SEC Sack Leader Michael Sam Could Be NFL's First Openly Gay Player

[BwareDWare94 723]

Well, his dad's an asshole. "I don't want my grandkids raised in that environment?"

What environment? A potential environment that involves two loving parents?

[RazorStar 4,025]

What Grandkids? Gay people can't procreate. *laugh track*

[ATL_Predator+ 1,196]

New York Jets defensive lineman Sheldon Richardson knew of Michael Sam’s sexual orientation long before he announced publicly Sunday night that he was gay.

Richardson was roommates with Sam at the University of Missouri. Even before the rest of their Missouri teammates knew of Sam’s sexual preference, Richardson knew.

Richardson spoke about Sam’s public announcement Tuesday night with Jeane Coakley of SNY.

“I lived with Michael Sam, regular guy, has his own sexuality. With me living with him, it was a little unusual at first, but it’s stuff you look past,” Richardson said, via Bob Glauber of Newsday. “It wasn’t anything unusual. He was my guy, my home boy.”

While Richardson moved on to the NFL and earned Defensive Rookie of the Year honors with the Jets, Sam remained at Missouri and came out to his teammates before embarking on a stellar season of his own. Sam recorded 11.5 sacks and 19 tackles for loss on his way to co-Defensive Player of the Year honors in the Southeastern Conference.

Richardson said he was happy that Sam came out to his teammates and that he was able to have his best season after making that decision. He added that Sam is a terrific teammate and everything you could want in a football player.

“He was a great teammate, a great person,” Richardson said. “If guys [in the NFL] can’t get past that, then, I mean, it’s just crazy. You wanted a football player, you got the football player. I promise you his sexuality has nothing to do with him playing on the football field. He is a completely different person [on the field]. He puts this face on, no smiles, serious business. He’s a killer.”

 

 

~PFT.com

 

Sheldon Richardson is good peoples'

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Since Missouri defensive end Michael Sam announced on Sunday that he is gay, his agent Joe Barkett has been inundated with calls, including those from Fortune 500 companies.

"Every time I'm on the phone, I'm getting phone calls," Barkett told ESPN.com. "There's always one from a company expressing their interest in Michael. Name any type of industry, we've probably heard from a company in their sector in the last 48 hours."

Barkett said all the interest is coming from mainstream companies, not gay brands that have a product or service to sell specifically to the gay population.

"We haven't really heard from companies that market specifically to the LGBT community," Barkett said. "It has been large companies who obviously support LGBT initiatives."

That doesn't surprise gay marketing strategist Bob Witeck, whose firm in Washington, D.C., has focused on marketing to the gay population over the past two decades.

"His true marketing potential isn't to gay people," Witeck said. "His true marketing potential will be reached by selling to consumers who appreciate him because of his individuality. These companies are looking to build new stories and Michael stands out."

Sam sent his first tweet at 8:02 p.m. ET on Sunday. He now has nearly 80,000 followers, more than any other potential 2014 NFL draftee except for quarterbacks Johnny Manziel, AJ McCarron and Aaron Murray.

 

Edited February 13, 2014 by Favre4Ever

[oochymp 2,393]

"Every time I'm on the phone, I'm getting phone calls," Barkett told ESPN.com.

 

I had to laugh at that

[FartWaffles 1,857]

It would probably be best if he is drafted by a team in a small market. Take Manti Te'o for example. Lots of media attention pre-draft, but once he was drafted by the Chargers did you really hear much about him? I didn't.

 

I can't imagine what it would be like if he ends up on the Jets or Giants. If you thought TebowMania was bad...

 

All in all good for him. He shouldn't be ashamed of his sexual orientation. Just be a good football player/teammate and this will quickly become a non-story for future gay athletes.

[Mathias 394]

 

Must Watch

Edited February 13, 2014 by Favre4Ever

[AL_Royalty 489]

 

 

He's worried a man who likes other men will look at him naked like that. Obvious homophobe.

I'm not allowed to shower in a women's locker room. Guess why. That doesn't mean that these women are man haters or manophobes, does it? To assume that a dude wants to jump your bones or finds every man attractive just because he's gay is an obviously ridiculous notion. Still, it's not like we're talking about separate drinking fountains here. It's a man who finds men attractive. Just because Vilma voices a concern - whether it be hypothetical or real - doesn't make him some gay bashing Neanderthal.

