doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.105.3.440
I’ve always assumed this (and assumed that other people assumed this), because if you talk to homophobes they’ll eventually say something like “it’s a choice!” because it’s a choice for them. It’s not a choice for me because gay porn doesn’t turn me on – and if it did I wouldn’t care anyway because that’s how I was raised. But it DOES turns them on, AND they were raised in an environment where this is THE WORST THING EVER, so it upsets them and they get all irrational and punchy (lesson learned: DO NOT discuss this theory with a homophobe.)
TLDR; IMHO Homophobes who think orientation is a choice are closeted gays because logic.
It would be nice to see a better study. Interesting if one hasn’t been done in all this time…
It’s always important in science to do the experiment or study, even if you’re pretty sure you already know the answer.
Sometimes, the result will be surprisingly counter-intuitive. And other times, like in this study, it confirms what seems blatantly obvious.
What could it possibly mean when a man who identifies as heterosexual feels threatened by the mere existence of homosexual men? What could it mean???
I always assumed that homophobia is about a subconscious fear of spreading diseases and stuff, as that’s more common in gay people by a lot.
Don’t conflate promiscuity with homosexuality. There are plenty of gay people who are monogamous and who are no more likely to spread disease than anybody else. And there are plenty of promiscuous heterosexual people who are spreading diseases.
Also, you shouldn’t apologize for this bigotry by saying it’s subconscious. This is learned behavior.
you’re right, i should have been more careful about this.
i just contacted an old friend of mine who had that view, and he too says that he’s changed his mind about this and no longer sees it that way.
Homophobes: resist those evil urges, don’t give it to the gay sex, you can do it just say no…
The rest of us: uh, who’s gonna tell them
Homophobes: “We can’t legalize gay marriage! The birth rate would collapse! If men could marry men, then what reasonable man would ever choose to marry a disgusting, weak, woman over a strong, virile, muscular, sweaty, musky, oily, maaaannnnnn…”
The rest of us: Dude. Bro. Dude.
If you’re scared enough, even wiping your ass is gay.
That’s outright disgusting.
If you need to regularly scratch your anus, go see a doctor.
Also, even if you do need to scratch your anus, why wouldn’t you be able to eat with your hands? SURELY you sanitize them properly RIGHT? RIGHT?!
Eat with the right, touch anus with the left and always wash hands before you eat. Developed cultures have done this for ages. And they have clean bumholes because they wash instead of only smearing with toilet paper. That shit is disgusting.
Washing can also help against the itchiness. As well as non-synthetic underwear. If those don’t help, do indeed see a doctor.
People who think like this don’t wash their hands after going to the toilet, so of course it’s disgusting for them.
I really don’t like the idea of citing this study. It’s always this same one from the 90s, and if it were acurate I expect the results would have been reproduced more. It’s also not clear that the results indicate what the paper says. There’s other reasons than sexual arousal that could explain the results. It could be they’re imagining the scenario and are axious or disgusted by it. There’s this paper that indicates homophobia is usually caused by fear or hate.
I don’t like the idea of putting the blame for homophobia on closeted queer people. It’s seems extremely likely to me that most homophobic people are straight, since most people are straight. Also we should respect other people’s own identification instead of trying to force labels on people, even if they’re bigots.
I always felt like that study from the 90s is missing part of the picture. Like, it’s less ‘closeted gay people’ that are the problem, and it’s more the people who are closeted because it was beaten into them at a young age that being gay means they deserve the worst of the worst.
I think you’re spot on with fear being the root cause, and we really have done a good job at making people afraid of their own sexuality.
If you disagree with the science, perhaps you should do your own study?
Nah, nope, nuh-uh, that’s not how science works. A person’s concerns about the methodology or conclusions of a particular study are not invalid just because they haven’t run their own experiments.
It’s pretty easy for even a layperson to question this particular study, for a few reasons:
- The sample sizes are very small
- Some men can get erections/aroused if the wind blows the wrong way, or even for no reason at all - putting porn in front of someone and expecting them not to become aroused is a dubious assumption at best
- Using some external test to determine someone’s sexuality, instead of using the person’s self-identification, goes against the last 30 years of progress we’ve made in gender and sexuality studies
- The conclusion of the study may indicate some level of homophobic or anti-homosexual bias
Don’t gatekeep good critical thinking. Good critical thinking is the only thing you ever need to question any scientific study.
Someone should repeat the study. That’s all I’m saying. If the criticism is that the study was too small or done too long ago, or whatever. The anti-science crowd are the ones who reason away the results of science with no basis of fact. If you disagree with the facts, it is your responsibility to disprove them.
No, what you said was “if you disagree with the science, perhaps you should do your own study”.
“Disagree with the science” is a disingenuous oversimplification bordering on nonsensical. People are calling into question the methods of the study, and the conclusions reached by the scientists interpreting the data. All of which can be accomplished with good critical thinking, and all of which is part of the scientific process. We’re not “disagreeing with the science”. We don’t need to repeat this experiment or run our own to be able to point out that it looks like there are flaws in this study - we just need to have good critical thinking skills.
