Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
trolls

NBA Fans Banned From Leaving Nasty Comments About Leandro Barbosa + Reggie Evans Holding Hands

On Sunday night after the Toronto Raptors’ slim defeat of the Orlando Magic 102-98, the Raptors’ Leandro Barbosa took the hand of teammate Reggie Evans as they walked into the locker room. See that big grin on Evans’ face? That’s him telling the world you can be a masculine jock and still feel affection for another dude! Or something. Commenters on the 10-second clip’s YouTube page, however, haven’t been so kind: “Little Ozzy is a hugeee fucking panzy who gets it up his ass by not only Barbosa and Reggie, but by the rest of? the team, including Triano, the golden boy Colangelo, Even Gheradini! The Raptors Mascot actually ended up jizzing on Little Ozzys face, while Ozzy took it like the gay fuck he is. … Disgusting.” OutsideTheNBA.com, which posted the video, has since disabled comments.

By:           JD
On:           Apr 8, 2011
Tagged: , , , , ,
  • 33 Comments
    • The sane Francis
      The sane Francis

      That comment is by far the most obviously homoerotic closeted type comment I’ve seen in a long time. But, of course, it’s not surprising. Fans generally are way more homophobic than actual players, and that’s because fans like that have nothing to live for, and constantly have to prove their “macho bravado” because unlike the athletes they aren’t actually exerting any energy by playing any sport, they are just sitting on their asses. The insecurity and gay panic these weird dudes must feel is extreme if something as simple as two guys somewhat holding hands gets them in a frenzy.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 10:15 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      since when do sraight guys come up with that kind of rhetoric, he’s thinking about men jizzing on other men, it’s so disgusting why is he thinking it, when a dad holds his young sons hand to cross a street, is that disgusting too? myopic little twit

      Apr 8, 2011 at 10:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The sane Francis
      The sane Francis

      Sadly, Mike, I know of men who DO get insecure with men holding their sons’ hand. Quite a few. And a lot of men won’t give their sons hugs or kisses. THAT’S how far a lot of men will go in defense of what they believe to be masculinity.

      This was a joke, anyway. But, don’t underestimate the gay panic with sports fans. It’s extreme. Everything these fans live for is proving how much of men they are and how tough they are. Players pat each other on the ass and hug all the time, they are naked around each other, they grow to bond with one another and genuinely love each other. Players generally are less homophobic because they have less to prove. All you can do is shake your head at the insecurity of these people.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 10:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      The commenter may want to think of something…if the entire team really IS giving it to him…well then they’re all gay aren’t they? Sheesh, those panicked closet cases don’t think much do they?

      Apr 8, 2011 at 11:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Zeus
      Zeus

      I feel like when homophobic people make crude sexual remarks in order to make fun of someone, such as “he takes it up the ass….jizz on his face” that’s really them letting out pent up sexual urges. Straight homophobes would just use the word fag and call it a day.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 3:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Akula
      Akula

      This makes me laugh I would pretty much bet my paycheck that the guy that made that comment would’nt have the balls to say that to
      Barbosa’s face, because he knows he would get the ever loving shit beat out of him. But if it was true it would be hot to watch Barbosa and Evans get nasty.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 4:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The sane Francis
      The sane Francis

      True, Zeus, except on thing. Straight men who are secure in their sexuality and masculinity aren’t homophobes at all.

      And Akula, that is true too, which goes back to the entire crux of the issue, small, weak men who have nothing going for them talking shit in the security of their own homes because they are insecure and need to prove their manhood.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 4:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete n SFO
      Pete n SFO

      Leandro Barbosa is Brazilian…

      Brazilians are just easier; affection w/ a buddy after a success, no big deal.

      I hope Barbosa eventually says so as well. That would be a great press conference…

      “And what exactly is the big deal about two guys grabbing hands?”

      Bring it to the light of day & it’s nothing but homophobia.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 5:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Male sports fans in the teens to early twenties tend to be a bit on the dopey side. I mean, if you’re going to post comments on YouTube, how sad is that?

      Apr 8, 2011 at 6:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      One of the reasons that male-male affection – even of the non sexual kind – is frowned upon is women. Women work behind the scenes to eliminate it. They do it in secretive, surreptitious ways that involve building up a social values system that favors only female-female touching, not male-male touching.

      Don’t fall for the notion that women are the sweet innocent parties of society. They aren’t. A lot of male-directed homophobia is due to women being unable to cope with the sight of two men being affectionate with each other even if it’s completely non-sexual.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 6:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheRealAdam
      TheRealAdam

      @Pete n SFO: Exactly. This is cultural – many Latin American countries simply don’t have the immature, close-minded homophobic hang-ups the West does concerning affection between men.

