This article reexamines the fifteen talk fragments in “Fraternal Bonding in the Locker Room: A Profeminist Analysis of Talk about Competition and Women” (Curry, 1991), an oft-cited article on locker room talk, which epitomizes how sociologists utilize talk. Curry employed a profeminist perspective to study behavior in the locker rooms of two college sport teams. Curry claimed no one challenged sexism and homophobia in either locker room. I counter this claim by reanalyzing his examples. I employ a conversation analytic perspective to study the utterances presented by Curry in support of his claims, and I find that nine fragments reveal some dissent in how listeners reacted to crass talk. The disparities are due to Curry’s selective rather than sequential analyses of utterances. For this reason, I argue that sports talk should be analyzed using conversation analysis.