|
|
|
Dr Shari
Skeptic Friend
135 Posts |
 Posted - 02/12/2002 : 05:12:05
|
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 06:32:52 [Permalink]
|
My personal theory is that people are not really hating other people because of their sexual preferences.
Selfhate, fear, insecurities and stuff like that mostly selfcentered. In my experience only few people care enough for anybody other then themselves to invest enough emotion in them to really hate them.
There appear to be a number of resons that don't really have anything to do with the people being hated themselves.
1. The number one reason would probably the same reason that people hate those with other skin colore, natinality, religion and so on. Because it makes them feel better. I am one of US not one of those inferrior THEM no matter how much of failure I am, still inherntly better then THEM.
It can also can as a part of a much bigger set of ideologies that sets one appart from the rest.
2. There sure are a large number of people who hate homsexuals because they are affraid that they could be a traget of their sexual attractions.
Manly males and they have much greater aversion against homsexual males then lesbians.
I guess women are used to finding themselves unwanted traget of males lusts so they don't really care about the small additional attention they might recive from lesbians.
3. Then there are those cases who have problems being honest with their own sexualty. And just hate gays as a placeholder for what they hate about themselves.
Then there is the whole problem of major religions damming sex in general. Sex is something evil. Everybody has it but one should not draw to much attention to it, because it is a bad thing. Those who have sex diffrently draw attention to it, even worse they probably do it because that is the way the get the most fun out of it. And most of the belivers are envious of somebody enjoying themselves.
|
 |
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 07:38:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Then there is the whole problem of major religions damming sex in general. Sex is something evil. Everybody has it but one should not draw to much attention to it, because it is a bad thing. Those who have sex diffrently draw attention to it, even worse they probably do it because that is the way the get the most fun out of it. And most of the belivers are envious of somebody enjoying themselves.
IMO, as long as it don't hurt you and you have fun doing it, who gives a rat's butt what anyone else thinks? And, what has probably been said many times before, if'n you don't have to see/hear/taste/touch/smell it, don't worry about it.
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." -Buddha |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 07:46:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
IMO, as long as it don't hurt you and you have fun doing it, who gives a rat's butt what anyone else thinks?
Well if they kept their opinion to themselves, I would not see a problem ther either. Unfortuantly those homphobes have a tendency to let evryone know what they think and sometimes even act on it. Since most of us live in some sort of democracy we have to care what the majority thinks.
quote:
And, what has probably been said many times before, if'n you don't have to see/hear/taste/touch/smell it, don't worry about it.
Some people get upset if they even have to think about it. They tend to have a dirty imagination, too.
|
|
|
|
James
SFN Regular
USA
754 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 07:50:36 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
And, what has probably been said many times before, if'n you don't have to see/hear/taste/touch/smell it, don't worry about it.
Some people get upset if they even have to think about it. They tend to have a dirty imagination, too.
You say that like it's a bad thing.    
"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your common sense." -Buddha |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 11:06:17 [Permalink]
|
I'm not sure I've ever heard a convincing reason for why homosexuality is so widely condemned in so many societies.
Let me throw out two possibilities.
1. Simple tradition. Males are raised to fear the label "sissy" worse than almost anything; females likewise (though to a lesser degree) are taught that they must be girlish, not tomboys. This is self-reinforcing from generation to generation. What got it all started? Maybe we'll never know, but maybe it was...
2. Procreation. You'll often hear homophobes make statements like "it's unnatural". What they mean is, I think, that sex is the mechanism of procreation, and gay sex cannot produce offspring.
Of course, in the modern world, sex and making babies have been decoupled by the pill and other contraceptive techniques, so we no longer think of sex as being primarily for procreation. Even straight couples have sex-for-fun far more often than for conception.
But in the ancient world where our present-day culture had its roots, t'warn't so. In a small population, perhaps surrounded by dangerous, rival neighboring tribes, and in a time when half of all live births didn't survive to age two, successful reproduction was a high priority. A male who "wasted his seed" with another man, or a female who wouldn't allow herself to be impregnated, was a real problem.
It seems weird from a modern perspective, but perhaps in those times, a gay person was truly "letting down the side" by not contributing to the group's differential reproductive success. Thus perhaps the modern phobia has ancient roots in this "sociobiological" sense.
Today, I get the same feeling when I hear about some family with 12 kids. Hey, bozos, where do you get off making so many hungry humans to leech off the planet's resources? (The above comment does not apply to adoptive families, of course!)
...OK, thought of a third possibility. Most people are sexually attracted by members of the opposite sex. They feel neutral, or even repelled, by their own (at least when it comes to sexual contact). It's quite possible that this is "normal" and true in general for all sexual species, simply because species with such instincts may tend to out-compete those without.
If so, then for such a "normal" individual, contemplating the idea of having sex with someone of his or her own gender has a wired-in "creepy" feeling. Therefore, when he hears about someone who actually does such things, he gets that "revolted" sensation, and attaches it to the gay person.