 

 

Let's get real.. Is Vilma gonna sit there and HONESTLY say that he's never seen anyone's junk before... or that none of his teammates have seen his? But it's totally cool if straight guys look at each other, but watch out! Having a gay teammate is obviously bad because they would immediately want to rape Mr. Vilma. So, very attractive. Irresistible.

 

Lol. That's how being gay, works right? You want to suck the dick and penetrate every asshole of every straight man ont he planet... Right?

 

 

I've come to expect this sort of blatant sensationalism from your posts these days. Did you even read my post, or did you just cherry pick things that you could try to jump all over? It seems like the latter.

 

As far as straight dudes seeing each other naked, it's quite a bit different than someone who is attracted to men showering with a large group of other men. I don't care either way. I'm hopefully not going to be showering with any men any time soon. Just doesn't appeal to me.

 

If I worked in all male workplace where the men did shower together or took showers at an all male gym or something like that and they decided to let a lady into the fold—and no, before you decide to jump all over this like I'm calling gay men girls or something, I am not. They are both attracted to men, so it's a logical example—if they told her that it was a unisex shower policy, you don't think that would raise some eyebrows or garner some outrage or lead to probable lawsuits?

 

That would be viewed as a ridiculous notion, and it would be for obvious reason. Vilifying Vilma for posing that argument to encompass reaction toward a homosexual entering the exact same scenario is just as ridiculous. Most people might not mind, and that's fine. It's their prerogative, and it's their right. It's just as ok for that to bother some people. That's THEIR prerogative. It's their right, and it's not so outlandish of a concern.

[AL_Royalty 489]

 

 

He's worried a man who likes other men will look at him naked like that. Obvious homophobe.

I'm not allowed to shower in a women's locker room. Guess why. That doesn't mean that these women are man haters or manophobes, does it? To assume that a dude wants to jump your bones or finds every man attractive just because he's gay is an obviously ridiculous notion. Still, it's not like we're talking about separate drinking fountains here. It's a man who finds men attractive. Just because Vilma voices a concern - whether it be hypothetical or real - doesn't make him some gay bashing Neanderthal.

52 other dudes in a locker room. Odds are he'll find one attractive. If you had a group of 52 women, you'd probably like at least one.

 

I couldn't tell if you were using heavy sarcasm in your original post or not, and I actually had typed then removed something to that end before posting my response. For the record, it sounds like we're in complete agreement on this issue. Read my whole post.

[BucD+ 648]

 

Must Watch

 

 

Just found this video today and was coming here to post it.

 

GREAT video and extremely well said...especially in what...three minutes...

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

 

 

He's worried a man who likes other men will look at him naked like that. Obvious homophobe.

I'm not allowed to shower in a women's locker room. Guess why. That doesn't mean that these women are man haters or manophobes, does it? To assume that a dude wants to jump your bones or finds every man attractive just because he's gay is an obviously ridiculous notion. Still, it's not like we're talking about separate drinking fountains here. It's a man who finds men attractive. Just because Vilma voices a concern - whether it be hypothetical or real - doesn't make him some gay bashing Neanderthal.

 

 

Let's get real.. Is Vilma gonna sit there and HONESTLY say that he's never seen anyone's junk before... or that none of his teammates have seen his? But it's totally cool if straight guys look at each other, but watch out! Having a gay teammate is obviously bad because they would immediately want to rape Mr. Vilma. So, very attractive. Irresistible.

 

Lol. That's how being gay, works right? You want to suck the dick and penetrate every asshole of every straight man ont he planet... Right?

 

 

I've come to expect this sort of blatant sensationalism from your posts these days. Did you even read my post, or did you just cherry pick things that you could try to jump all over? It seems like the latter.

 

As far as straight dudes seeing each other naked, it's quite a bit different than someone who is attracted to men showering with a large group of other men. I don't care either way. I'm hopefully not going to be showering with any men any time soon. Just doesn't appeal to me.

