Once Again, Science Discovers the Obvious

[Tuckerfan]

Homophobes are more likely to be gay.

Homophobia is more pronounced in individuals with an unacknowledged attraction to the same sex and who grew up with authoritarian parents who forbade such desires, a series of psychology studies demonstrates. The study is the first to document the role that both parenting and sexual orientation play in the formation of intense and visceral fear of homosexuals, including self-reported homophobic attitudes, discriminatory bias, implicit hostility towards gays, and endorsement of anti-gay policies. Conducted by a team from the University of Rochester, the University of Essex, England, and the University of California in Santa Barbara, the research will be published the April issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

<insert Claude Rains "Shocked!" quote here.>

Its getting to the point where I'm wondering if PALATR when some homophobe gets caught with a mouthful of cock is really the right thing to do. Its starting to sound like these folks are dangerously mentally ill, and that if they don't get help accepting the fact that they are gay, they're a real menace to themselves and society as a whole in the same manner a suicidal serial killer is.

[Mr. Buttons]

To me, it seems like they're a menace to society for the most part.... until their gay side is revealed/goes public. That's the 1-7 days where the claws come out and they're as dangerous as a serial killer. It's like cornering an animal for that time period.

[stormie]

Aww, they is just sad ppl. It would not be a problem if we didn't let them make policy!

ps, now that it is science, it is true. before, not so much

[Argyle Sock]

It's not a surprise. Every time I hear an anti-gay preacher telling me how I have to guard against the temptation to suck a dick, I think "Dude. I'm not tempted. Maybe you should ask yourself why you are."

[stormie]

I've never . . actually . . heard that. Um, well, don't socks get everywhere!

[iampunha]

Originally Posted by Argyle Sock

It's not a surprise. Every time I hear an anti-gay preacher telling me how I have to guard against the temptation to suck a dick, I think "Dude. I'm not tempted. Maybe you should ask yourself why you are."

No joke. We had a guy write/plagiarize a letter to the editor about a month ago, and I kept wanting to ask him if he was secretly gay and trying to fight the desire to go all Larry Craig on someone.

When I responded (by showing where he had plagiarized, recycled stuff from his other letters and misquoted the Bible -- using something about divorce to claim Jesus ever said anything about being gay), he asked, based on my misleading and inaccurate scientific reasoning (note that I used no science), if I was a practicing homosexual.

Two kinds of people ask that, and one of them is looking ahead to Saturday night.

[Mr. Buttons]

Originally Posted by Argyle Sock

It's not a surprise. Every time I hear an anti-gay preacher telling me how I have to guard against the temptation to suck a dick, I think "Dude. I'm not tempted. Maybe you should ask yourself why you are."

You're very wise for a sock. It's not like 90% of who they're preaching to were thinking about it to begin with. Projecting onto to others and stuff.

[Guinastasia]

This is news?

[Argyle Sock]

Originally Posted by stormie

I've never . . actually . . heard that. Um, well, don't socks get everywhere!

Socks are not responsible for what teenage boys do with us. That's non-consensual, and we don't like to talk about it, except in our support groups.

[Pere]

Despite the snark, this is not actually obvious in some quarters and I appreciate the researchers' work in establishing some science on the point.

[bufftabby]

Wasn't there a previous study about this, involving electrodes hooked to the wieners of guys watching gay porn and measuring their biological responses? I could swear I heard of this years ago.

[Dragonlady]

Originally Posted by bufftabby

Wasn't there a previous study about this, involving electrodes hooked to the wieners of guys watching gay porn and measuring their biological responses? I could swear I heard of this years ago.

I think that was part of a "curing teh gay" treatment program.
But I remember it, too.

[iampunha]

Originally Posted by bufftabby

Wasn't there a previous study about this, involving electrodes hooked to the wieners of guys watching gay porn and measuring their biological responses? I could swear I heard of this years ago.

Something similar ...

Nothing else is sufficiently easy to find just now, but I can't help but think other studies are out there.

[Pere]

Sure, there have been studies on similar or related aspects. The latest sounds like it went more into psychological background, family history and so forth.

Rigorous science always involves multiple studies from different angles, to explore hypotheses, confirm results, filter out researcher bias.

[bufftabby]

Yeah, 'punha, that's the one I was thinking of.

[Uthrecht]

I'll take a small disagreement with the top part of the OP. There is a difference between having same-sex attractions and desires, and being homosexual. Otherwise I'd agree that there's nothing terribly surprising in the revelation that those who loudly decry things perceived as moral failings would have an attraction to them.

Originally Posted by iampunha

if I was a practicing homosexual.

As opposed to a secular homosexual?

