Is watching football a homoerotic activity for 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 )

I played football in high school, and did wrestling, boxing, and karate in high school and college. I'll let you in on a little secret. You know who gets a sexual thrill from watching men come in contact with other men? It's not the male spectators - it is the female spectators. When our team won, or when I personally hit some guy so hard he didn't get up again, this caused a lot of panties in the audience to get sopping wet. Perhaps this does not apply to the gentle, refined readers of DCUM, but I assure you that all those sports (and many others besides) have groupies who will eagerly throw themselves at the feet of a strong, victorious man.*

* Tell your sons this!

What gentle, refined readers?

Big and stupid are fun for a night if they don’t talk.

[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 )

I played football in high school, and did wrestling, boxing, and karate in high school and college. I'll let you in on a little secret. You know who gets a sexual thrill from watching men come in contact with other men? It's not the male spectators - it is the female spectators. When our team won, or when I personally hit some guy so hard he didn't get up again, this caused a lot of panties in the audience to get sopping wet. Perhaps this does not apply to the gentle, refined readers of DCUM, but I assure you that all those sports (and many others besides) have groupies who will eagerly throw themselves at the feet of a strong, victorious man.*

* Tell your sons this!

What gentle, refined readers?

Snort! WRESTLING turns straight WOMEN on? Hehehehehe

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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....

You’ve caught us, OP. Tens of millions of men, pining for the love that dare not speak its name, week after week after week. The erotic thrill associated with watching a sweaty, 330 pound defensive tackle tackle a slender, dare I say twink-like quarterback. Oh, golly. Don’t believe the haters or those in denial here. And don’t get me started on the “tight ends” or “wide receivers.” Could you be any more obvious? The man-on-man action in the restrooms at “Hooters”—a national chain that makes its money as a beard—any given Sunday has to be seen to be believed. I’m surprised it took you so long to notice.

I am dying

[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 )

I played football in high school, and did wrestling, boxing, and karate in high school and college. I'll let you in on a little secret. You know who gets a sexual thrill from watching men come in contact with other men? It's not the male spectators - it is the female spectators. When our team won, or when I personally hit some guy so hard he didn't get up again, this caused a lot of panties in the audience to get sopping wet. Perhaps this does not apply to the gentle, refined readers of DCUM, but I assure you that all those sports (and many others besides) have groupies who will eagerly throw themselves at the feet of a strong, victorious man.*

* Tell your sons this!

What gentle, refined readers?

Snort! WRESTLING turns straight WOMEN on? Hehehehehe

Yes. And I'll tell you what, my DS who is a college wrestler has a smoking hot girlfriend, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1. The denial is strong with this one.

[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 )

I played football in high school, and did wrestling, boxing, and karate in high school and college. I'll let you in on a little secret. You know who gets a sexual thrill from watching men come in contact with other men? It's not the male spectators - it is the female spectators. When our team won, or when I personally hit some guy so hard he didn't get up again, this caused a lot of panties in the audience to get sopping wet. Perhaps this does not apply to the gentle, refined readers of DCUM, but I assure you that all those sports (and many others besides) have groupies who will eagerly throw themselves at the feet of a strong, victorious man.*

* Tell your sons this!

What gentle, refined readers?

Snort! WRESTLING turns straight WOMEN on? Hehehehehe

Yes. And I'll tell you what, my DS who is a college wrestler has a smoking hot girlfriend, too.

This is disturbing. You shouldn’t be trying to sleep with your son’s girlfriend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What about guys who are dressed skimpily at the gym?

Yeah I don’t get that either. They are half naked and comparing their muscularity

[Anonymous]

Never thought about it that way, but OP you could be on to something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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....

You’ve caught us, OP. Tens of millions of men, pining for the love that dare not speak its name, week after week after week. The erotic thrill associated with watching a sweaty, 330 pound defensive tackle tackle a slender, dare I say twink-like quarterback. Oh, golly. Don’t believe the haters or those in denial here. And don’t get me started on the “tight ends” or “wide receivers.” Could you be any more obvious? The man-on-man action in the restrooms at “Hooters”—a national chain that makes its money as a beard—any given Sunday has to be seen to be believed. I’m surprised it took you so long to notice.

You wouldn’t have put so much effort into this post if OP hadn’t touched a nerve.