 

If I worked in all male workplace where the men did shower together or took showers at an all male gym or something like that and they decided to let a lady into the fold—and no, before you decide to jump all over this like I'm calling gay men girls or something, I am not. They are both attracted to men, so it's a logical example—if they told her that it was a unisex shower policy, you don't think that would raise some eyebrows or garner some outrage or lead to probable lawsuits?

 

That would be viewed as a ridiculous notion, and it would be for obvious reason. Vilifying Vilma for posing that argument to encompass reaction toward a homosexual entering the exact same scenario is just as ridiculous. Most people might not mind, and that's fine. It's their prerogative, and it's their right. It's just as ok for that to bother some people. That's THEIR prerogative. It's their right, and it's not so outlandish of a concern.

 

 

No, it's really NOT that different. Just because you have a gay man in the shower or wherever doesn't mean he's going to find you attractive. It doesn't mean if the guy DOES see your junk, he's going to jump all over you. No. JUST NO. lmao.. It doesn't mean he's going to want to look at your junk at all. Y

 

ou wanted to point out my "sensationalism" and "cherry picking" (even though your original post lacked both quality and substance) but you keep bringing up exactly the point I was directly countering. You can call the notion "obviously ridiculous" but when you keep giving examples of such with real life applications, I am going to respond to it.

 

AGAIN.. You are going get offended at my response because of your really moronic real world application. Unisex showers and same sex showers are VERY DIFFERENT. Even bringing it up is really rather shallow and offer no insight whatsoever. But, theoretically (here comes more sensationalism based on your really bad real world application) if unisex showers were more prevalent... I wouldn't want to go around fucking every vagina in the same shower as me. If you are some kind of sick sexual deviant who is addicted to that kind of thing and are ready to rape and pilfer every female that enters your unisex shower its YOU that has a problem, not society and not the idea of a unisex shower.

 

There's a life lesson here, somewhere. You can't make everyone happy, and it will be a frozen day in hell before we start turning the cogs back on he advancements we have made in discrimination and the like to cater to the assholes (like Vilma) in the world.

[oochymp 2,393]

 

 

Just found this video today and was coming here to post it.

 

GREAT video and extremely well said...especially in what...three minutes...

 

I actually largely disagree with the premise of that video. I think it's on point in discussing the hypocrisy of blasting for his sexuality given the ridiculous illegal or unquestionably immoral acts we put up with from athletes. That said, I don't think recognizing and celebrating our differences should be the goal, I think the goal should be recognizing that in spite of our differences, whatever they may be, as people we have a lot more in common. Once we recognize that, we begin to see just how small the differences are and they just start to fade away.

Edited February 13, 2014 by oochymp

[Cherry 1,302]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's worried a man who likes other men will look at him naked like that. Obvious homophobe.

I'm not allowed to shower in a women's locker room. Guess why. That doesn't mean that these women are man haters or manophobes, does it? To assume that a dude wants to jump your bones or finds every man attractive just because he's gay is an obviously ridiculous notion. Still, it's not like we're talking about separate drinking fountains here. It's a man who finds men attractive. Just because Vilma voices a concern - whether it be hypothetical or real - doesn't make him some gay bashing Neanderthal.

Let's get real.. Is Vilma gonna sit there and HONESTLY say that he's never seen anyone's junk before... or that none of his teammates have seen his? But it's totally cool if straight guys look at each other, but watch out! Having a gay teammate is obviously bad because they would immediately want to rape Mr. Vilma. So, very attractive. Irresistible.

 

Lol. That's how being gay, works right? You want to suck the dick and penetrate every asshole of every straight man ont he planet... Right?

 

I've come to expect this sort of blatant sensationalism from your posts these days. Did you even read my post, or did you just cherry pick things that you could try to jump all over? It seems like the latter.

 

As far as straight dudes seeing each other naked, it's quite a bit different than someone who is attracted to men showering with a large group of other men. I don't care either way. I'm hopefully not going to be showering with any men any time soon. Just doesn't appeal to me.

 

If I worked in all male workplace where the men did shower together or took showers at an all male gym or something like that and they decided to let a lady into the foldand no, before you decide to jump all over this like I'm calling gay men girls or something, I am not. They are both attracted to men, so it's a logical exampleif they told her that it was a unisex shower policy, you don't think that would raise some eyebrows or garner some outrage or lead to probable lawsuits?

