From these data, the researchers concluded that, “individuals who score high in the homophobic range and admit negative affect toward homosexuality demonstrate significant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli.” Of course, it isn’t clear whether these people are unconsciously self-deceiving or consciously trying to conceal from others their secret attraction to members of the same sex. The Freudian concept of reaction formation—in which people’s repressed desires are manifested by their fervent emotional reactions and hostile behaviors towards the very thing they desire—could explain the former. (From Shakespeare’s Hamlet: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”) The latter implies an act of deliberate social deception, such as my 8-year-old self's misguided scheming. It could of course be a bit of both, or work differently for different people. Who is to say whether Ted Haggard—the very incarnation of this phenomenon—was self-deceiving or whether he knew he had full-blown homosexual urges all along?
Adams and his colleagues’ interpretation of these plethsymograph findings have not gone unchallenged. For example, in an article published in a 2006 issue of the Journal of Research in Personality, Gettysburg College researcher Brian Meier and his colleagues argue that Adams’s findings can be better interpreted as the homophobic group’s “defensive loathing” of gay males rather than a secret attraction. Drawing an analogy to other phobias, Meier and his coauthors state that, “We believe it is inaccurate to argue that spider phobics secretly desire spiders or that claustrophobics secretly like to be crammed into dark and tight spaces.” These investigators reason that Adams’s homophobic sample experienced erections in response to the gay male porn due not to sexual arousal, but due to their anxiety over the images, which in turn provoked the physiological response of penile engorgement.
However, I think this “defensive loathing” reinterpretation by Meiers is off course. Although it is true that ambient anxiety has been shown to increase the degree of sexual arousal in response to stimuli that is already sexually arousing, I could find no evidence that anxiety alone can give a man an erection. At least I hope this is the case. I have anxiety over public speaking. If, on top of everything else, I have to worry about getting an erection during my talk tomorrow, perhaps I ought to just cancel my appearance. Likewise, by these investigators’ logic, male arachnophobes should get a mild tickle down there whenever they spy a spider scurrying across their desk. I suppose that’s possible, but it seems rather far-fetched to me.
If we take Adams’s findings that homophobic men get erections from watching gay porn as reasonable evidence of their sexual arousal, then, these findings are enormously important. For example, they may help us to understand some of the psychological causes of gay-bashing. Some of the most startling data I’ve come across lately involve a 1998 survey of 500 straight males in the San Francisco, California area. Half of these men said they had acted aggressively in some way against homosexuals (and these were just the ones who admitted to such acts). And a third of those who hadn’t struck out in this manner against gay people said that they would assault or harass a “homosexual who made a pass at them.” If you missed the irony, this was in San Francisco—arguably one of the most “gay-friendly” places in the world!
See what we're tweeting about
73 Comments
Add CommentI've seen nature documentaries where monkeys get erections during combat. I don't think this is too atypical -- I'm not sure why. It could be that there is accidental bleed through from aggressive to sexual arousal, or it could be that erection has some sort of display value as a badge of maleness/testosterone/aggressiveness. I wouldn't hastily discard the hypothesis that aggressive arousal might lead to engorgement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...so, you're suggesting that homophobic men actually become sexually aroused by the thought of attacking a gay man? Hmmm...very interesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, now I guess, it's Is that abanana in your pocket, are you happy to be here, or are you just itchin for fight?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“We believe it is inaccurate to argue that spider phobics secretly desire spiders or that claustrophobics secretly like to be crammed into dark and tight spaces.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut can homophobia be considered a true "phobia"
They describe homophobia as " Here, homophobia was operationally defined as the degree of “dread experienced when placed in close quarters with a homosexual—basically, how comfortable or uncomfortable the person was in interacting with gay people"
Is claustrophobia the dread of close spaces? Is arachnophobia a dread of spiders? More like a fear. And homophobia doesn't seem like the 'fear' of gay people. If so, reactions wouldn't be severe dread, it would be fear, uncontrolled fear.
I feel it is only a phobia because people want to act like it's a phobia. It is the response to confusion and not understanding. They attack because they are not comfortable, for whatever reasons, self denial or not, not because they are crippled by fear.
Do you yell at a spider and make it feal unwanted, no most people run away or seperate themselves from the spider. We don't see that reaction out of homophobic people, we see bashing.
This article is interesting and seems to confirm what I believe and Freuid though. And my favorite part of the article:
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
the study didn't measure the amount of arrousal after attacking a gay person, but rather the exposure to the gay video stimuli. It would mean something totally different if they got arroused after attacking a gay person rather than watching gay porn.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree, if they were truely homophobic they would run away from them not bash them. They need to shun them in order to preserve their own false self image, because their true self they find repugnant!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFYI - Despite my repeated protests, my arachnophobic wife has never let one of the little eight-leggers survive!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this&.Or, is sexual arousal normally initiated via the parasympathetic outflow just like the flight or flight reactions aggression causes. This is no mystery! It is well documented. But trying to link this with homophobic/homosexual behaviors is quite a leap and pretty intellectually weak. This is not worthy of "Scientific American," it is but Hustler Magazine. You folks at the SciAm editorial board aught to be ashamed. Or do y0ou have some personal insight that you need to share with us. Then, try "O" as it is a more appropriate venue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHAHAHAHAHHAAAAA
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOops! On re-reading my post, I realized that I may have given the wrong impression. By "secret, twisted pervert", I mean ONLY that the person in question is alleged to be hiding their "true" nature because of some presumed neurosis - and that's ALL I mean. Sorry for carelessly using loaded terms in this discussion. I realize that this isn't helpful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen is a scientific article an editorial? That would be when the author starts to "share" his/her thoughts and feelings. As a pseudoscientific treatise this one is right up there with the 1950's cigarettes are good for you research. I guess, however, if the discovery cold fusion can make the pages of an important scientific journal then the skys the limit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, I am surprised to see this being promoted by SciAm and think it would be a lot more honest if it was labeled for what it appears to be - a confused man's struggle with his sexuality!
