Is watching football a homoerotic activity for men?

[Anonymous]

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....

[Anonymous]

You’re a moron.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

You sound homophobic, OP.

[Anonymous]

huh

[Anonymous]

Wow OP, you should have seen pre-90s basketball games when the uniforms involved short-shorts that showed off everrryyyttthhiiiiinggg. The good old days! *butt slap*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You sound homophobic, OP.

How is it homophobic?

[Anonymous]

Sports is one area where straight men can show physical affection or have physical contact without it being seen as homoerotic.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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....

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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 )

[Anonymous]

You done stepped off into the deep end, Op.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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.