In short, the straight person thinks, "I would never do something like that; it would make me feel ooky. Therefore somebody who does it must be ooky." That is... homophobia is a partial failure of empathy.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 12:39:54 [Permalink]
|
Very interesting. There are some theorys that homophobes are actually closet homosexuals, who for one reason or another are afraid to admit it to themselves. A University of Georgia study gave this theory some extra support, but is not the final word -http://skepdic.com/penilep.html
Now, from my experiance, I think that they have a good theory. But that's just ancedotal evidence.
Donnie B: Interesting, but how do you explain the fact that many straight men are aroused by lesbian sex?
However, I do know gay men who are rather grossed out by heterosexual sex, make of it what you will.
I think of sexual orientation as a continuation. (Which is what makes the rainbow symbol so appropriate, after all, a rainbow is simply a separation of the visual spectrum)
*Xev realizes how pedantic she sounds*
Right, that's another topic. 
Xev -Ad astra!- Bellringer |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 14:41:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Donnie B: Interesting, but how do you explain the fact that many straight men are aroused by lesbian sex?
Simple. We males are visual creatures, and we love looking at pretty, naked, sexually aroused women. Two of them at the same time, well! That's just more for your money!
Actually, I'd rather watch a lesbian couple making love than a heterosexual couple... all else being equal. (Might learn something...)
I think this fits pretty well with my idea #3: half-witted empathy. I can relate to a lesbian... naturally, she likes women; so do I. But those gay males, wanting to do it with other guys... . I could never do that. Never mind the fact that their feelings and responses don't jibe with mine... my empathy doesn't extend quite that far. I can project my own feelings into them, but not take the next step and grant them feelings of their own.
Possible? Maybe?
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 16:11:59 [Permalink]
|
Let me see if I can sell this sacred cow for a few magic beans.
I'm in San Francisco and here, as you well know, the Gay Community is a large and vocal segment of the population. I find that my Gay friends throw the term "Homophobic" around with such reckless abandon that it has become nothing but a meaningless insult.
One would think that people who had suffered from name calling as much as they have would not resort to it themselves at the first opportunity. But one would be mistaken.
To be phobic about something implies a mental illness. A baseless, unreasoning fear. However the people generally talked about as homophobic don't express fear at all. Rather they are showing disgust.
Charges that they are closet Homosexuals themselves are bizarre. That's like saying that people who are disgusted by nose picking must be secret bugger mongers. The charge in itself is anti-homosexual by its portraying of the accused as being in a negative light for being a homosexual.
To call people who do not suffer from phobias homophobic is as insulting as calling someone a fag.
Myself I find that there are any number of human activities that I find disgusting. Most of them are what have made Howard Stern rich. That does not make me Robin Quivers-phobic.
One thing I find disgusting is name calling. Ya hear that you S**theads?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 18:26:23 [Permalink]
|
Slater:
quote:
A baseless, unreasoning fear. However the people generally talked about as homophobic don't express fear at all. Rather they are showing disgust.
Well, that is because you are anti-semantic.
*Audience groans and throws tomatoes at Xev*
I disagree, I have observed fear. Take Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Blaming the 9/11 attacks on gays goes waaaaaaaaay beyond disgust.
I would say that the extremes of hatred that such people reach (violant and otherwise) do indicate fear more than disgust.
There is plenty that causes me to feel disgusted, but I don't hate it!
quote:
Charges that they are closet Homosexuals themselves are bizarre. That's like saying that people who are disgusted by nose picking must be secret bugger mongers.
But this goes beyond disgust, dosen't it?
Does mere disgust prompt a 'AIDS is God's punishment'? Does mere disgust cause violance against gays?
It goes beyond disgust.
Now is 'homophobic' being used inappropriatly? Probably. 'Racist', 'Misogynist', 'Misandrist', 'Anti-Semite', all are used as insults rather than descriptions on occasion. That does not invalidate any of the terms.
Donnie B: I stand corrected. But you can feel repulsion at the idea of having sex with another man, yet you do not hate gays.
I presume!
Xev -Ad astra!- Bellringer |
|
|
|
Zandermann
Skeptic Friend
USA
431 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 19:24:46 [Permalink]
|
I gotta admit that I've never really understood the attitude that is being referred to here as 'homophobia'.
Never have understood racism or sexism or other emotional biases either |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 19:26:11 [Permalink]
|
Okay, I'll give you that there actually are crazy people in this world.
However a more common use of the term Homophobic was used by my friend Dennis only this morning. He said that the reason his car had been towed was that the owner of the driveway he was blocking (whom he never met or even saw) was homophobic.
It's name calling plain and simple.
If it's wrong to use against Gays then it's wrong to use against Straights. Nobody is supposed to have special privileges.
Look at this comment by Dr Shari Then there are the men who feel threatened by being around gay men in case they are being "checked out".
They feel threatened, as in they are fearful? That's pretty insulting. How is it she assumes they are threatened and not just disgusted?
But then if people were disgusted by my habits I would rather think that they were afraid of me than grossed out by me. It puts me in a more flattering light.
"Oh, you are threatened when I talk with my mouth full of tunafish salad and drop it on my shirt. You must be a lunchaphobic. My lack of table manners don't effect you so you must be frightened of me to disapprove of them." That sounds a lot better than, "Oh you are revolted because I'm a disgusting slob."