I dont think any gay people want to justify their behavior, they want not to have to justify it. It is natural after all...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot everything that is natural is right. Gay "researchers" have been striving mightily to convince themselves and the whole world that there is nothing wrong with their lifestyle. To me, this is rationalization at best. The fact that they want to silence those who publicly dissent turns a cultural curiosity into a chilling conspiracy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHomophobic conspiracy theories aside, what if homosexuality is discovered to be caused by a virus? And it can be "cured"? Should gays then take their pills? Should others make them? In nature there are lots of parallels for human homosexual behaviour, some maladaptive and some adaptive. Nature gives us no leads as to what a rational response should be - there's very definitely no 'ought' that can be extracted from this 'is'. At the same time I do wonder why the homophobic get so angry, vicious and bitter in their arguments when the topic arises - no one is asking them to "join the team". Is there any rational reason or even instinctive reason for the hatred? If there isn't, then deeply conflicting impulses seens a logical deduction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisqraal - your point that no "ought" can be defined by "is" is exactly the point: You cannot just look at nature and say, "This occurs naturally, therefore it is good and right." Think of the many human behaviors that we know to be wrong - all come naturally. More to the point, not every sexual behavior is right, no matter how "naturally" it comes. Further, your dismissive attitude and derogatory epithets ("homophobic") are exactly why people become frustrated with you. Homosexuals activists, pushing their agenda and steamrolling those who have legitimate and deep-seated objections, are provoking the conflict. I personally was happy to let matters lie before this attempted public normalization of homosexuality - I wasn't on any "gay-bashing" pogrom. Now, I must am pressed to defend my mere right to my scruples which, it is sneeringly alleged, represent a twisted self-loathing sickness rather than the high moral ground which I know them to be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know, OneEye. I agree the findings are ambiguous. But what's really interesting is how you're getting so worked up about these findings and spending so much time talking about these "twisted perverted" gay people. Say what you will, it's all clearly struck a nerve with you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, there's no "activism" here. The author doesn't say that ALL homophobic men are secretly gay, he says MANY are. The data in the first study speak for themselves. The point is that homophobic men are SIGNIFICANTLY more sexually aroused than non-homophobic men in response to gay porn. I think we're all waiting to hear your alternative theory for these findings?
Oh, and by the by, interesting name choice: you are aware of the phallic reference to "OneEye"? That's OK, I'm sure it was unintentional ;)
I agree with you. It is normal for a cow to eat her young when she senses that they are sickly. Humans dont do this as it is considered aberrant and inhumane. But, is that not their agenda& Crush morality so that anything I want to do is not a violation of mores , standards and laws. They will soon marry their own daughters, have sex with children. Wait, they do that already, dont they? Society does not approve so they want to change society. Science is their tool here and rhetoric is their mode. We are not fooled. They are sickly and society must control them for the good of us all. Who is they? &the perverts of the world. They have always been there but they have now gained status and recognition. How did we change so much? A Campaign for Change has the agenda. Dont take my word for it, watch for yourself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissnickers - the activism is demonstrated by the fact that dirty-minded "scientific" research is being done to try to "diagnose" the faulty psychology of "homophobes" - as if someone feeling strongly about their moral views were, in this particular case, mentally ill. How many other such tendentious studies are being conducted nowadays, in an attempt to normalize homosexuality and silence moral dissent? This study, a patent attempt to substantiate the tired old "latent homosexual" concoction, is a glaring example.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs far as properly interpreting the study, please go back and reread the article. The correct explanation for these "findings" - the one that doesn't cynically accuse the "homophobe" - is sketched and then carelessly discounted at the end. (Speaking of good reading skills, by the way - please go reread my posts, where you will clearly see that I never called homosexuals "twisted" or "perverted". That's your Freudian slip.)
And speaking of Freudianisms: I find your interpretation of my nick quite telling - typically libidinous thought patterns of a pro-gay activist. For the record, the nickname refers to a series of chemical injuries I experienced in my 20's. Today, it is also a testimony that I see all things now "through a glass, darkly", and make no claim to omniscience.
It continues to amaze me how much time, effort, money, and energy homosexuals are spending trying to prove that they have nothing to prove. Now, which was the troubled group again?
