tight clothes, so “real” men would prefer lower-quality gameplay in order to not see men in tight pants. “Real” men avoid all physical contact, so a chest bump must mean they’re gay.

Huh? No. That's not what I meant at all. It has nothing to do with rejecting or assigning a certain type of masculinity to anyone. Where did that come from? I was talking about WATCHING football, not being a football player. And I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay either. (I guess I forgot to add "Not that there's anything wrong with it" to my post so of course you must assume I'm homophobic )

Oh, I think it’s exactly what you meant. You assumed that only gay men would be comfortable watching a sport where the male players wear skin tight clothes and come into physical contact with each other, presumably because watching the sport otherwise wouldn’t appeal to heterosexual men.

Well I'm enjoying it.

Men are in charge of football. Men are in charge of the uniforms. Men watch the football....

You really can’t see any advantage to form-fitting rather than loose clothing? If not, you clearly don’t understand anything about the game.

Pretending straight men are oblivious to skintight clothing and ass-patting is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sound homophobic, OP.

How is it homophobic?

It embraces a specific (and problematic) view of masculinity and then assumes anything that doesn’t fit that view must be “gay.” Never mind that those uniforms might be better for performance, “real” men don’t wear skin tight clothes so it must be to appeal to gay men. And “real” men would be too uncomfortable to see other men in tight clothes, so “real” men would prefer lower-quality gameplay in order to not see men in tight pants. “Real” men avoid all physical contact, so a chest bump must mean they’re gay.

Huh? No. That's not what I meant at all. It has nothing to do with rejecting or assigning a certain type of masculinity to anyone. Where did that come from? I was talking about WATCHING football, not being a football player. And I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay either. (I guess I forgot to add "Not that there's anything wrong with it" to my post so of course you must assume I'm homophobic )

Oh, I think it’s exactly what you meant. You assumed that only gay men would be comfortable watching a sport where the male players wear skin tight clothes and come into physical contact with each other, presumably because watching the sport otherwise wouldn’t appeal to heterosexual men.

Well I'm enjoying it.

Men are in charge of football. Men are in charge of the uniforms. Men watch the football....

You really can’t see any advantage to form-fitting rather than loose clothing? If not, you clearly don’t understand anything about the game.

Pretending straight men are oblivious to skintight clothing and ass-patting is absurd.

Because you can only see it through your own gay-hating lens. You’re a bigot, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Or what??? One of my kids is really into watching sports on tv so I've been watching a lot of football lately. Wow.... The football players are wearing those skin-tight tights that reveal their chiseled butts and thighs, their arms extending out of their jerseys are totally muscular and perfect. They're constantly giving each other congratulatory pats on each others' butts and doing chest-bumps, and leaning their helmets against each other -- they must be able to breathe each others' breath. And then of course they're falling all over each other on the field.

How can watching all this not be a homo-erotic event for men? Or is that a well-established fact that I've somehow missed? It seems like if it were for straight men, they would at least change the uniforms to be less sexy....

No.

Rugby, OTOH...

[Anonymous]

This is the definition of unconscious bias.


learned stereotypes that are automatic, unintentional, deeply ingrained, universal, and able to influence behavior

An implicit bias, or implicit stereotype, is the unconscious attribution of particular qualities to a member of a certain social group

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sound homophobic, OP.

How is it homophobic?

It embraces a specific (and problematic) view of masculinity and then assumes anything that doesn’t fit that view must be “gay.” Never mind that those uniforms might be better for performance, “real” men don’t wear skin tight clothes so it must be to appeal to gay men. And “real” men would be too uncomfortable to see other men in tight clothes, so “real” men would prefer lower-quality gameplay in order to not see men in tight pants. “Real” men avoid all physical contact, so a chest bump must mean they’re gay.

Huh? No. That's not what I meant at all. It has nothing to do with rejecting or assigning a certain type of masculinity to anyone. Where did that come from? I was talking about WATCHING football, not being a football player. And I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay either. (I guess I forgot to add "Not that there's anything wrong with it" to my post so of course you must assume I'm homophobic )

Oh, I think it’s exactly what you meant. You assumed that only gay men would be comfortable watching a sport where the male players wear skin tight clothes and come into physical contact with each other, presumably because watching the sport otherwise wouldn’t appeal to heterosexual men.

Well I'm enjoying it.

Men are in charge of football. Men are in charge of the uniforms. Men watch the football....

You really can’t see any advantage to form-fitting rather than loose clothing? If not, you clearly don’t understand anything about the game.

Pretending straight men are oblivious to skintight clothing and ass-patting is absurd.

Because you can only see it through your own gay-hating lens. You’re a bigot, OP.

How is it gay-hating to think so-called straight men are having gay feelings? Where is the gay-hating in that? I see the 'gay' but not the 'hating.' Seems way more 'gay-hating' to assume it's BAD for straight men see football as homoerotic, which is how you are reacting. "How DARE you suspect that of straight men? How dare you suggest such a thing???" seems to make being gay implicitly bad, which is your reaction, not mine. So I put those gay-hating lenses right back on you, PP.

[Anonymous]

If football were that erotic, women would watch it as much as men. We don’t, so no, not erotic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not to mention “deep penetration” “pistol formations” and those sexy tight ends.

I love you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You sound homophobic, OP.

How is it homophobic?

It embraces a specific (and problematic) view of masculinity and then assumes anything that doesn’t fit that view must be “gay.” Never mind that those uniforms might be better for performance, “real” men don’t wear skin tight clothes so it must be to appeal to gay men. And “real” men would be too uncomfortable to see other men in tight clothes, so “real” men would prefer lower-quality gameplay in order to not see men in tight pants. “Real” men avoid all physical contact, so a chest bump must mean they’re gay.

Huh? No. That's not what I meant at all. It has nothing to do with rejecting or assigning a certain type of masculinity to anyone. Where did that come from? I was talking about WATCHING football, not being a football player. And I don't think there's anything wrong with being gay either. (I guess I forgot to add "Not that there's anything wrong with it" to my post so of course you must assume I'm homophobic )

Oh, I think it’s exactly what you meant. You assumed that only gay men would be comfortable watching a sport where the male players wear skin tight clothes and come into physical contact with each other, presumably because watching the sport otherwise wouldn’t appeal to heterosexual men.

Well I'm enjoying it.

Men are in charge of football. Men are in charge of the uniforms. Men watch the football....

You really can’t see any advantage to form-fitting rather than loose clothing? If not, you clearly don’t understand anything about the game.

Pretending straight men are oblivious to skintight clothing and ass-patting is absurd.

Assuming every ass pat is sexual is absurd.