      Anyway, this clip was very sweet. It’s nice to see this.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 8:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kayla
      kayla

      @jason: Jason..Jason…Jason…Yes, male homophobia is the fault of women! Yes, if it wasn’t for us evil females, these homophobes would be at the front of gay pride parades…On behalf of my sex, I sincerely apologize! Of course, we women have held the reigns of power for millenia…We are the ones who’ve dictated social norms for centuries…yes Jason…we are responsible for it all! But don’t worry, when you men finally get a male Pope and President you can right the ship that we women have put wrong…

      Apr 8, 2011 at 8:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Keep in mind that hand-holding between men in Latin American and Middle Eastern countries is considered a form of male bonding. It’s considered to be a form of spiritual and emotional unity.

      It’s interesting that, in these countries, feminism hasn’t take a hold as it has in the USA, for instance. In countries where feminism is subdued, male-male bonding is actually admired and treasured. Men are allowed to hold hands in public. The viewpoint of women – many of whom are opposed to male-male hand holding – is not considered important.

      In countries where feminism was allowed to develop, there’s been a simultaneous increase in men’s avoidance of male-male hand-holding and male-male contact in general. Keep in mind that male behavior is hugely influenced by the stigma which questions their masculinity, their ability to fertilize a woman.

      In the USA, women have unfortunately succeeded in creating a climate where a man’s masculinity is questioned if he touches another man in an affectionate – but not necessarily sexual – way.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 9:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kayla
      kayla

      @jason: If you’re going to blame society’s aversion towards male/male affection on feminism…you must account for why the pre-feminist culture also looked down on male/male affection…Were men encouraged to hold hands in public in the 1920’s and ’30’s…? You are one warped mind…

      Apr 8, 2011 at 9:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      When Jason appears, the Russian clown posse are sure to follow. Mark my words. You will be told to eat Christina crap.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 9:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheRealAdam
      TheRealAdam

      @kayla: Actually, Kayla, yes. Social customs have changed over time, and men were much more affectionate in earlier times.

      Shows what you know (or don’t). I don’t know about Jason’s argument and won’t comment on that, but you are clearly ignorant.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 9:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kayla
      kayla

      @TheRealAdam: I understand history very well thank you… Pre 20th century male/male affection was allowed, but that was only because homosexuality was practically unheard of by the masses and therefore, there was an automatic assumption that male/male affection was platonic…Come the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century when homosexuality as a concept enters the popular consciousness…Male/male affection took on a “sinister” meaning…This however had nothing to do with feminism….Please note that in Iran men are allowed to hold hands, because again the culture assumes that it is platonic…If there is any indication of anything else they will MURDER you!! As Ahmadinejad said at Columbia, there are NO homosexuals in Iran.

      Jason is ridiculous with his attempt to blame hostility towards male/male affection on women, when there is absolutely no facts to back him up. It seems to me that a male dominated Clergy, as well as a male dominated political class shaped the norms of society…I will bet that most of the negative comments being made against these guys are being made by men…Homosexuality threatens heterosexual men, much more so than it does heterosexual women…At least if myself and the women I know are any indication…

      Apr 8, 2011 at 10:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kayla
      kayla

      I would like Jason and TheRealAdam to name me one country where feminism has not impacted society…and homosexuals are treated fairly…without feminism…there is no gay rights movement…So please don’t throw women under the bus…

      Apr 8, 2011 at 10:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheRealAdam
      TheRealAdam

      @kayla: You are confusing ideas. “Homosexuality” as we know it was definitely present in the pre-20th century era (and at all times), it’s just that “sexual orientation” as an idea didn’t exist and sexuality wasn’t as much a cause for segregation based on sexual identity. There were no “automatic assumptions” that affection between men was platonic. People were not that naive, and never have been.

      Homosexuality and sexual orientation didn’t enter the popular consciousness until the 1950s. That is HARDLY the beginning of the 20th century.

      Try speaking on what you know next time, mmmmk? Thanks.

      @kayla: I told you I can’t comment on Jason’s post, so don’t involve me in his discussion.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 10:16 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JAW
      JAW

      I have watched the clip many times… and all I see is the tall player giving a look like he is thinking “ehat the hell u doing with my hand dude” and the shorter guk has a bit of a smirk like he is trying to be offensive. I think the shorter guy was trying to mock someone or something

      Apr 8, 2011 at 10:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kayla
      kayla

      @TheRealAdam: Of course, people always assumed there were people who engaged in ‘deviant’ behavior…But the concept of a person solely, or preferably or inextricably attracted to someone of the same sex simply didn’t exist…Again this only becomes a popular idea at the turn of the 19th century…And this is when male/male behavioral norms become more strict…Because people began to fear that their sons, brothers etc…might become one of those “homosexuals”…Adult men sleeping in the same bed, holding hands etc…become behaviors to be discouraged…As far as people always being suspicious of male/male affection that’s completely untrue…

      Apr 8, 2011 at 10:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Craig
      Craig

      @kayla: I never said anything about people being “suspicious” of affection between men.