typical psuedo-science. Perhaps just the subject of sexuality is enough for a male to get aroused, I mean isn't it on our minds anyways.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPardon my out-of-cycle comment, but: Why is a "naturally-occurring" homosexual attraction here being justified while a naturally-occurring homosexual revulsion is considered some sort of sickness? After all, if we're all about being "natural" here, shouldn't we affirm and value the "homophobe" as much as we do the homosexual?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSounds right to me. I've always thought that about men who hate women or marry them and then beat them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL! With a name like yours I think you should know about protesting too much!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOneEye: You're right, you're certainly not omniscient. If you were you'd see that bigots like you (I'm assuming you're in your 50s or 60s, based on your recalcitrant tone) are irrelevant to the future of this issue. It's the youth who are changing things, your old fashioned stereotypes and moralistic self-righteousness is dying. And good riddance. Hey, let's focus on your comment: "Homosexuals activists, pushing their agenda and steamrolling those who have legitimate and deep-seated objections, are provoking the conflict." I'm all ears on hearing these legitimate and deep-seated objections of yours to two adults falling in love?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFunny how homophobic people assume their opponents are all gay. Persecution complex? I'm a straight man who just happens to know gay people and not feel repelled. I'm not going to stand idly by and let them be marginalised all over again. Humanity has had enough of ingroup/outgroup hatred and intolerance, and it's time we did something to tame that instinct, on principle. It's definitely natural to hate those of identified outgroups - we see intergroup/intragroup conflict along those lines amongst all the primates - and that's one instinctual reaction we need to tame as a species. Surely that's obvious to all reasonable people?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm straight and homophobephobe. However, does it make any difference?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissnickers - Just in case no one has told you yet - as soon as you start with the personal attacks, you have demonstrated that you are incapable of successfully arguing your case. (I particularly liked your "You're old, so you are bad and wrong" cant. For one thing, your guess about my age is wrong. For another thing, does it bother you to be an ageist bigot?)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to the little bit of substance in your post, I answer you thus: What's wrong with a brother and sister falling in love? What about a mother and her son? As long as they're adults, I mean. For that matter, what's wrong with a junior high teacher falling in love with one of her students?
qraal - When exactly did I say that you were gay? (I have been assuming, by your tone, that you were not.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to marginalization: I totally agree with you. If you are a person concerned with compassion and justice, and really want to help the oppressed, then you will take a stand with me against the pro-gay, anti-traditional putsch that the media is perpetrating on behalf of homosexual activists. Stand up against persecution, and for freedom of thought and speech! (In case you aren't clear about what I am talking about, read here: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/donors-court-case-2293365-threats-campaign . Plenty of other examples can be presented.)
OneEye, you're a paradox wrapped in an enigma. Why the stridency? How does it affect you personally? Directly?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisqraal - You forgot "wrapped in a mystery" (I assume you were quoting Churchill.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's my beef: My culture, my homeland, my society, is transforming itself morally into something I deplore. No-one has asked my opinion about this, and no-one seems to care. Thus, I am being marginalized.
More to the point, take "snickers" as an example: Here is a person who obviously considers me an enemy, and is eager to see the world rid of me and my ilk. (Whatever happened to that "tolerance" thing that was the spearhead of the gay-rights shaft?) The fact is that my culture is growing increasingly intolerant toward me and my values - ominously so. And no-one cares (at least, no-one with any say-so).
Frankly, although homosexuality disgusts me, I have never made an issue of it, never attacked anyone, never insulted anyone. I have loved gay men, and have shown them compassion and opened my arms to them (literally). Now, I am being marginalized and menaced because I have the temerity to say that their lifestyle is morally wrong. So what am I to do, except resist the oppression in the hopes that I can prevent what seems inevitable persecution?
That's how this affects me personally and directly.
(By the way, for the record, you are reading the "stridency" in. I'm quite calm and collected - and convinced.)
Oh, poor you, OneEye -- being persecuted for being a hatemonger. The injustice! Now that's rich. And as far as being an enigma, please. OneEye's about as simpleminded as they get. It all boils down to his confession that homosexuality disgusts him. Everything else he has to say is just post-hoc. He'll go on and on, just watch.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me get this straight, OneEye. Your "legitimate and deep-seated objections" to homosexuality is that two adults of the same sex falling in love is equivalent in your mind to a brother and sister or a teacher and student having sex? Wow. Are you serious? Something tells me you were never on the debate team back in high school.
You have "loved gay men?" Right. So stereotypical, just like a racist back in the 1960s saying, "Hey, I'm not a racist. I've got black friends! I just think they're going too far, making such a stink, asking for equal rights. But really I'm no racist!"
Why don't you go make love to your Anita Bryant poster.
This is way over the top. Really. A lot of the "articles" in SciAm are based on junk science but this one takes the cake. This is just a very thinly veiled attempt to justify a deviant lifestyle as "normal".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow is it that supposed straight males in prisons engaged in homosexual acts and relationships? Doesn't that proved anything? It happens in any prisons all over the world. It is a matter of fact that anyone have varying degree of sexual arousals or sexual attractions on the same sex. Otherwise, it will be difficult to tell which of our same sex is good looking than the other. I think that is what the author of this column is telling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Deviant lifestyle"? Who is this, Rick Warren?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is scientific evidence that mating within the 1st cousin status can lead to much higher birth defects in their offspring.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHomosexuals aren't hurting anyone in their practice. I don't even know where you get off bringing up the cows eating their sickly youth comparison. Cows don't have medicine. People rightfully put animals out of their misery when they are at the end of their life. We even can bring animals into the vet to get it done. Its public and private, and considered humane.
Bottom line is, these deep seeded hatred for homosexuals came out of discomfort and the inablity to understand. It got rooted back in time when procreation was a necessity to keep your specific group or sect alive and flourish. Now that the world is overpopulated, way beyond us being able to handle it, why not let two people who are in love adopt and take care of a kid needing parents. Most gay couples I know are better together than most straight mariages I see. 50% divorce rate!
Fact is, homosexuals are often have better morals than most straight people.
OneEye - you really are blind to what the gay movement is about. They aren't shoving anything in your face, the media is. No gay person wants to have sex in your living room, or invade any other aspect of your personal life.
" If you are a person concerned with compassion and justice, and really want to help the oppressed, then you will take a stand with me against the pro-gay, anti-traditional putsch that the media is perpetrating on behalf of homosexual activists. Stand up against persecution, and for freedom of thought and speech!"
Stand up for freedom!?! Ignorant. You are standing up for the freedom to deny freedom. Hypocritical. Honestly, you said you had nothing against them before they started to "push it in your face"? Were you really?
