I remember reading Le Saux's story, in the Guardian funnily enough. Some of his contemporaries, Robbie Fowler especially, persecuted this guy, declaring him to be gay, merely because he read that paper and was an educated man.
Which means that when they were persecuting him for being gay they were really persecuting him for being clever, but you can't insult someone by accusing them of being clever, so you accuse them of being gay, which means that being called gay is actually being called clever which is actually a compliment. Unless you are stupid, which means that you are actually being called gay, which is insulting only because you are stupid enough to think that being gay is a bad thing ... or something like that anyway.
I assumed he was calling him gay because he had made it so obvious that being called gay would be offensive to him. Or maybe I'm just giving him too much credit!
On the liners a large % of the catering dept were as odd as lemonade sandwiches, and they were accepted by the rest of the crew as being quite normal human beings, which of course they were. Some of them were outlandishly camp and they would dress up in woman's clothes to go ashore and mostly had girls names, etc - it was quite an eye opener for a young 16 year old first tripper ! But they were mostly as good as gold and would never bother you - unless you wanted them to i guess ! Women were always very curious of them and it was actually quite a good way of pulling girls if you went out with a gang of these stewards. The Juniper Berry in Southampton was famous for being a hang out for liners catering crews. The word 'gay' hadnt been hijacked by the homosexual guys in those days - it still meant happy & carefree ! Working on those ships certainly opened my eyes to these guys and it made us all very tolerant of them, even if this wasnt generally the case ashore in those days - i am talking about the 1970's. I get the impression these days that people are still generally slightly intolerant of homosexuals, as you hear school kids say things like 'Dont be so gay' or 'Thats gay' to describe something out of the ordinary - so i am pretty sure that any footballer known to be one is liable to get a fair amount of abuse from opposition fans, football supporters being what they are ! In quite a few countries they would be at risk of severe persecution so they would have to be careful where they went to play football.
To be fair I too did a couple of trips on the banana boats back in the sixties....To be frank I did not know who was "gay" and who wasn't.There was quite a few who I assumed was gay and I guessed my cabin buddy was too. However I didn't feel threatened or worried although I had been told it would be backs to the wall for the whole trip by quite a few people. There are a lot of myths going around in regards to gays as they are now called just as there were then I guess. It would not surprise me if there was not a few gay players but so what? As long as they are not pushing crap uphill in front of me who cares...?
What has a person's sexuality got to do with anything or anyone else? Why do we need to know and why do people have the need to consider if and how many homosexual players there are in football. It's a game that according to to the FA's mantra is "Football for All". So it doesn't matter who, what or why. It's a great game for anyone.
I was discussing the volume of gay TV presenters/hosts/panelists/judges/contestants with some friends the other day. There are a very significant number and we were speculating on whether this was a fair reflection of the actual split in society. Of course, there's no real way of knowing that but I did suggest then and will repeat here, that their exaggerated and in many cases faux campness may in fact have a detrimental effect on the desire of many to "come out". The stereotypical image of a gay man that is currently presented by the media is a very long way from reality in most cases. It's no wonder that footballers decide to keep their sexuality to themselves.
This. Nowadays people seem to be defined by things that make them somehow different from the majority, probably as a result of journalists looking for an angle. Everyone is described as "gay", "Asian", "red-haired", "diabetic", or whatever as if these things are the most important attributes that person possesses. They are not. A person's sexuality is only important to that person, and is no-one else's business unless they want it to be.
Ironic? Misunderstood? Off-topic? Probably all three. Returning to the OP, there must be quite a few gay footballers, just as there are gay accountants, plumbers and doctors. I am sure that the vast bulk of Saints fans would care not a jot if one of our players was. I suspect the numbers of the genuinely homophobic are small but would our fans be able resist goading an opponent for their sexuality. I would hope that the numbers joining in would be such that the microphones wouldn't pick bit up, but I am so sure.
No one on this forum has openly stated that they are homosexual therefore this suggests we are not tolerant either...
Chilco I completely agree with you in terms of the labels that seem necessary today. However, the real shame of the matter, specifically in relation to football is what Channonfodder has just alluded to. It would be picked up on, it would be used in derogatory chants and generally become a big issue in the game. The media, loving their labels would no longer say player X scored a winner, instead they would say Gay player X scored a winner and so on. Subsequently, there's a whole group of young people who cannot live their lives as they would otherwise want. I think that's sad.
Fair enough - in which case, I no longer assume that, like most married fathers, he's straight, and agree that a safer assumption is that he's extremely gay.