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
Edited by - slater on 02/12/2002 19:27:18 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 19:59:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think of sexual orientation as a continuation. (Which is what makes the rainbow symbol so appropriate, after all, a rainbow is simply a separation of the visual spectrum)
I think what you mean is 'continuum' and I agree. I think the distribution would look a little wonky, though, with heterosexuality at one extreme and homosexuality at the other. The curve would be severely front-loaded toward hetero-, tapering off toward homo-. There is a formula for such a curve but I can't begin to come up with it right now. Though I have nothing but speculation without a sexual-orientation-meter, I suspect we might see a relatively large amount of weakly or mildly bisexual individuals. It might also be interesting to see how the curve has shifted (if at all but I would assume it has) over the last few centuries. Again, I speculate we would see an increase in strong homosexuality, most coming in the last 100 years.
Also, I think Slater is correct. Phobics almost universally try to avoid their fear stimulus and when exposed to it, react with obvious anxiety rather than anger. Phobics are also generally aware that their fear is irrational or excessive. The reason calling hatred of homosexuals 'homophobia' is a bad idea is that most phobias are treatable and it is unclear whether 'homophobia' would be. Moreover, it is unlikely that it would be treatable by traditional means such as stepwise exposure, cognitive-behavioral therapy or drugs like benzodiazipines or anti-depressants. I think it better to recognize hatred of homosexuals as similar to extreme racism or sexism.
Laws of Thermodynamics:
1. You cannot win.
2. You cannot break even.
3. You cannot stop playing the game.
Edited by - PhDreamer on 02/12/2002 20:17:22 |
|
|
|
Xev
Skeptic Friend
USA
329 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 20:21:03 [Permalink]
|
Actually, PHdreamer, 'continuation' means "Xev really needs coffee"
It would be really interesting to watch the way people express sexual orientation changes over time.
For instance, I easily fit the 'bisexual' label, but in another, less tolerent age, I could easily pass for straight, probably even to myself.
Perhaps (*Xev throws an idea out of left field*) the labels we give our orientation serve the purpose of regulating population.
In times of scarcity, bisexuals (and many homosexuals) can shack up with people of the same sex, and keep population levels down. But when resources are plentiful, we have kids.
Okey, I agree now. 'Homophobia' is a bad label. 'Homophobes' do not react the same way as people with phobias. So, what to call them?
'Homo-repulsed' works with the people Slater describes, merely repelled by the thought of homosexual sex.
*Shrugs*
I have no problem with that.
Now, as for the extremly anti-homosexual....
Can we stick with 'fuckwits'?
Huked on fonix wurked 4 me!
Edited by - Xev on 02/12/2002 20:41:09 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 02/12/2002 : 21:58:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Actually, PHdreamer, 'continuation' means "Xev really needs coffee"
I admit I had my evening espresso too late and I'm still wide awake.
quote:
It would be really interesting to watch the way people express sexual orientation changes over time.
For instance, I easily fit the 'bisexual' label, but in another, less tolerent age, I could easily pass for straight, probably even to myself.
Gee whiz, Xev, I guess we hardly know ye
quote:
Perhaps (*Xev throws an idea out of left field*) the labels we give our orientation serve the purpose of regulating population.
In times of scarcity, bisexuals (and many homosexuals) can shack up with people of the same sex, and keep population levels down. But when resources are plentiful, we have kids.
This is interesting. Assuming sexual orientation has a significant genetic component, there ought to be some selection pressure that, all else being equal, selects strongly against homosexuality. Since all else is never equal, I suspect there may be some population dynamic, such as you suggest, that keeps homosexuality from being eliminated. I had always considered that homosexuals, until very recently, were socially pressured to behave as heterosexuals and were therefore more likely to have children than had they acted purely on sexual impulse. But I can't rule out what you suggest as well.
quote:
Okey, I agree now. 'Homophobia' is a bad label. 'Homophobes' do not react the same way as people with phobias. So, what to call them?
'Homo-repulsed' works with the people Slater describes, merely repelled by the thought of homosexual sex.
I'm not sure that it needs a specific label, other than to make sure the media sound bites are sufficiently short.
quote:
Now, as for the extremly anti-homosexual....
Can we stick with 'fuckwits'?
Why not? We need to call someone a fuckwit or else the word might disappear from the vernacular and I kinda like it.
Laws of Thermodynamics:
1. You cannot win.
2. You cannot break even.
3. You cannot stop playing the game. |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 02/13/2002 : 08:48:34 [Permalink]
|
I'm not an expert in this area, but I am not aware that the percentage of gays in the population shows any historic trend at all.
However, the percentage of acknowledged homosexuals may well be higher today than in the less-tolerant past.
As to the term "homophobe", I agree with the consensus; it's a poor choice of terminology. Maybe something like "homoist", paralleling the terms "racist" and "sexist"? "sexualorientationist" doesn't quite cut it... but homoist sounds a bit strange... like a cross between a tramp and a woodwind player...
Hmmm... "gayist"? Ugh, yuck.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