They are just tired of getting beaten and denied their constitutional rights. People came to this country to avoid persecution of beliefs, we were running away from people like you. Why don't you go to a country without real freedoms and then maybe you can have a reason to bash.
"Why don't you go make love to your Anita Bryant poster. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismmmm oranges....
"My culture, my homeland, my society, is transforming itself morally into something I deplore. No-one has asked my opinion about this, and no-one seems to care. Thus, I am being marginalized.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"
If you don't like it and you feel persecuted, then leave. This is a melting pot. We started this country with no rules for a reason, no one does care what you think, this country cannot care what one person thinks. you are being marginalized in the name of democracy and personal freedom. deal with it.
snickers - your condemnatory, disparaging, vitriolic posts are typical of the "tolerance and compassion" crowd. I can feel the love tonight! Apparently, you tolerate and affirm only those who agree with you. Those who don't, you attack and condemn. Hmmm. Who was the "hatemonger" again?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to my sense of disgust - it is natural and normal. I didn't choose it. I was born that way. Why do you protect the homosexual's "natural and normal" feelings (nonsense, but still...) and condemn mine? Don't I have a right to my feelings? And if homosexuals have the right to turn their feelings into public policy, why don't I?
Regarding "two adults in love" - apparently, you are the one who flunked debate class. I am asking you to explain why some kinds of "two adults falling in love" are valid and other kinds are not. Further, you will need to explain why you only allow adults to fall in love with adults (who are you to judge?), or why it should only be TWO adults who are allowed to fall in love with each other (why not three or seven or eight?)... or why I shouldn't fall in love with your spouse or significant other?
My contention is that your sense of sexual morality is just what you feel like at the moment - not based on anything in particular, just the natural outgrowth of a steady diet of propaganda. So then, why are you trying to inflict your unreasoned, knee-jerk morality on me and on my nation?
agenthucky - actually, I would prefer that YOU leave. I was here first.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFurther, you are one metaphor behind the times. The "melting pot" analogy is no longer used by the tolerance crowd because they worry that it might give the impression that the aim is one homogeneous culture, and they fear that. (Actually, that is what we should be aiming at, of course...) The preferred metaphor in current tolerance newspeak is "salad bowl", in which each diverse element is allowed to retain its identity while contributing to the whole. Hope this helps you stay current.
agenthucky - who said anything about procreation? It's clear that we're not talking about procreation, but about sex. Why shouldn't consanguine relatives engage in sexual relations as long as they take the necessary precautions to prevent progeny? Shouldn't two adults be allowed to fall in love?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, YES, homosexuals are hurting themselves and others. There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that the class of sexual addiction we call "homosexuality" is both destructive and communicable. Please stop reading homosexual propaganda and do the research. You have taken it upon yourself to be an advocate - now become an INFORMED advocate.
If you live in a small town there are always those rumors that that some of the biggest homophobes/sanctity of marriage men are gay and cheat on their wives with men. This somewhat supports that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually the metafor of the salad bowl and melting pot has been a debate in opinions for a while now, and I didn't get the notice that the US selected their representative.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd to quote you again:
"As to my sense of disgust - it is natural and normal. I didn't choose it. I was born that way. Why do you protect the homosexual's "natural and normal" feelings (nonsense, but still...) and condemn mine? Don't I have a right to my feelings? "
You certainly do have a right to your feelings. Which is why the US hasn't banned gay marriage bashing. What they HAVE banned is gay marriage. Just one example about how you complain about your right to do this and that, but nothing is stopping you from doing whatever you want. However, there are plenty of legislations stopping gay rights. They same right you enjoy, and enjoy defending.
You and everyone has a right to your feelings, but it is beyond you to say that you like your salad and all the culture that each item brings to the bowl, then tell tomatoes how to behave.
As far as homosexuals hurting themselves, go ask one of those gay people youve opened up your arms 'literally' to. Not one would say they are being abused or are sick. It is in your opinion that they are sick, not science or medicine. And if you want to know if someone is getting hurt, ask them, not someones biased opinion.
Whether you use the melting pot or the salad bowl analogy, each item has its own rights...the SAME rights.
I don't know how you can assume that you were here first, but you seem to be the one that doesn't like marginalization....so leave. I can stand the heat. I am willing to give into whatever to have personal freedom. Love is something I can enjoy, legally, so I am very confused why only certain people get a chance to experience that.
You are treating homosexuals like sick cats that don't know whats good or bad for them. Get real, you are not the decider if something is right/wrong, as you said you were born with those feelings, and not everyone was. What you were born with were the undeniable rights given to you as an American citizen, much like our gay population.
"who said anything about procreation? It's clear that we're not talking about procreation, but about sex. Why shouldn't consanguine relatives engage in sexual relations as long as they take the necessary precautions to prevent progeny? Shouldn't two adults be allowed to fall in love?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell I'll address the first point, I was referring to procreation because that is the biggest and oldest defense against gay sex. These fears were imbedded into man early on when this did matter, and it was considered the work of the devil. All entertaining, but none of it makes any matter now.
The second point that why shouldn't two family members be able to fall in love taken the precautions to prevent pregnancy. Well, I hate to break your biggest case, but there is in fact legislation in some states that allows family members to engage in love, even marriage, and all the things that come along with it as long as they take the permanent precautions. Something that gay people aren't even allowed to do. This, like gay marriage is only suported in certain states.
So, our government says, yes, anyone should have the right to a healthy consensual relationship, but denys/limits gay rights.