If you disagree with the facts, it is your responsibility to disprove them.
What facts? Are you implying that the content of a scientific study becomes “fact” simply because a scientist publishes it? Because that’s wrong, and any published scientist will tell you as much.
Ah, thank you for quoting my words back to me. Now kindly fuck off.
No u
This seems kind of obvious to me honestly. Like if you weren’t worried that you would ‘turn gay’, why would you give a single shit about what other men do in their bedrooms? It just goes to show how even in our ‘enlightened’ age that there is still a terrible stigma associated with being gay among certain groups. Ignorance and fear is part of it but religion plays a big part as well.
I have a friend who ‘admitted’ to me that he was gay as if he were telling me he was a pedo or a murderer. Of course I told him that I dgaf, but it mattered to him. He’s a devout Catholic and has been tortured by his sexuality since before I knew him (30 years). He has even enrolled himself into a couple of those ‘Pray the Gay Away’ camps. It’s amazing how willing people are to follow a God who would put them through something like that.
I used to work with a religious guy who started this whole “Homosexuality is a choice” bit. I said “You think you could just choose to be gay?” and to his credit he admitted that he could. He’s more honest than a lot of closeted homophobes, usually that question makes them backtrack their position, but he’s too devout to realize that homosexuality isn’t always a boolean and he didn’t have a choice in his sexuality anymore than my friend had.
my theory is that most homosexuals are bi, specifically because then the idea that they could turn gay is logical
my theory is that most homosexuals are bi
Guessing you meant “homophobes”
yes
So interesting thing here: both groups were aroused at heterosexual and lesbian stimuli.
The homophobic ones responded to the homosexual stimuli.
The guys were bi. Sort of explains why they argue “everyone chooses to be gay or straight.” Because they have decided they have to.
This also explains the more-frequent-than-i-enjoy conversation about how “no, there really isn’t a celebrity I’d go gay for.”
I feel like bisexuality is way more common than what we see. And if anything, I feel like the reason why so many women are more likely bi or willing to experiment vs men is literally just the bullshit stigma against being seen as gay.
And this may just be my experience, but being bisexual isn’t as easy as just choosing one or the other. The problem is that if you repress that much of your sexuality it only grows more… Intense. And sometimes more depraved, which is never a good thing. And I feel like that’s why a lot of those men end up getting caught doing “gay” things but it’s never just normal stuff. It’s always super crazy shit they get caught doing because it’s been repressed for so long that they make awful impulse decisions on feelings they’ve been ignoring for years. Like holding in your anger for 30 years and then going absolutely fucking mental when your coworker takes your parking spot.
Funny, but the sample size? Would like to see a larger study (probably would show the same results).
I also wonder if they considered bi individuals in the non-homophobic group.
If these are easily answered by reading the paper, I’ll see it now, when I actually read it.
Bi - the invisible sexual orientation.
Glad that Lower Decks has a bi protagonist. Its really sad that bisexual people just seem to be completely invisible within the broader culture.
I have not watched it. I love me some star trek, but haven’t really gotten into the “new” ones. Mainly because I need to pirate them, and haven’t yet.
It is a good point on bi individuals being somewhat invisible. It seems like most people just assume their orientation by the person they’re with, or people they most commonly “go for”.
Shit, you could go through the political news and find more than 35.
Most of what I learned about LGBTQ came from homophobes. The ones who would not shut up about it.
For example when I didn’t know that rainbows were associated with the community. I had friend school over one time. He saw a blanket with a rainbow stripe pattern. He basically had a gay panic meltdown. He was so certain we were a family of closeted gays.
So anyways later on he got a degree from a bible college or something. And he joined an evangelical church. One where they travel around to city streets around preaching from megaphones. Kind of like that Westboro Baptist thing.
In our early 20s he sexually assault me. I found out later from another guy we went to school with that he also forced himself on that guy too.
He’s not the only person I’ve known like this but certainly the most crazy one.
If there’s any true to the saying that gays rub their identity in everyone’s face. Then it’s the homophobe ones. It’s got to be a massive projection. It’s like they’re trying to tell the world but it manifests as some kind of self-hate in denial or something.
The rubbing it in your face bit always got me. It sounds like something a jealous person would say. Like why do they get to suck dick and I can’t!
Attraction to women doesn’t make people not misogynist.
Uuh that’s a very difficult thing.
It’s like wearing agressive perfume full of hormomes. It might cause somebody to get an erection but it’s still hella uncomfortable and annoying. Not really consensual and i see why it pisses people off.
Is this why Republican senators keep getting caught kissin’ with other men in public restrooms?
I mean grindr always reports an increase in traffic around the republican conventions.
35 people makes it a useless study.
it was 64 people. edit: and also, even 29 or something like this is a lot, assuming that they are selected kind of randomly and not all belong to the same social group etc. If only 3 showed a reaction like described, sure. We need more data. but with a hitrate of 100%, what do you expect to happen if you 10x the number?