 

That would be viewed as a ridiculous notion, and it would be for obvious reason. Vilifying Vilma for posing that argument to encompass reaction toward a homosexual entering the exact same scenario is just as ridiculous. Most people might not mind, and that's fine. It's their prerogative, and it's their right. It's just as ok for that to bother some people. That's THEIR prerogative. It's their right, and it's not so outlandish of a concern.

No, it's really NOT that different. Just because you have a gay man in the shower or wherever doesn't mean he's going to find you attractive. It doesn't mean if the guy DOES see your junk, he's going to jump all over you. No. JUST NO. lmao.. It doesn't mean he's going to want to look at your junk at all. Y

 

ou wanted to point out my "sensationalism" and "cherry picking" (even though your original post lacked both quality and substance) but you keep bringing up exactly the point I was directly countering. You can call the notion "obviously ridiculous" but when you keep giving examples of such with real life applications, I am going to respond to it.

 

AGAIN.. You are going get offended at my response because of your really moronic real world application. Unisex showers and same sex showers are VERY DIFFERENT. Even bringing it up is really rather shallow and offer no insight whatsoever. But, theoretically (here comes more sensationalism based on your really bad real world application) if unisex showers were more prevalent... I wouldn't want to go around fucking every vagina in the same shower as me. If you are some kind of sick sexual deviant who is addicted to that kind of thing and are ready to rape and pilfer every female that enters your unisex shower its YOU that has a problem, not society and not the idea of a unisex shower.

 

There's a life lesson here, somewhere. You can't make everyone happy, and it will be a frozen day in hell before we start turning the cogs back on he advancements we have made in discrimination and the like to cater to the assholes (like Vilma) in the world.

52 other men in the shower. Odds are Sam will look at one of them like that. Vilma's concern is of how to respond to that sort of thing if Sam does look at a teammate like that.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

 

 

 

 

He's worried a man who likes other men will look at him naked like that. Obvious homophobe.

I'm not allowed to shower in a women's locker room. Guess why. That doesn't mean that these women are man haters or manophobes, does it? To assume that a dude wants to jump your bones or finds every man attractive just because he's gay is an obviously ridiculous notion. Still, it's not like we're talking about separate drinking fountains here. It's a man who finds men attractive. Just because Vilma voices a concern - whether it be hypothetical or real - doesn't make him some gay bashing Neanderthal.

Let's get real.. Is Vilma gonna sit there and HONESTLY say that he's never seen anyone's junk before... or that none of his teammates have seen his? But it's totally cool if straight guys look at each other, but watch out! Having a gay teammate is obviously bad because they would immediately want to rape Mr. Vilma. So, very attractive. Irresistible.

 

Lol. That's how being gay, works right? You want to suck the dick and penetrate every asshole of every straight man ont he planet... Right?

 

I've come to expect this sort of blatant sensationalism from your posts these days. Did you even read my post, or did you just cherry pick things that you could try to jump all over? It seems like the latter.

 

As far as straight dudes seeing each other naked, it's quite a bit different than someone who is attracted to men showering with a large group of other men. I don't care either way. I'm hopefully not going to be showering with any men any time soon. Just doesn't appeal to me.

 

If I worked in all male workplace where the men did shower together or took showers at an all male gym or something like that and they decided to let a lady into the foldand no, before you decide to jump all over this like I'm calling gay men girls or something, I am not. They are both attracted to men, so it's a logical exampleif they told her that it was a unisex shower policy, you don't think that would raise some eyebrows or garner some outrage or lead to probable lawsuits?

 

That would be viewed as a ridiculous notion, and it would be for obvious reason. Vilifying Vilma for posing that argument to encompass reaction toward a homosexual entering the exact same scenario is just as ridiculous. Most people might not mind, and that's fine. It's their prerogative, and it's their right. It's just as ok for that to bother some people. That's THEIR prerogative. It's their right, and it's not so outlandish of a concern.