While someone wasn't right to assume you are older (although you seem to be sure you were here first and formost, before any gay person), they had a point in saying that the older opinions don't matter. The younger generation is the one fighting for right, and as the older generation dies off, the resistance to gay rights/evolution/science will shurley go with it. The only thing the older generation can do to keep their ancient beliefs alive is to limit the understanding of their offspring and create more ignorant midless people to keep the resistance up.
On and on, like I said. OneEye, if you really think that homosexuality is "communicable" than I've underestimated your ignorance. I realize you think you've got this all figured out, but you have a lot to learn,. The only thing that is communicable is the type of hatred you represent, in your case disguised as some sort of rational argument, in others as dumb rage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the world were just, which it isn't, you'd have a gay grandchild come to you one day and say: "Grandpa, I think I'm gay. What should I do?" Let me guess. You'd hug him and tell him you love him, then advise him to get married to some unlucky girl and lead the rest of his miserable life in hiding (ruining her life as well). Or maybe he should just spend his days completely alone without anybody to love, praying for God to cure him from his "dirty" desires? Or enter the priesthood and pretend he's asexual? Or, hey, maybe he ought to just blow his brains out? Heck, he's going to hell anyway, right?
What's RELLY sad is that It would probably never even occur to you to say, "You know what. I was wrong. Don't let anybody in this world tell you who to love." You'd probably lecture him on "consanguineous relations" and how it's no different than being gay, right? Yawn.
snickers is correct, regardless of who says its OK, or what laws are present in the land you live, no one can tell you who to love, regardless of whether it is accepted or not. And each case is individual and can't follow laws of someones logic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissnickers and agenthucky: Sorry about the brevity of this answer, but this is taking WAY too much time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNews flash 1: Marriage is not a civil right. It is a privilege granted by the government. The government reserves the right to refuse to marry whom they please, subject to existing law. So denying homosexuals the privilege of marriage is not denying them a basic human right. Personally, I would like to see the government get out of the marriage business altogether and return it to the common law - then homosexuals could stop pretending that they wanted the right to marry in order to score political points.
News flash 2: Contrary to your old-school hippie morality, people do not have a civil right to have sex as they please. The government rightly criminalizes inappropriate sexual behavior.
Special new flash for snickers: While you may choose to live in a Liberal ghetto, there is a growing contingent of young people in America who do not accept the 60's-era licentiousness foisted on them by the media machinery. It has been my privilege to help some of these young people develop a serious and functional ethic - an ethic which will allow them to avoid the collapsed and dissipate lives that are consuming much of our nation's youth.
(By the way, has anybody noticed how manipulative snickers is in trying to get the last word? What a control freak!)
"I was here first": For about 350 years, America's prevailing sexual ethic was monogamous heterosexuality. Then a bunch of drug-addled hippies decided they were going to improve the world. It didn't work. Now, it's time to undo all of that damage. One good way to start is to stop claiming that wrong is right - and especially, to help people escape the messes they've made of their lives by buying the hippie lie.
snickers and agenthucky, you guys like the sound of your own typing. Go ahead and have the last word.
Best,
Nemo
Okay, so THAT was really brusque and unpleasant. My sincere apologies! I don't mean to just blow you off like that. snickers and agenthucky, I have been enjoying the interchange, but I really don't have time to engage in constant tit-for-tat posts. I suspect that you don't, either. Nothing personal, and I do respect you, but this has got to end sometime, and it might as well be now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI will read your last posts on this subject line, but will not reply. You have the last word...
Or perhaps homophobics are simply heterosexual and dislike something they view as vulgar? That's another theory for you there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThweet, Poor fellow (?). Why do you insist on featuring these people. For the most part, except for Muslims, who stone them, these freaks have been accepted as a reality albeit an abberation and we no longer subject them to death nor do we osstracise them. Are YOU so homophobic you must constantly raise this issue? I think this magazine has increasingly more like Cosmo than any form of scientific news. Don't you have some obscure rag you can put this offal in?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGay rights. I have got to hire the spin doctor who came up with that term. People can't change thier age, nor can they change their skin color (unless you're Micheal Jackson), and without some serious reconstruction they can't change thier sex. Study after study has shown that people's sexual appitites change dramaticly with age and circumstance. There is no Sexual rights anywhere. Life liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. Doesn't mean you are entitled to achieve it. and none of those three mean you have the RIGHT to sex. Sex isn't mentioned or even a concideration by any of the founding fathers when they drafted the bill of rights. In short there is no "RIGHT" to be gay or to force your sexual deviancies on the rest of society. And yes it is a deviant lifestyle. Animals in the wild dont have sex so they can have offspring, they have sex because it feels good. Clearly the purpose of sex is to produce offspring which no one would do if sex wasn't so pleasurable. Homosexual couples can't by definition have offspring of thier own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClearly another liberal - minded pseudo-scientific theory written for the sole purpose of creating controversy. True scientific studies have found that people make decisions first, then rationalize them afterward. This explains alot of human behavior, deviant or otherwise - just because someone despises a behavior does not make them "a phobe". There is no reason to be "for" or "against" any issue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGentlemen, gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen. I don't think I've ever read such an animated discussion on Sci-Amer but what are you talking about? I don't think Mr. Bering's article was a referendum on homosexuality, but merely the account of some preliminary studies done on human sexual response, which certainly--if one assumes that all of you writing these comments are homo sapient sapient--should at least be as interesting as the mating rituals of birds and squirrels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor a magazine designed to be read by individuals interested in science, or indeed, scientists, I don't think I've head such unscientific phrases in a rather long time. The list is long, but I will make note of two: 1) "gay lifestyle". What gentlemen is that? Is there a "straight lifestyle" or does the majority population have to stand in line and wait a few years as when the word "homosexual" was coined in 1869? When will everyone else get a "straight lifestyle"? And is my manual in the mail?
