There a definitely hyper-heterosexual MMF situations, but in his paper Anderson specifically notes the "malleability" of such encounters among his subjects. For example: "When I asked Patrick what specific interaction would take place with Jeff he said, 'Well, for the most part it would be about getting it on with her, but like we might do some stuff together too.'" And Anderson doesn't bury the part about his subjects being cheerleaders like the misleading press release does--it's right up front in his abstract. He's not claiming that 30% of all ex-football players hook up with guys. His point is that "the transition from football to cheerleading involves a change to the informants’ social status and their perceived masculine and heterosexual capital. ...they are then influenced to reconstruct same-sex sex to be compatible with heterosexuality." Matthew Hutson is the News Editor at Psychology Today.

Chris and Cecilda, I'm Eric Anderson, the author of the study. Hey guys, relax. Perhaps before you get all worked up over the next press release you read, you might consider reading the research first?

The men engaged in homosexual acts, directly, with one another. Sometimes with the presence of women, other times not. This is not a matter of tagteaming a woman. But what was truly remarkable about the study was how they changed their homophobic and sexist attitudes once they joined cheerleading. Here, they found strong and competent leaders in both women and gay men. This began them thinking differently about women and gay men, and quite often lead to the sexual acts I discuss.

Go ahead and read the research, and then feel free to critique it. Critique is wonderful, as long as you are actually critiquing the actual research and not the press release. You did not get your PhD’s and MD’s by reading abstracts, did you?

I’d love for you to read the research and the critique it on your post. I think you’ll end up making something of a mia culpa.

Dr. Eric Anderson
University of Bath

Hi Eric, Thanks for dropping by. What's wrong with critiquing a press release? Maybe we should have made it explicit that we hadn't read the article in question (though that's pretty clearly implied, isn't it?) and that the object of our derision was really the way the popular press -- in this case, Science Daily -- misleadingly sensationalizes what may turn out to be carefully-constructed research. If you'd be willing to send along a pdf of your article (nutspert@yahoo.com), we'd be happy to take a look and comment on it here. But Sex Roles wants $32 for the on-line version! So, short of paying more than the cost of a hard-cover book for an electronic copy of an article, we'll have to make due with the press release (we are in Spain, without easy access to an academic library). It would be interesting to read your paper, because you seem to be suggesting that the influence of "strong and competent leaders" transformed some of these men from having been sexist homophobes into unapologetic bi-sexuals. If so, then this research really is "truly remarkable." And yes, we've seen Y tu mamá también. Fantastic film.

I'm not sure how I was mistaken in thinking that your quote,

"If Dr. Anderson thinks having sex with a woman within sight of another naked man qualifies as gay sex, one wonders whether he'd include all the men who have viewed pornography featuring other men having sex with women (which would be almost all heterosexual porn)."

As a critique of the press release. Sounds like a critique of me. And while one might expect that type of flipant remark from a normal blogger; I'd have higher expectations of one with a PhD in psychology.

That tit-for-tat being over, I'd be glad to send you a copy. Send me your email off this blog (since I won't be checking back here), and I'll respond with the article. I'm EricAndersonPhD@aol.com

Eric

Ouch.

For anyone out there who may be keeping score, we did read Dr. Anderson's paper and saw no need to issue a mea culpa. But as there's nothing quite as unattractive as an ongoing dispute between over-educated professorial types over research methodology, we agreed to let this sleeping dog lie and move on to other topics.

Team sports encourage homoerotic behavior. Anytime you have men showering together, men thinking it's appropriate to slap each others asses and men hugging each other; your gonna get a bunch of bonners poping up. Real men would be interested in being a cheerleader, you get to touch and be with hot chicks. Little do the cheerleaders know that the awesome play that Dick just made was to impress Peter and not the cheerleaders. They really need to come out - no pun intended - with Quarterback Mountin' ...a story of two sheep hearders who play with the teams balls for fun!!!

Why is doc PhD so concerned about all this? His point that some of the people in the study later turned to cheerleaders is sexist and demeaning. Does he think he's defending football player masculinity? His comments first beg the question, does it really make any difference whether football players have sex with other guys or not. Secondly he tries to indicate the original article had an agenda. The fact is many people have surprising aspects to their sexuality that might surprise their grandmothers. Even if Anderson would prefer to think of sexual roles in a more traditional manner, people hook up with who they want to and football players are not exempt. I say this as a gay man who has some experience on the subject, and a physician who sees through the PhD's right wing desperation.

According to some observers of human behavior, men are becoming more submissive to the ever increasing power of dominant women, from the job market to the bedroom. And as a result, one observer noted, we are heading for a matriarchy in the not too distant future. If that be true, it might help explain the rise of lesbianism as a vanguard of the impending phenomenon, and as a result, wouldn't many an impuned male seek the less fearful image in his own sex than that of an independant, powerful and self-assured Amazon?

Anderson is clearly pushing his own agenda via sensationalism. A statistic based on such a small sample set (47 data points) is ridiculous. I could make an analogous claim that 100% of women have slept with me - if I only interview the (# withheld) women I have slept with.