No, it's really NOT that different. Just because you have a gay man in the shower or wherever doesn't mean he's going to find you attractive. It doesn't mean if the guy DOES see your junk, he's going to jump all over you. No. JUST NO. lmao.. It doesn't mean he's going to want to look at your junk at all. Y

 

ou wanted to point out my "sensationalism" and "cherry picking" (even though your original post lacked both quality and substance) but you keep bringing up exactly the point I was directly countering. You can call the notion "obviously ridiculous" but when you keep giving examples of such with real life applications, I am going to respond to it.

 

AGAIN.. You are going get offended at my response because of your really moronic real world application. Unisex showers and same sex showers are VERY DIFFERENT. Even bringing it up is really rather shallow and offer no insight whatsoever. But, theoretically (here comes more sensationalism based on your really bad real world application) if unisex showers were more prevalent... I wouldn't want to go around fucking every vagina in the same shower as me. If you are some kind of sick sexual deviant who is addicted to that kind of thing and are ready to rape and pilfer every female that enters your unisex shower its YOU that has a problem, not society and not the idea of a unisex shower.

 

There's a life lesson here, somewhere. You can't make everyone happy, and it will be a frozen day in hell before we start turning the cogs back on he advancements we have made in discrimination and the like to cater to the assholes (like Vilma) in the world.

52 other men in the shower. Odds are Sam will look at one of them like that. Vilma's concern is of how to respond to that sort of thing if Sam does look at a teammate like that.

 

 

How many gay men do you think he's showered with in his almost decade in the league already? Give me a break. Now you are skating on a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" type of policy, which would be devastating.

[Thanatos 2,847]

 

 

 

 

He's worried a man who likes other men will look at him naked like that. Obvious homophobe.

I'm not allowed to shower in a women's locker room. Guess why. That doesn't mean that these women are man haters or manophobes, does it? To assume that a dude wants to jump your bones or finds every man attractive just because he's gay is an obviously ridiculous notion. Still, it's not like we're talking about separate drinking fountains here. It's a man who finds men attractive. Just because Vilma voices a concern - whether it be hypothetical or real - doesn't make him some gay bashing Neanderthal.

 

 

Let's get real.. Is Vilma gonna sit there and HONESTLY say that he's never seen anyone's junk before... or that none of his teammates have seen his? But it's totally cool if straight guys look at each other, but watch out! Having a gay teammate is obviously bad because they would immediately want to rape Mr. Vilma. So, very attractive. Irresistible.

 

Lol. That's how being gay, works right? You want to suck the dick and penetrate every asshole of every straight man ont he planet... Right?

 

 

I've come to expect this sort of blatant sensationalism from your posts these days. Did you even read my post, or did you just cherry pick things that you could try to jump all over? It seems like the latter.

 

As far as straight dudes seeing each other naked, it's quite a bit different than someone who is attracted to men showering with a large group of other men. I don't care either way. I'm hopefully not going to be showering with any men any time soon. Just doesn't appeal to me.

 

If I worked in all male workplace where the men did shower together or took showers at an all male gym or something like that and they decided to let a lady into the fold—and no, before you decide to jump all over this like I'm calling gay men girls or something, I am not. They are both attracted to men, so it's a logical example—if they told her that it was a unisex shower policy, you don't think that would raise some eyebrows or garner some outrage or lead to probable lawsuits?

 

That would be viewed as a ridiculous notion, and it would be for obvious reason. Vilifying Vilma for posing that argument to encompass reaction toward a homosexual entering the exact same scenario is just as ridiculous. Most people might not mind, and that's fine. It's their prerogative, and it's their right. It's just as ok for that to bother some people. That's THEIR prerogative. It's their right, and it's not so outlandish of a concern.

 

 

No, it's really NOT that different. Just because you have a gay man in the shower or wherever doesn't mean he's going to find you attractive. It doesn't mean if the guy DOES see your junk, he's going to jump all over you. No. JUST NO. lmao.. It doesn't mean he's going to want to look at your junk at all. Y

 

ou wanted to point out my "sensationalism" and "cherry picking" (even though your original post lacked both quality and substance) but you keep bringing up exactly the point I was directly countering. You can call the notion "obviously ridiculous" but when you keep giving examples of such with real life applications, I am going to respond to it.