Most of the people I know are straight and all of them a lifestyle, but I would be hard pressed to box them into a manual for life and insist that there is a "straight lifestyle"--if would absurd and foolish. And insulting to them.
And secondly, 2) "gay rights" I don't think that anything is being asked by self-identified "gay" activists than mere equal rights, or more plainly, civil rights. I don't think there is a movement to decorate every post office in the US with new "look" every year, or to mandate that a tax credit be given for proper taste in daily life. (Apologies, but I think you get my stereotype points.)
This discussion is conspicuous for its a-historical strain. As an cultural anthropologist I have the sad duty to note that generally speaking, in all places and all times with records, the evidence is that about 9% of any population exclusively sought emotional, spiritual and sexual satisfaction with their biological sex. (Let me leave asides issues of gender and the necessity to sire heirs while young.) Egypt, Greece, Rome, China, India, you name it. The biological argument due to these data is compelling.
From Teti of Dynasty VI in the Old Kingdom in Egypt, to Alexander the Great, to Francis Bacon, von Humboldt and the British general Montgomery in WWII, this hasn't changed. What has changed are societies' treatment of sexualities (and yes, one MUST use a plural). While Socrates could make sly jokes about cuddling up on a couch with a good looking Alcibiades, the issue was not that he was another man, but rather one of Eros and human control (Symposium). It is only recently in the millennia of human history--and largely in the West up to the end of the Ming in China--that an onus has been on homosexuality. It came with Christianity (aside from issues of gender conformity and certain religious cults.) Formerly, and certainly in the Greek world where the seminal advances in science were made, it was the favored pair bond.
I am rather disappointed that no one has noted this, being a science site, but as Dover noted in his Greek Homosexuality back in 1968, the first modern work to compile the data by a lauded scholar, that "...no single topic has the ability to make educated and intelligent men forget their training." (If anyone might ask--and given the tone of this discussion I rather think it probable--Dover was quite straight, in every way, being Head of St. Andrews for many years, a father, and to all accounts, rather happily married.)
Humanity sexuality is most like going to be among us for a rather long time. Let us just read the studies as they ploddingly come out (no pun here) and deal with the facts. I personally find intergenerational sexuality rather disturbing, but I know that in Polynesia, at the point of contact with the French in the late XVIII century, public sex between adult men and six or seven year old girls was a religious rite. As a scientist, I read the data, check the sources and endeavor not to read my own culture or (dis)taste into it. And having done work with transsexuals from other cultures, I do the same. (And transsexuals are in no way gay.) Due to my upbringing and sexuality, I may have once found it squeamish to be with them, or worse yet, be seen in public with them, but I now have a good comfort level and I can regard them as a fascinating group of our species as well as often admirable people with great courage. And certainly with gay friends, I don't presume anything of them other that like me, they are individuals with the same goals and often more complex problems caused by this rather primitive junction of our society and civil laws.
The problem is that homophobia is not a real phobia. It is a label for a socially acceptable prejudice. Also it is a blanket term for any form of anti-gay behavior or belief. For some this belief that homosexuality is wrong is socially taught for others it is taught by their religious beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor most of my life I was a devout Christian who believed that homosexuality was wrong. So was unmarried sex both explicitly forbidden in the scriptures. But I did not despise or loathe homosexuals they were simply engaged in a behavior that would bar them from being accepted by God. Now that I am an atheist I no longer see it as something wrong or twisted, just something I personally am not interested in.
But for others it is abhorrent, disgusting and so forth. Why do people (and generally straight males are the most vituperative about it) feel so strongly about something that when all is said and done doesn't even affect them? Throughout our culture sex has always been looked at as something bad, naughty, evil, something to be hidden or ashamed of. Anything to do with sex that is not considered "normal" greatly exaggerates these feelings. Couple that with a behavior that most main-stream religions see as "an abomination in the eyes of God" and it gets much worse.
OK but why are straight males so violent about it? Well looking at the ages of men who commit the most violent abuse (physical or verbal) and they are usually in their teens to mid or late 20's. This is a time when the hormones controlling both sexual desire and aggression are at their peak. Furthermore gay males are emotionally equated to damaged males or to females causing them to be perceived as vulnerable or weak and jet they do not have the socially ingrained protection that women have. Nor do they trigger the protective instincts that women do. This makes them a prime target for aggressive sexually maturing males looking to establish dominance.
These feelings of hatred can be further acerbated if any kind of arousal is triggered by homosexual thoughts or images. This can be caused by latent homosexual tendencies as the author suggests or simply the "forbidden fruit" response. Don't forget at this time males are in a state of high sexual appetite that takes very little to stimulate a reaction. If a reaction is triggered there is the added fear that they may indeed have latent tendencies and they certainly don't want to end up as part of a group that is so widely hated.
As for fear causing arousal. This is a state I experience when speeding on my motorcycle, rock climbing or even in situations of potential social embarrassment. So from personal experience I can tell you that that reaction is a valid possibility.
Trying to find any one cause of so-called homophobia is doomed to failure as the subject far too vague and complex to be covered by a single cause.
As for the issue of gay marriage this is something the state should butt out of. The state should only be involved if there is direct harm to an individual. How many people would want the state to go back to banning mixed race marriages? or Enforcing scriptural law regarding unmarried sex? Requiring parents to stone their own disobedient children at the city gates? Religious beliefs should never be coded in to law. Beliefs vary too widely and should not be forced onto others.
