Backtracking on a similar 2005 study, researches said that men can, in fact, like other dudes and women, too. While modern science is catching up to some groundbreaking last-century theory, it’s pleasing to know journalists remain as innuendo-filled as ever. Cue the close of the NYT article.

“Sexual arousal is a very complicated thing,” she said. “The real phenomenon in day-to-day life is extraordinarily messy and multifactorial.”

Heard.

The article gives more detail on the study’s methodology, if you’re so inclined.

Whoops! Just an oversight. I’m sure there’s nothing else questionable! Just to be sure, let’s check the story’s lead:

The closet door became unhinged lately when a number of gay men in sports decided to turn the knob and hold a public liberation.

Maybe it’s time to retire literary uses of the closet metaphor.

Outed in the interview, he reviews a couple awkward and painful moments (hearing “Can you hear me now?” as his grandmother was lowered into her grave) in the course of his nearly 10-year stint as the face of “the network.”

Equally disgusting, he discloses an incident where the fear of bad PR silenced a voice known for being heard loud and clear:

Then there were the drive-bys. Marcarelli has a home in Guilford, Connecticut, and five summers ago, kids in an SUV began driving past at night, yelling, “Can you hear me now?” Later, says Marcarelli, “they started screaming ‘faggot’ up at my house. It got progressively more profane as the years went by.” One night, it happened while some friends were over, and he decided to call the police. “As soon as I hung up the phone,” he says, “I realized that in order for them to do anything about it, it would have to become a report that would go into a police log.” Worried about the publicity—and the questions that might ensue if it came out that the actor playing Test Man was gay—he declined to file a report.

Via Gawker

Reuters | Tired Gay succumbs to Dix in 200 meters

Watch the full interview (just shy of 20 minutes:

)

While we’d like to claim her the winner of this debate, moments like below show Maddow clearly losing her temper while “Mr. Reformed” remains in an irritatingly stoic position. She’s attempting to make a point

Perhaps the flaw in the conversation, and its victor, is the angle in which the story was approached. It was a two-issue debate focusing both on homosexuality as a myth and supporting evidence for that myth being used to kill gays. While related, the two are each large enough battles to devote entire shows to, let alone a 20-minute combined segment.

Maddow’s weakness is this merging of arguments. She (should have) wanted to talk about Uganda, but she ended up confronting the bullshit claims out of clear personal resent. And rightfully so, but that’s what makes this segment fail. Watch as it’s spun: first as a promotion for his organization, then second as a disclaimer against the use of his material for the persecution of gays. Her argument is lost in a sea of, “We’ll I didn’t mean to …”

We’re left in awe of what a complete fuckup this guy is, not in awe of Maddow’s take-down of said fuckup. While negative, he still retains the focus.

As mythical as the detached observer principle of journalism became this decade, this is one example of why it needs to exist. Maddow’s personal attachment to the story, as that of an openly gay woman, causes her more harm then good. Talking points become personal and it interferes with the ability to take charge of the debate.

While some find him repulsive in his Murrow-esque behavior, Maddow’s time-slot neighbor, Keith Olbermann, would have handled this debate better. Anyone doubting his thoughts on the issue need only turn to his Prop 8 special commentary around this time last year. He made the argument personal to his viewers without having the direct personal interest himself. That’s something Maddow, and frankly much of her audience, can’t claim.

It’s not that Maddow failed. She’s didn’t. That’s impossible to do when you’re up against a man practicing psycho-babble. The shame is that she couldn’t leverage the insanity of his argument against gays to make him admit that – intended or not -  it’s ultimately leading to their genocide.

Almost half of those surveyed (49.4%, to be exact) said yes, they believe they have at least one gay teammate. In the Pac-10, 70% of those surveyed said yes.

And this is football. Imagine volleyball.

[via Queerty]

The tool is not exactly scientific, but it searches your tweets for cliché words used by and about homosexuals (albeit arguably “cliché”), then it rates your heterosexuality as a percentage. But does it include cheeky commentary about your results and a list of words that earned you the label? Check!

It turns out, @bewilderedsoc is 73% hetero! (Well, as a boy, that is — as a girl, it’s only 45% hetero, whew!) According to some in-depth research at AfterEllen.com, that makes us about 10% less hetero than Lindsay Lohan and 61% more hetero than FoxNews. Click the image to read in full detail.

So, what’s the verdict? Are you more or less hetero than @bewilderedsoc?