 

AGAIN.. You are going get offended at my response because of your really moronic real world application. Unisex showers and same sex showers are VERY DIFFERENT. Even bringing it up is really rather shallow and offer no insight whatsoever. But, theoretically (here comes more sensationalism based on your really bad real world application) if unisex showers were more prevalent... I wouldn't want to go around fucking every vagina in the same shower as me. If you are some kind of sick sexual deviant who is addicted to that kind of thing and are ready to rape and pilfer every female that enters your unisex shower its YOU that has a problem, not society and not the idea of a unisex shower.

 

There's a life lesson here, somewhere. You can't make everyone happy, and it will be a frozen day in hell before we start turning the cogs back on he advancements we have made in discrimination and the like to cater to the assholes (like Vilma) in the world.

 

 

Let's turn the analogy on its head, then.

 

If a group of females were forced to shower with a male, regardless of whether he is a sexual deviant, would you call them "man-hating" for being concerned that the male might be looking at them?

 

It's not even an issue of whether the guy in question does get "excited" from any of the females, its simply the perception here from the other side of things. I dare say we wouldn't blast the females in this particular equation for being a tad bit concerned over the issue.

 

I'm not even saying I see a solution, simply that your instant labeling of everyone who has this particular concern as an "asshole" is rather over the top.

[blotsfan 2,112]

What will be most interesting is when we get to the point that there are NFL players dating each other or even married.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

 

 

 

 

He's worried a man who likes other men will look at him naked like that. Obvious homophobe.

I'm not allowed to shower in a women's locker room. Guess why. That doesn't mean that these women are man haters or manophobes, does it? To assume that a dude wants to jump your bones or finds every man attractive just because he's gay is an obviously ridiculous notion. Still, it's not like we're talking about separate drinking fountains here. It's a man who finds men attractive. Just because Vilma voices a concern - whether it be hypothetical or real - doesn't make him some gay bashing Neanderthal.

 

 

Let's get real.. Is Vilma gonna sit there and HONESTLY say that he's never seen anyone's junk before... or that none of his teammates have seen his? But it's totally cool if straight guys look at each other, but watch out! Having a gay teammate is obviously bad because they would immediately want to rape Mr. Vilma. So, very attractive. Irresistible.

 

Lol. That's how being gay, works right? You want to suck the dick and penetrate every asshole of every straight man ont he planet... Right?

 

 

I've come to expect this sort of blatant sensationalism from your posts these days. Did you even read my post, or did you just cherry pick things that you could try to jump all over? It seems like the latter.

 

As far as straight dudes seeing each other naked, it's quite a bit different than someone who is attracted to men showering with a large group of other men. I don't care either way. I'm hopefully not going to be showering with any men any time soon. Just doesn't appeal to me.

 

If I worked in all male workplace where the men did shower together or took showers at an all male gym or something like that and they decided to let a lady into the fold—and no, before you decide to jump all over this like I'm calling gay men girls or something, I am not. They are both attracted to men, so it's a logical example—if they told her that it was a unisex shower policy, you don't think that would raise some eyebrows or garner some outrage or lead to probable lawsuits?

 

That would be viewed as a ridiculous notion, and it would be for obvious reason. Vilifying Vilma for posing that argument to encompass reaction toward a homosexual entering the exact same scenario is just as ridiculous. Most people might not mind, and that's fine. It's their prerogative, and it's their right. It's just as ok for that to bother some people. That's THEIR prerogative. It's their right, and it's not so outlandish of a concern.

 

 

No, it's really NOT that different. Just because you have a gay man in the shower or wherever doesn't mean he's going to find you attractive. It doesn't mean if the guy DOES see your junk, he's going to jump all over you. No. JUST NO. lmao.. It doesn't mean he's going to want to look at your junk at all. Y

 

ou wanted to point out my "sensationalism" and "cherry picking" (even though your original post lacked both quality and substance) but you keep bringing up exactly the point I was directly countering. You can call the notion "obviously ridiculous" but when you keep giving examples of such with real life applications, I am going to respond to it.

 

AGAIN.. You are going get offended at my response because of your really moronic real world application. Unisex showers and same sex showers are VERY DIFFERENT. Even bringing it up is really rather shallow and offer no insight whatsoever. But, theoretically (here comes more sensationalism based on your really bad real world application) if unisex showers were more prevalent... I wouldn't want to go around fucking every vagina in the same shower as me. If you are some kind of sick sexual deviant who is addicted to that kind of thing and are ready to rape and pilfer every female that enters your unisex shower its YOU that has a problem, not society and not the idea of a unisex shower.