[iampunha]

Originally Posted by Uthrecht

As opposed to a secular homosexual?

The thought in some religious circles (Catholic, some Baptist, nothing much more conservative than that and not a lot more liberal) is that if you are gay and celibate, things are not so bad in terms of your soul etc. The issue is when you get out there mixing it up with men -- that's when things get thorny. The people who talk about practicing homosexuals being the real bad ones are also the ones who believe sincerely in loving the sinner but hating the sin. And I think that's about as far as I want to go with that in this forum.

I elected not to respond to his question, largely because I tend to avoid talking to unknown men about my sex life, but boy if I didn't spend a solid half hour thinking up fun ways to retort.

[Pere]

Originally Posted by Uthrecht

I'll take a small disagreement with the top part of the OP. There is a difference between having same-sex attractions and desires, and being homosexual.

Is there? What does "homosexual" mean, if not what the word itself literally says?

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

Is there? What does "homosexual" mean, if not what the word itself literally says?

I'll agree that it means what the word literally says. However, there is room between the two, unless you believe that bisexuality is a myth.

[bufftabby]

Bi-/pan-sexual people are not homosexual, despite having an attraction to the same gender.

[Pere]

Oh, I see. No, of course bisexuality isn't a myth; it is even possibly arguable that most people are bisexual to some degree. One way to interpret bisexuality is simply as the expression of hetero- and homosexuality in the same person.

[Pere]

Originally Posted by bufftabby

Bi-/pan-sexual people are not homosexual, despite having an attraction to the same gender.

I'm aware of this viewpoint, but it has never been clear how this could be objectively distinguished from the description I just mentioned.

[Uthrecht]

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

One way to interpret bisexuality is simply as the expression of hetero- and homosexuality in the same person.

Okay, fair enough.

[bufftabby]

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

I'm aware of this viewpoint, but it has never been clear how this could be objectively distinguished from the description I just mentioned.

I don't know that it can; I was merely responding to your response to uthrecht's response to your response. Or something.

[iampunha]

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

I'm aware of this viewpoint, but it has never been clear how this could be objectively distinguished from the description I just mentioned.

To me, and consistent with 90 percent of the nuanced definitions I have seen of the sexuality spectrum:

Heterosexual: Attracted exclusively, or practically exclusively, to members of the opposite sex.
Homosexual: Attracted exclusively, or practically exclusively, to members of the same sex.

Since bisexual people are not attracted only to either sex, we are not heter or homo. We are something else, which is why we have a word for ourselves and everything

As for how you distinguish it from what you mentioned, I don't understand how mutual exclusives are supposed to combine and make an inclusive. You're taking A but not B and B but not A and that's supposed to make A and B? No, it makes something impossible -- A but not B AND B but not A. Well, you can't have not B and B coexisting, and the same with not A and A. You either are or aren't attracted to men, even if only very few. Just so, you either are or aren't attracted to even whatever very small number of women.

This is why sexuality is considered on a spectrum as opposed to hetero and homo combining (for Captain Fabulous, or something) -- or, at least, it was on a spectrum back when I was following the research. Have things changed in the last four years?

[Ken S.]

It would appear then, that the cure for homophobia is dong. Lots and lots of dong.

[bufftabby]

I smoke two dongs in the morning
I smoke two dongs at night
I smoke two dongs in the afternoon
And it makes me feel all right
I smoke two dongs in time of peace
I smoke two dongs in time of war
I smoke two dongs before I smoke two dongs
And then I smoke two more

[Pere]

Originally Posted by iampunha

Heterosexual: Attracted exclusively, or practically exclusively, to members of the opposite sex.
Homosexual: Attracted exclusively, or practically exclusively, to members of the same sex.

Since bisexual people are not attracted only to either sex, we are not heter or homo. We are something else...
...
This is why sexuality is considered on a spectrum as opposed to hetero and homo combining...

These seem like inherently contradictory ideas: a spectrum versus multiple exclusive categories.

Isn't it more consistent with a spectrum concept to say that "true" or "absolute" hetero- and homosexuality are just endpoints (towards which some portion of the population clusters), and that bisexual feeling and practice are scattered through the broad territory where the two tendencies coincide to varying degrees?

Making a point of strictly classifying bisexuality as neither rather than both strikes me as a matter of identity politics* more than biology. (Whether the political objectives of identity politics are, in context, laudable is perhaps another matter, which I am not here addressing.)


* FWIW, the same could be said for certain militant self-identified homosexuals who deride any sexual interest or contact in the other gender as being a sign poserhood, or something. "Real queers are disgusted by [gender]!" With some reflection, you'd think it would be clear that this logic actually legitimizes "straight" revulsion at homosexuality.