In reading today's LA Times (yes, I still read the physical newspaper - I'm a dinosaur), I saw an interesting article talking about how art used to be an Olympic event. I was unaware of that!

They don't have been all out for my suspicion to be correct. But unless there is a serious suggestion on the table that homosexuality produces athletic skill, then either it is a statistical fluke or there is some underlying variable at play.

To me, having the population of gays in the game swing to the high end of achievement suggests that somehow the rest of the curve is being cut out. Either the less successful gay participants are pressured out of the sport more than equally successful straight participants or fearing such pressure the less successful ones just don't come out.

Just a theory. Kind of like how the early black MLB players were disproportionately Hall of Famers, not because being black made you a better player but simply because being black meant you had to be a better player to get on the field. It was quite a bit later that you could be a mediocre black player.

Perhaps they are just happier to spend even more time than their competitors hanging around the gym surrounded by bulge-revealing onesies, thus they get far more training time.

Awesome article love the connection to Mary Blair

I don't remember them mentioning the sexual orientation of all the straight athletes and I don't feel snubed. Why would you expect sexual orientation to be mentioned as part of the Olympics coverage?

Bravo for them not considering it relevant to an athletic event

In that vein, I noted that Tuesday was the 51st anniversary of Dan Bankhead's debut as the first black major league pitcher.

That's not true. Every time the camera shows an athlete's opposite-sex spouse or boy/girlfriend, that is exactly what they are saying.

Because, in this case, it is relevant. Mitcham is the only out gay male at the Olympics this year. He is the only diver to break the Chinese stranglehold on diving gold. His struggle to even get to the Olympics with his partner was big news in his native Australia.

But more importantly, gay men are associated with being physically weak, poor at sports, and the antitheses of athletic. When an open gay male succeeds in an athletic endeavor, it is a big deal. Should it be a big deal? No, of course not. But reality, at least for now, makes that answer a resounding yes.

Even on this board, with its high population of left-wing/liberals (not saying that as a pejorative, just a statement of fact) has had non-conservative posters make comments about how hard it was to believe a gay man could enjoy sport for sport sake and not for the sole purpose of ogling the athletes.

That is why I would expect NBC to mention it.

For further examples, please see the following articles on OutSports:
NBC, media ignore Mitcham’s sexuality
NBC defends not saying Mitcham is gay
What Mitcham’s win means to gays everywhere

I sort of agree with both sides. There are two ways that sexual orientation merit mention at the Olympics: 1) a quick cutaway to the partner in the stands without comment; 2) as part of a human interest story about obstacles overcome if, indeed, there were obstacles. However, I don't think editorial comment along the lines of "And you thought gay guys weren't athletic" would be any more appropriate than praising our black swimmer with "And Al Campanis said blacks lack buoyancy."