 

There's a life lesson here, somewhere. You can't make everyone happy, and it will be a frozen day in hell before we start turning the cogs back on he advancements we have made in discrimination and the like to cater to the assholes (like Vilma) in the world.

 

 

Let's turn the analogy on its head, then.

 

If a group of females were forced to shower with a male, regardless of whether he is a sexual deviant, would you call them "man-hating" for being concerned that the male might be looking at them?

 

It's not even an issue of whether the guy in question does get "excited" from any of the females, its simply the perception here from the other side of things. I dare say we wouldn't blast the females in this particular equation for being a tad bit concerned over the issue.

 

I'm not even saying I see a solution, simply that your instant labeling of everyone who has this particular concern as an "asshole" is rather over the top.

 

The stupid analogy of putting different genders together by you and Durst is just ridiculous...I think a better analogy would be a lesbian in a female shower. Or when we finally broke racial barriers in this country. There was a point in history where it made people uncomfortable to even be in the same diner as a black man or family... Did we get over that hump by continuing on with our disgruntled and archaic ideals ? Nope. Vilma and people like him are the ones who have to change, not the other way around. That's how you progress as a society.

 

And the bolded is completely and outrageously incorrect. I don't like Vilma as a player or person, that's why he is an asshole. Not because of his fear that Michael Sam will rape him.

[oochymp 2,393]

 

How many gay men do you think he's showered with in his almost decade in the league already? Give me a break. Now you are skating on a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" type of policy, which would be devastating.

 

isn't that effectively what the NFL has always had?

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Kind of, but not really. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was an actual policy, in writing though. So, very different in very large ways.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Favre4Ever

[Thanatos 2,847]

The stupid analogy of putting different genders together by you and Durst is just ridiculous...I think a better analogy would be a lesbian in a female shower. Or when we finally broke racial barriers in this country. There was a point in history where it made people uncomfortable to even be in the same diner as a black man or family... Did we get over that hump by continuing on with our disgruntled and archaic ideals ? Nope. Vilma and people like him are the ones who have to change, not the other way around. That's how you progress as a society.

And the bolded is completely and outrageously incorrect. I don't like Vilma as a player or person, that's why he is an asshole. Not because of his fear that Michael Sam will rape him.

 

My mistake on Vilma then. But I wasn't just saying you were applying the label to him.

 

You can't make everyone happy, and it will be a frozen day in hell before we start turning the cogs back on he advancements we have made in discrimination and the like to cater to the assholes (like Vilma) in the world

. Sure seemed like that's what you were saying.

 

However, he isn't concerned with Sam raping him, much less in front of other players, and you know that. Extreme hyperbole helps no one here.

 

I simply don't see this issue being the same as having black/white in the same shower at all. Sure, a gross oversimplification could be "White guys were once uncomfortable to be around black guys while taking a shower, and now straight guys are uncomfortable around gay guys taking a shower with them, ergo same situation and they should just deal with it."

 

I really don't see how the same gender makes a lick of difference. What's the reason for not having men and women in the same shower? Is it not something to do with sexuality?

Edited February 14, 2014 by Thanatos19

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

No, because you are taking something that has been common place and relatively uncontroversial in every way and throwing it into chaos to try and fit an analogy of something quite the opposite. And no, I have never been under the assumption that men and women used separate restrooms because of their sexuality. lmao.

Women take longer, men tend to be less clean, privacy / size reasons, different body parts... I think there are also just a variety of different bathroom etiquette that men and women follow. Although to be fair, I am not a woman nor have used many womens restrooms so, maybe this is just a perceived notion.

Pretty much every reason to be segregated except sexuality. My naughty bits are getting tingly!

And I am also not talking about just blacks and whites in the shower. You are very, very bad at making assumptions. You should just stick to what the other person writes, and go from there. lol

 

Anyway, you are comparing an uncontroversial (again, relatively, of course there are some out there calling for desegregated restrooms) and traditional non-issue with a common irrational fear of homosexuals.