This same study, or one quite like it was done with women as well. They used a different device to measure blood flow in the vagina. While this information is interesting, making the leap of faith required to link arousal in men or women to sexual preferences for same, is a bit shaky. Sexuality is more complicated than the arousal of the parasympathetic nervous system. Arousal does not imply consent any more than a mother opening her mouth when spooning food into a baby intending to eat same food. We are empathetic and gregarious as a species, and often project ourselves into a scene involving others. The nervous system's arousal is part of this behavior. Also, it is questionable to base conclusions about "normal" behavior on "aberrant" behaviors. Mr. Bering should ask himself why women show vaginal arousal and increased lubrication when viewing rape scenes. Does this mean they secretly want to be raped?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorta like when my family found out about my cousin, when he was in his 20's and just back from the nam. "you just figured it out???" Look at all the politicians that have been outed after they voted against homosexuality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, go into the District of Columbia and to the Porn stores, they carry a very large selection of B & D, Spanking, ect. Mostly for those who like to receive. Guess what our politicians like.
Think of the number of uncertain words used here : may have something in common, males may secretly harbour, desires (whether they are consciously trying to deceive the world ... )exist).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisErotic arousal and free-will attraction are two completely different things !
jhboettcher while I generally do agree with your points. I will point out that I believe the analogy you used to be a bad one. Firstly even if its rape a rape scene its still a sex scene involving a male and a female and I assume straight females get aroused by porn although probably not to the extent males do. Secondly it is my personally belief that females are attracted to alpha males, what can be more alpha than a guy raping a girl. Back when humans lived in caves, I'm sure the alpha male (leader) was the one who was most admired by the females, he was the one with the most power in the group/ the one with the best social status/ the one best able to provide for any kids he may have/ one of those most likely to survive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes most of my ramblings have no scientific evidence, nevertheless if by the slightest chance my ramblings are true, it paints the picture that your analogy is flawed.
i like to be with youi like to be with youi like to be with youi like to be with youi like to be with youi like to be with youi like to be with youi like to be with youi like to be with youi like to be with youi like to be with youi like to be with youi like to be with youi like to be with youi like to be with you
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother possibility is that the homophobic group were less likely to have viewed that type of video before, and the "novelty" of it might have led to more arousal. I think there's a certain natural curiosity and arousal involved with seeing bizarre practices, even if you _really_ wouldn't want to be involved in them yourself....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPhobia means irrational fear. People that are branded as "homophobes" merely exhibit disgust with homosexuality, and, by extension, homosexuals. The disgust with homosexuality has been shown to be beneficial for reproduction, as the males are programmed to be sexually un-attracted to other males (completely futile for reproduction) and sexually attracted to females. As far as the exhibition of arousal? Human males get aroused by a lot of things, including animal sex. A penile erection is highly symbolic and suggestive of heterosexual sex. (If you see a hammer, does it mean you are attracted to a hammer, or do you think of what you can use it for (like pounding... nails? )
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this;-)
@One for Arlin: b.s., erm, not aware of anybody who'd get a hardon by looking at a hammer, nor animals humping.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@One for Arlin: plus, you seem to be missing the whole point of the study. If it's as simple as you say, then why is it only the homophobes getting erections and not the non-homophobes?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was too one homophobic teen... Now I am one happy married gay. Between that: 6 years of analysis !!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was too one homophobic teen. Now I am one happy married gay! Between that : 6 years of analysis !!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI thought this was fact and not just discovered new factor in why they protest too much...?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYeah, arousal is caused by the fight or flight responses. Have you never seen how aracnophobes get aroused around spiders? Or how if you lock a claustrophobic in a closet (how apropriate!) he'll get hard? I HATE ants, and weirdly I have never found myself getting wet when seeing them. Funny, huh?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHomophobics claim to find same-sex display of affection disgusting and revolting....not exactly things people get aroused by. I work with LGBT teens, and I see a fair amount of them say they used to harass more ''afeminate'' or openly gay men when they were younger and still in the closet, to try to prove to other ppl how ''macho'' and straight they were. I think we've seen way too many homophobic politicians out there who are later discovered to be gay, haven't we?
P.S: When reading abt gay bashing, I'm always reminded of Brazilian author Dalton Trevisan abt a murderer who killed a gay man with 16 shots:
''If one bullet was enough, who was he trying to kill with the other 15?''
This is September and I just posted the following after reading one of the most current articles by Jesse Bering. Somehow I missed this article about research regarding homophobia, homo-negativity, homo-haters, whatever. The worst of all the comments is that these articles are somehow not real science and so I post here, as I just posted in a separate article with the same a "this isn't really science"... we all need to interact with this science, yes, real scientific, no holds barred, get in there and study anything and everything, even our sexuality. If science can study the neural networks of the G-spot AND the neural networks of the GOD spot in our brains, what self-labeled roles have to do with donut holes can qualify, in my humble opinion. I just reread the article to make sure that a gay scientist was not accidently implying that bisexual men might tend to be in denial of their homosexual behaviors, thus somehow being less aware of their role in the transmission of HIV to their female partners (and their unborn children). But the goal of the research quoted, (yes, SCIENTIFIC research, all ye who think this deserves to be in a gay magazine, as it does; as well as any other magazine that aims to inform us all), makes it clear that the researchers are investigating any and all factors that might allow for further risks to the spread of disease, a noble goal of science. As for conjecture... which is defined as an unproven scientific theorum, and whose synonyms (of the noun) include theory, postulation, inference, and extrapolation and (of the verb) include infer, believe, THINK, (emphasis mine) and hypothesize... I'd say that the editors of Scientific American have done well by including Jesse Bering among their diverse and informative (if not fearless) contributors... take THAT all you nay sayers. 9/18/09...AND THIS INCLUDES ANY RESEARCH INTO HOMOPHOBIA or the inability of some to live and let live. I don't care if you hate me, my life style, who or how I love; just leave me alone, let me live in peace, my existence is no threat to you... and as for equal rights, I accord you the same. Go live your life style, (assuming you hurt no one else in the process), and even if I think you are x y or dizzgusting, I will protect your right to live in peace.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisForgive me for skimming the article but my question is:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the evolutionary purpose of homophobia? It seems that gay men would benefit hetero- men by taking them out of the mating partner competition pool.
