Out of Wright Field: The Other Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Sexuality, just as athletics, is inexorably linked to our society. Even on this site, you can read articles that cement lust after the wives and conquests of major athletes, women that reside in a contemporary pantheon of beauty untouchable by anyone except for maybe the occasional rock star. Similarly, women lust after ball players while claiming that there is truth to the idea that they are in fact attracted to men of substance and intelligence. They insist there is validity to this Cosmo produced fantasy and yet the Hooters waitresses with the subscriptions are still nursing the illegitimate children of men like Chipper Jones. Athletic ability is tied directly to some sort of back log that determines criteria for virile manhood beginning as early as the original wrestling matches of the Greeks right up to Broadway Joe and the Post’s coverage of Derek Jeter’s revolving door somewhere in Midtown tossing models and starlets back into the streets from whence they came. Social influence has created a world where for lack of needing to prove masculinity in a field with a spear we glorify the simulation of feats of strength and ferociousness. Sports are inherently sexual and yet the images that result rarely match up with the wide variety of sexual preference present in the human experience. This line of questioning pulls one toward a question of how it is possible for there to be no open deviation from hetero-normativity present in major league sports. If we admire the off as well as on-field exploits of our favorite players why is it that the sexual proclivities rarely venture off the standard menu of a Preacher and his wife?

The obvious answer is: “There are no gay athletes.” However, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn’t run the MLB so this position is, at best, asinine. There are roughly four million professional athletes in the United States, which, if the one in ten ratio holds u , would lead one to believe that there are 400,000 gay athletes. I’m sure this seems ridiculous to many, so let’s even cut that number in half to account for gymnastics, the Red Sox and the WNBA; that still leaves us with 200,000 homosexual professional athletes in the United States. (Cheap joke-while discussing a serious topic, I know, and I offer my apologies to all of those gymnasts and WNBA players out there. As far as Boston goes, those particular denizens lose the right to feign outrage after popularizing phrases such as “Gay-Rod” and “Yankees suck, Jeter swallows.” If you can give it you gotta take it guys…)

Logic alone indicates that there are at least a few gay pro athletes in the NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL. So the point is: “Where are they?” The answer is most likely somewhere near the farthest, darkest corner of the closet with those ugly sweaters that your grandmother buys you for Christmas. Everyone else seems to be able to come out from Governors to movie stars and yet we leave athletes in the dark ages regarding sexuality.

Athletics are an interesting part of the American psyche, they are one of the few remaining vestiges of classical manhood, which I’ll define as the John Wayne watching, beer-drinking, vagina loving alpha male stereotype that has become synonymous with misogyny. Since mothers stopped letting little boys be rambunctious and defiant, deciding instead to heavily medicate them so that they act in a manner not dictated by their DNA and ensure they are politically correct young men, sports have changed very little. Sure, they can’t run at recess, but they can still see the stars on TV dashing about like they are being chased. Many times they are being chased. Look at Page Six and you still see this male archetype all over the place. Example one: Supermodel-marrying, pregnant-fiancé leaving cad of a quarterback, Tom Brady. Anyone but Tom Brady would have been considered by the community to be a lout of the highest order, but his status keeps him safe, because stars like this represent a level of male primacy.

While this image is derided, it still speaks to a portion of the male psyche, that part of the brain that interprets physical /sexual prowess and exalts it. The idea of one of these guys snuggling up to another man during a Top Chef party irrevocably shatters the idealized image that many men live vicariously through. This would taint players and teams that are more than just individuals, they are the souls of cities and communities. Their tiny little beating heart that makes sure there is always something for them to cheer for no matter how bad things get. It isn’t easy to live through a man that no longer represents anything you consider a part of yourself, and like it or not, sexuality defines us to a large degree.

So, here we are at my most solid theory on why there seem to be similarities between Iranian delusions and professional athletics: a talented gay athlete would only point out how gay sports already are. That’s right, I said it.  Sports are very homoerotic. To claim that you don’t see a high level of homoeroticism in sports like football requires a level of denial that should qualify you as a member of the Church of Scientology. It lurks under the surface rooted in male camaraderie and team efforts but ass slapping and spandex are not normally considered the most heterosexual of proclivities in fly-over country or Sarah Palin’s “real” America. The emergence of a gay athlete with genuine talent would disrupt the careful tension we have created in our society that acts as the border between passing a football and just standing around like a presenting cat in a stupid helmet. To allow that an athlete could be gay and a manly athlete means that all of those manly men watching at home might just be a bit of the gay themselves. Clearly this is ridiculous on a few levels. We control our own sexuality, but we are socially influenced to assume that we can control attraction which is not the case. Those puritans way back in the day did a number on us; we have trouble cheering for what they would call a deviant because doing so might imply that we endorse them or worse yet, identify with them.

The whole thing leaves us at an interesting social impasse. Our sports teams are here because they say something about the town or city that they represent. They give us people to look up to, hometown stars and sources of faith for those beleaguered by the world into an oppressive urban existence. The ESPN crowd can go to the gay pride Halloween parade, but that parade isn’t allowed to the Bronx. New York is full of a vibrant gay community, one that is as much a part of the soul of our city as any athlete. It seems that the time is upon us to get past what holds us from extending acceptance to athletes that might not have the same bedroom activities planned for a Friday as we do.