 

Very different, in almost every way imaginable. My analogies at least took REAL prevalent issues facing our country either now or in the past instead of taking a non-issue and making it into one.

 

I think there is a large difference between fabricating issues like you have, and using real applications. Hypotheticals are fun, no doubt about it... But when you are debating or discussing an issue as real as this, I don't think fabricated issues are going to solve anything nor provide the evidence you hope it will. Looking at real issues we have faced today and in the past, studying those and applying them to resolve this in the fastest and most efficient way would be the most beneficial use of our time.

Irrational fears are perpetuated by the irrational mind.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Favre4Ever

[Thanatos 2,847]

Yeah, done "debating" with you on this. You do little but assume, insult and over-exaggerate.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Thanatos19

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Lol, I gave you real reasons why your argument was bizarre and not worth it's consideration. Something both you and John haven't been able to do yet. Instead of taking the post at face value, you enjoy shoving your own opinion down peoples throats without a rhyme or reason hoping that if you repeat yourself enough it will break through.

Rights and progress based on gender. Based on race. Based on sexuality.

It's the common thread of American history that I based my analogies off of. Not some whacky hypothetical. When "Restroom Desegregation" is a big enough issue to be put on that list above, you can come back and rub in my face how great of an analogy Durst made. Until then, it just doesn't hold water.

Also, there was nothing insulting, assuming, or exaggeration in that entire post -- which clearly goes to show that you finally realized you were outmatched. Especially on the restroom thing... Men and Women use different restrooms because of sexual feelings they have? Yikes. I guess it wouldn't take much to show anyone how incorrect they are when they are that off-base on a particular issue.

Have a great night, and I can't wait until you search me out and argue with me in some random thread as you always do for no rhyme or reason. I look forward to the next one.

[oochymp 2,393]

Kind of, but not really. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was an actual policy, in writing though. So, very different in very large ways.

which would be why I said "effectively," maybe that was overly technical but it seems like the approach the league has taken has been for gay players not to talk about or otherwise express their sexuality, I think most will concede that it's a damn near certainty that there are many gay men in the NFL already (I think I remember Ayanbadejo last year saying he'd talked with 4 gay players about coming out) hence the comparison to DADT, sure it isn't written policy, but it's how the league has operated on the issue

Edited February 14, 2014 by oochymp

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

Kind of, but not really. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was an actual policy, in writing though. So, very different in very large ways.

which would be why I said "effectively," maybe that was overly technical but it seems like the approach the league has taken has been for gay players not to talk about or otherwise express their sexuality, I think most will concede that it's a damn near certainty that there are many gay men in the NFL already (I think I remember Ayanbadejo last year saying he'd talked with 4 gay players about coming out) hence the comparison to DADT, sure it isn't written policy, but it's how the league has operated on the issue

 

 

Oh, absolutely. I see the comparisons you are making and totally agree. I just think the difference between what we have now and the league actually writing out a policy and implementing it is a large enough gap to say.. "Not really"

And I am not too sure the league is taking the steps the approach you say it seems to be taking. Obviously that is coming from someone with very little insider knowledge of the league. And I wouldn't doubt at all if they thought to themselves, "ya, we might just be better off if these guys didn't say anything."

 

But I think the lack of players coming out says more about the culture we live in today, and more specifically the culture in the "macho" NFL. "I don't care what other people say / think" is a pretty popular phrase, but it actually applies to very few people.

 

There is a lot of fear about how people will react and what they will say / think. I think that's a natural human reaction or worry. I think that is the overwhelming factor at play and not so much what the league either wants or prefers -- whatever that might be.

 

It also goes into what I was saying earlier a little... This is how we, as a country, have historically dealt with issues (such as these) that make people uncomfortable. We make the change based on our best moral standing... How SHOULD it be. And people have to adapt. It doesn't happen right away, it won't change everyone's mindset right away... But eventually it will go from the uncomfortable thing to the norm -- and that's what we strive for.

 

Holding back change or progress because a relatively small group of people are made uncomfortable does exactly that -- hold back progress.

 

But ya, I absolutely get what you are saying. I think we are each just kind of nitpicking at word choice and what not. I generally agree with you.