      Anyway, I’m not about to correct the rest of your post because I simply don’t want to discuss this anymore. It’s irrelevant.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 10:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • TheRealAdam
      TheRealAdam

      @kayla: I never said anything about people being “suspicious” of affection between men.

      Anyway, I’m not about to correct the rest of your post because I simply don’t want to discuss this anymore. It’s irrelevant.

      Apr 8, 2011 at 10:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JAW
      JAW

      @TheRealAdam:

      Hi again… I am not sure where you got your info… Perhaps you can enlighten us…

      but back in the late 1800’s …

      Psychology was one of the first disciplines to study a homosexual orientation as a discrete phenomenon. The first attempts to classify homosexuality as a disease were made by the fledgling European sexologist movement in the late 19th century. In 1886 noted sexologist Richard von Krafft-Ebing listed homosexuality along with 200 other case studies of deviant sexual practices in his definitive work, Psychopathia Sexualis. Krafft-Ebing proposed that homosexuality was caused by either “congenital [during birth] inversion” or an “acquired inversion”. In the last two decades of the 19th century, a different view began to predominate in medical and psychiatric circles, judging such behavior as indicative of a type of person with a defined and relatively stable sexual orientation. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, pathological models of homosexuality were standard…

      adam… please make statements of what your thoughts are without making nast comments about others… like you did about KAYLA… on this thread… there is no need to be disrespectful of others views

      Apr 8, 2011 at 10:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      If you go to countries like Pakistan and India and Afghanistan and Egypt, you will often see men walking hand in hand with each other. There’s an understanding that men are entitled to serve each other spiritually and emotionally.

      In countries where feminism has thrived, the concept of male-male affection has been railroaded into the gay category. Therefore, it’s been made smaller by the process of conceptual confinement. It’s a case of “you men can’t possibly be touching each other unless you’re intending to have sex with each other”.

      Make no mistake, this is what the feminists have been doing. They’ve been conceptually confining male behavior, thus making it smaller and less threatening to them as women. Feminism can’t stomach the notion that men be allowed to do everything that women are allowed to do, such as kiss each other platonically, hug each other constantly etc etc.

      Apr 9, 2011 at 12:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      Now we’re seeing the inner workings of the mind of “jason:” See if you can spot the contradictions.
      –He claims that he is bisexual yet he despises women, feminism, “long, flowing hair,” and believes women’s sexuality is “fake”

      –He despises people of color, hip hop/rap, immigrants and liberalism but believes that the POCs of Egypt and Pakistan have more freedom to show male-male affection than in the US, because feminism is less rampant there.

      –He believes most men are bisexual, including himself [yet he hates women] and hasn’t had sex with a “female” ever.

      –He asserts that women control male-male expression of affection [yet thinks ladies are only engaging in sapphic splendor to please “sleazy straight guys”)

      Will wonders never cease?

      Apr 9, 2011 at 5:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Soupy
      Soupy

      The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!

      Apr 9, 2011 at 9:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • JusticeontheRocks
      JusticeontheRocks

      @kayla: This “deviant behavior” you oddly refer to was fairly well accepted in ancient Greece and Rome, just a tad before feminism hit.

      Apr 9, 2011 at 10:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jason
      jason

      Jeffree,

      Nothing you say carries any more weight than a feather duster.

      I’ve stated my case clearly and succinctly, and with evidence to back it up.

      What do you have for back up? Nappies?

      Apr 9, 2011 at 10:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville
      Mike in Asheville

      @Jeffree: @kayla: Careful Jeffree and Kayla, because you are getting close to the adage of the “the definition of a moron: one who argues with an idiot.” Jason and TheRealAdam are idiots, just as you two have laid out in your posts. As such, continuing to argue with them?…pointless.

      So, sure have a little fun pointing out their (or others) idiocy; just in the last week Jason posted a complaint about how gays are victim of generalizations and grouped together en mass, then he posted about how all young blacks are the same. When others characterize all gays into a single class, Jason claims, rightly, they are homophobic. Yet when Jason lumps all blacks as anti-gay homophobes, he denies he is a racist. Yep, he’s and idiot.

      And wow, TheRealAdam, apparently, hasn’t heard of Oscar Wilde, or Whitman, or Freud, or Shakespeare, or Michaelangelo…..

      Apr 9, 2011 at 12:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • alan brickman
      alan brickman

      Now you know who the real trolls are…just sayin…

      Apr 9, 2011 at 8:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Oprah
      Oprah

      No. I think there is only ONE HOMOSEXUAL in that footage. A lil gay boy holding the hands of his daddy. How disgusting. LOL

      Apr 9, 2011 at 9:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Tori
      Tori

      @Mike in Asheville: THanks you the realadam is racist and jason is racist and sexist, so engaging them is pointless and stupid.

      Apr 10, 2011 at 3:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     




    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.