There’s homoeroticism and also sanctioned violence. But there’s also just the expression of emotion, both between the players and in the viewers. Men don’t have a lot of ways to express those feelings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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....

You’ve caught us, OP. Tens of millions of men, pining for the love that dare not speak its name, week after week after week. The erotic thrill associated with watching a sweaty, 330 pound defensive tackle tackle a slender, dare I say twink-like quarterback. Oh, golly. Don’t believe the haters or those in denial here. And don’t get me started on the “tight ends” or “wide receivers.” Could you be any more obvious? The man-on-man action in the restrooms at “Hooters”—a national chain that makes its money as a beard—any given Sunday has to be seen to be believed. I’m surprised it took you so long to notice.

You wouldn’t have put so much effort into this post if OP hadn’t touched a nerve.

There’s homoeroticism and also sanctioned violence. But there’s also just the expression of emotion, both between the players and in the viewers. Men don’t have a lot of ways to express those feelings.

Omg! OP is a mess!

[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 )

I played football in high school, and did wrestling, boxing, and karate in high school and college. I'll let you in on a little secret. You know who gets a sexual thrill from watching men come in contact with other men? It's not the male spectators - it is the female spectators. When our team won, or when I personally hit some guy so hard he didn't get up again, this caused a lot of panties in the audience to get sopping wet. Perhaps this does not apply to the gentle, refined readers of DCUM, but I assure you that all those sports (and many others besides) have groupies who will eagerly throw themselves at the feet of a strong, victorious man.*

* Tell your sons this!

What gentle, refined readers?

Snort! WRESTLING turns straight WOMEN on? Hehehehehe

Yes. And I'll tell you what, my DS who is a college wrestler has a smoking hot girlfriend, too.

This is disturbing. You shouldn’t be trying to sleep with your son’s girlfriend

Did I say I was doing that? I'm not, so settle down, idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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....

You’ve caught us, OP. Tens of millions of men, pining for the love that dare not speak its name, week after week after week. The erotic thrill associated with watching a sweaty, 330 pound defensive tackle tackle a slender, dare I say twink-like quarterback. Oh, golly. Don’t believe the haters or those in denial here. And don’t get me started on the “tight ends” or “wide receivers.” Could you be any more obvious? The man-on-man action in the restrooms at “Hooters”—a national chain that makes its money as a beard—any given Sunday has to be seen to be believed. I’m surprised it took you so long to notice.

You wouldn’t have put so much effort into this post if OP hadn’t touched a nerve.

There’s homoeroticism and also sanctioned violence. But there’s also just the expression of emotion, both between the players and in the viewers. Men don’t have a lot of ways to express those feelings.

It wasn’t much effort; truthfully kind of amusing to write. To be more serious, none of the things OP references scan as sexual to straight guys. But then I would say that, wouldn’t I?

The violence is, of course, part of the appeal. The fact that there is real risk ups the stakes in ways that make the games very intense. It’s the difference between playing poker for the rent money vs. playing for pennies with the kids. And it does tap into a tribalism for which there are few other outlets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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....

You’ve caught us, OP. Tens of millions of men, pining for the love that dare not speak its name, week after week after week. The erotic thrill associated with watching a sweaty, 330 pound defensive tackle tackle a slender, dare I say twink-like quarterback. Oh, golly. Don’t believe the haters or those in denial here. And don’t get me started on the “tight ends” or “wide receivers.” Could you be any more obvious? The man-on-man action in the restrooms at “Hooters”—a national chain that makes its money as a beard—any given Sunday has to be seen to be believed. I’m surprised it took you so long to notice.

You wouldn’t have put so much effort into this post if OP hadn’t touched a nerve.

There’s homoeroticism and also sanctioned violence. But there’s also just the expression of emotion, both between the players and in the viewers. Men don’t have a lot of ways to express those feelings.

It wasn’t much effort; truthfully kind of amusing to write. To be more serious, none of the things OP references scan as sexual to straight guys. But then I would say that, wouldn’t I?

The violence is, of course, part of the appeal. The fact that there is real risk ups the stakes in ways that make the games very intense. It’s the difference between playing poker for the rent money vs. playing for pennies with the kids. And it does tap into a tribalism for which there are few other outlets.

Homoeroticism also appeals to many straight guys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Wrestlers singlets.

[Anonymous]

Have ever watched rugby, wrestling, or two man skeleton?