Likewise, why do men often become aroused by female homosexual thoughts/images? It seems that gay females would cause greater competition among males for a smaller pool of willing females.
Perhaps these questions are better left to Freud than Darwin.
I just want to know one thing. what do they consider a moderate or definte reaction? 6-12 or over 12 doesnt really give me much of a clue. Can someone explain to me or more laymans terms what those reactions would be like.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no homophobia as such. What exists is a phobia of male femininity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor that matter, there is no separate category of 'men who like men' in reality. What exists is a category of 'third genders' who misdefine themselves in terms of "desire towards men."
And that is the real problem. And that is why the straight males -- who btw are not so because they are 'heterosexual' (they may, they may not be) ... but straight in reality represents the males with a strong male identity (as opposed to males with a female identity that third genders represent). And so Straight males hate 'desire between men' because of the social conspiracy that associates this desire with the 'third gender' category, with the invalid and misleading Western concept of 'homosexuality.'
If it wasn't for this false categorization, no 'straight' males would hide or be hateful of his own sexuality for men. For that matter, there'd hardly be exclusive heterosexuality anymore. Heterosexuality in our societies, especially in the western world is way too exaggerated, and forced upon men, as a precondition for giving the male 'social manhood.'
If only gays would stop calling themselves "men who like men" and start defining themselves as 'feminine gendered males' of whatever sexual orienatation.
Why are you guys pretending as if male sexuality is so socially freet that men are 'actually' free to do whatever they like with their bodies, and that 'sexual identities' are just sexual identities as they're defined formally, and that there are no other factors involved, no politics around male sexuality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe truth is that male sexuality is steeped in the politics of gender (of manhood and queerhood/ lack of manhood/ third gender). Unless, one shows exclusive and constant desire for women, a man is denied manhood. The history, biology, and contemporary status of 'gay' in the society makes it quite clear that gay is actually a group of 'third genders' -- of males who lack social manhood (and natural masculinity). Which male with a strong male identity would risk losing not only his position and status in the "race for manhood" (the competition that exists in every male peer-group, especially of youth), but his very identity as a 'man' (in the West, 'straight' identity) and be categorized with the 'half-males/half-females' (queers). Men don't really have a choice but to be heterosexual. In the West, freedom exists only for women. Real freedom, that is. Or for feminine gendered males who like men -- the gays.
And, for the record, unlike what the western science holds, there is hardly any male in this world, whether defined as 'gay' or 'straight' that doesn't have a strong sexuality for males. If sexuality at all defines manhood, its sexuality between men, rather than sexuality for women, which is far more limited in nature. That is why all the mechanisms to suppress male sexuality for men, esp. for the males with a strong male identity (called straight in the West) exists.
There’s a lot of intriguing stuff in this article -- as there is in the 2006 study -- but I find a major flaw in the argument: specifically, the assumption that erection equals sexual arousal or, more accurately, that only sexual arousal produces erections. Bering doubts, with what seems to be to be good reason, that anxiety does not often lead to erection, but I'm not at all convinced we're talking about what we commonly mean by "anxiety" when we talk about so-called homophobia. (And I'm the co-author of one of the scales that was, and continues to be, commonly used to measure homophobia: the Hudson/Ricketts IAH scale.) If it is true and can be replicated, the finding that male “homophobes'” units get bigger when they watch male-on-male porn may indicate aggression and anger rather than any of the sort of "sexy" feelings we associated with the very vague term "sexual arousal." Even "dread" isn't a good word (though it's one we used) because what is emotionally and neurologically taking place during homophobic reaction is immensely more complicated than that. In the meantime, we’ve spent decades arguing quite rightly that rape isn't about sex; and, if it isn’t about sex or being "turned on" in the colloquial sense of the phrase, how do we explain the fact that rapists usually (though certainly not always) get erections? Because aggression can, alone, lead to tumescence. Perhaps this is also a precise invitation to interrogate more fully what we mean by “sexual arousal,” because if someone doesn’t understand that hitting somebody can make your penis hard for all kinds of complicated reasons, whether or not you ever then put said erection into one or more orifices (or even have any desire to), I’d say he'd hasn't spent much time listening to what the the BDSM community has been saying for years about (controlled) aggression and sexuality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, oneeye, the point is that if someone wants to keep their gay side a secret, they might not self-report being aroused by gay porn now would they!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis isn't about simple disagreements. Two High School kids in New York State killed themselves last week for taunts of being gay (which were not substantiated one way or another). You want to talk about morally wrong- the kids that taunted these kids to death are morally wrong!
For some kids, they expect to be beaten up everyday for this...This is not moral. If these kids are hiding their own homosexual side by doing it, research should be done to help them so that they do not taunt other kids to death.
Simple as that. No propaganda.
I just wonder sometimes, when I see photos and video from the "gay pride" parades, with men wearing feather boas and thongs, carrying sex toys, and doing all manner of sexual pantomine.... Does anyone else think there would be less homophobia in the country if they didn't act that way? If they want to be accepted as equals, and surely they deserve that, aren't they setting the movement back by behaving in a way that most people in polite society do not behave, at least in public?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this