On top of the social dimension influencing how and why we interpret sexuality the way we do, there is a definite political dimension that is most often poorly handled or butchered by a well-meaning but misguided individual. Recently, Jeff Pearlman posted a piece that works along some similar thought lines, but I have significant disagreements with his position. One of the major faults with the piece seems to be that he implores at least one of these inevitably gay athletes to out themselves as a political or perhaps more sinisterly as a marketing and PR move. The problem with this seems to be that it disregards the personal nature of an individual regarding who not only should, but who has a right to know matters of their heart. Many coming out stories are intensely personal matters that are best dealt with in a manner chosen by the individual involved.

To back this up I found an interesting take on the situation from Brendan Lemon, Editor in Chief of Out magazine. His letter which discusses the internal struggles of a closeted major league baseball player, directly stating:

“Sure, he’d have to deal with the initial media avalanche and the verbal abuse from some bleacher bums, and there’d be a teammate or two who’d have an adolescent “Oh, my God, he saw me naked in the showers” response. Not to mention a nervous front-office executive or two. But I’m pretty confident there’d be more support from the team than he imagines. With the exception of an occasional judgmental type, most of these straight guys don’t have a problem with homosexuality. Their prime concern is winning, not who you’re sleeping with.”

I agree with Lemon here that we as a country have come far in spite of what are still essential flaws regarding gay rights and acceptance. A bad player is a bad player… whether he happens to be a furry on the weekends doesn’t really effect it. The same thing goes for a good player. We need to get past the specter of fear so that there is a time when a player will feel comfortable living his or her chosen lifestyle publicly. It may not be now, but it isn’t as bad as it was. Lemon also implores the anonymous player to come out but it is not for the same rationale as Pearlman which displays an important nuance. Lemon’s interest is rooted in lessening a personal and psychological burden as opposed to Pearlman’s conception of the outing as the brick through the window of our collective neighborhood ignorance shop.

Do not misinterpret my intentions here, I applaud Pearlman for bringing up an important topic.  But to say that public outings are the only path toward acceptance not only ignores the personal impact of an admission like this, but also gives very little credit to the public. After all, while this is the age of Prop. 8, it is also the age of a black President, marriage rights in Iowa and Vermont as well as a seeming revolution in the palm of a Middle Eastern Iron fist. Pearlman focuses on how a vocal minority, a very vocal minority I will bet, would respond to this news. Parts of his article read like scenes written for an NOM feature film full of anger and plagues even containing a few (poorly used, but I’ll get to that) Bible quotations.

Pearlman’s focus on the possible negative reactions places the possibility of a positive reaction in the realm of fantasy. I differ with him on this view in a few ways. Namely, that a gay player I feel could find a large level of acceptance on a team that was located in a city like New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco. I contend in fact that the teams would find themselves open to a larger fan base that they may have been neglecting. Hideki Matsui came to the Yankees and suddenly the stadium filled with a rabid variety of Japanese fan as the rotating billboards in the outfield started to occasionally display signs that not only deviated in language but alphabet. A team in a more open area may be able to broaden a fan base by having a more diverse team.

Unfortunately, this battle while about civil rights, is not very similar to the Civil Rights movement proper that Pearlman contrast the current struggle with. Race and Sexuality function differently within the framework of our modern society and tend to be dealt with differently. There are many distinct differences that keep the two from being properly considered parallel movements. Namely, there is a basic dispute as to the ability of a person to choose sexuality. It is often a tactic of the religious right to insist that it is a choice to be homosexual or not and thus, we presently have privately run, religiously fueled sexual re-education camps here in the Land of the Free. Race is very clearly not a choice, a person is born with particular characteristics and for the most part they are a constant. Sexuality on the other hand seems to be more fluid and ethereal undetectable by the eye or science in a quantifiable manner. This idea of “choice” no matter how odious, represents a social perception that this is incorrect behavior that they need not endorse. In fact, many times they claim a religious and political right to condemn it. It makes the navigation of this particular issues social construction function in a different manner than that of race in the public consciousness.

Even more interesting were the comments lurking below Pearlman’s article.  Most of them stated they wouldn’t have a problem, and many even congratulation him for bringing the topic up. However, as I said before there is a minority, and this vocal minority seemed to have the longest and most strongly worded posts. Many took direct objection to the Bible quotes, however it seemed only to be the one from the New Testament seeming to imply acceptance. I still find it interesting that that tiny Leviticus quote gets so much traction with all of its Old Testament fervor. This quote from Leviticus does seem to be clear about its point. It also seems to be fairly clear about not eating shellfish, the right to keep heathens and only heathens as slaves, stoning adulterers (female, of course) being an acceptable pastime, how to make penance for the rape of a slave-girl, a fairly direct denunciation of incest and perhaps most interestingly a strong prohibition against passing your seed through the fire to Moloch. All I’m saying is people should be a little more careful which list of rules they happen to be quoting in their moral deliberations. Unless they really want to step up, stone their cheating wife and denounce their monthly splurge at the Red lobster right off the interstate. They might also want to try and keep a slave because the Bible says it’s OK. You really can’t pick and choose on these things and it really seems to render the whole argument hollow.

To close, I think that we have come to a place where we would be accepting enough of a player that was openly gay. The public and media might hoot and holler briefly, but for the most part they seem to be too busy being angry about steroids. I hope that a player does come out soon — for their own reasons and nothing else. This isn’t going to be effective if it only functions as a statement of intent rather than an assertion of humanity. The public accepts the honest and truthful in sports, regardless of their secrets. We have bigger problems than the shoutings of the occasional homophobe.