What is being homophobic?

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

As a straight privileged male, you have never had to deal with the fact that not everyone's sexuality is like yours.

Oh God, why did you have to ruin your entire opinion with that phrase.

OT: Okay OP, you're a little homophobic and it's not a natural thing. Don't worry though, it's not really a problem unless you act on it and make it difficult to be homosexual near you. You'll change your opinion soon enough.

 

[TAGM]

See, I think that the whole thing of Homophobia verses Gay Hate-crime works a bit like this:

Homophobia is You having some sort of negative attitude against gays. As much as you might want to not dislike gays, you intrinsically do.

Gay Hate-Crime is doing something to gays 'cause they're gay. Murder, assault, theft, you know, crimes.

See, what you've got now is Homophobia. BUT, you're actively trying to suppress it, and it isn't moving to hate-crime. In other words, the only negative reactions you have are the intrinsic ones that you can't control. You can try and suppress them, maybe even succeed, but the fact of the matter is it's something that's happening even as you're actively not wanting it. I don't think there's a court in the world that would punish you for that much. (Or I would hope not, anyway.)

If you were going out punching gays in the face when they held hands, yeah, I'd start to have a problem, and the courts would too. But that's because punching people is more controllable, and it isn't a victimless crime like having homophobic thoughts but keeping them to yourself is.

In other words? Yep, you're homophobic, but it's beyond your control and you're not acting on the thoughts beyond trying to suppress them and avoid having them, and anyone who says you deserve punishment for that, well... I can't agree with them, at least. I'm not saying you should stop trying to suppress the feelings or anything, but don't beat yourself up if your attempts fail. You're fighting against your natural reactions, and they're hard as fuck to change sometimes.

 

[101flyboy]

I don't mind two guys kissing, or two girls kissing, or a guy and a girl kissing. Until it gets passionate... Then they should definitely get a room, but that goes for all couples.

If you're truly that disgusted by homosexuality, maybe you're in denial?

People who hate gays the most often turn out to be gay themselves.

I'm not saying you are, by the way.

Yup, the facts don't lie. And the fact you and several other straight guys here have said they don't care about same-sex kissing should be reason enough to make it obvious that if you do, then you have an individual problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Homophobic? Maybe You?re Gay
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/homophobic-maybe-youre-gay.html?_r=0

WHY are political and religious figures who campaign against gay rights so often implicated in sexual encounters with same-sex partners?

In recent years, Ted Haggard, an evangelical leader who preached that homosexuality was a sin, resigned after a scandal involving a former male prostitute; Larry Craig, a United States senator who opposed including sexual orientation in hate-crime legislation, was arrested on suspicion of lewd conduct in a men?s bathroom; and Glenn Murphy Jr., a leader of the Young Republican National Convention and an opponent of same-sex marriage, pleaded guilty to a lesser charge after being accused of sexually assaulting another man.

One theory is that homosexual urges, when repressed out of shame or fear, can be expressed as homophobia. Freud famously called this process a ?reaction formation? ? the angry battle against the outward symbol of feelings that are inwardly being stifled. Even Mr. Haggard seemed to endorse this idea when, apologizing after his scandal for his anti-gay rhetoric, he said, ?I think I was partially so vehement because of my own war.?

It?s a compelling theory ? and now there is scientific reason to believe it. In this month?s issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, we and our fellow researchers provide empirical evidence that homophobia can result, at least in part, from the suppression of same-sex desire.

Our paper describes six studies conducted in the United States and Germany involving 784 university students. Participants rated their sexual orientation on a 10-point scale, ranging from gay to straight. Then they took a computer-administered test designed to measure their implicit sexual orientation. In the test, the participants were shown images and words indicative of hetero- and homosexuality (pictures of same-sex and straight couples, words like ?homosexual? and ?gay?) and were asked to sort them into the appropriate category, gay or straight, as quickly as possible. The computer measured their reaction times.

The twist was that before each word and image appeared, the word ?me? or ?other? was flashed on the screen for 35 milliseconds ? long enough for participants to subliminally process the word but short enough that they could not consciously see it. The theory here, known as semantic association, is that when ?me? precedes words or images that reflect your sexual orientation (for example, heterosexual images for a straight person), you will sort these images into the correct category faster than when ?me? precedes words or images that are incongruent with your sexual orientation (for example, homosexual images for a straight person). This technique, adapted from similar tests used to assess attitudes like subconscious racial bias, reliably distinguishes between self-identified straight individuals and those who self-identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual.

Using this methodology we identified a subgroup of participants who, despite self-identifying as highly straight, indicated some level of same-sex attraction (that is, they associated ?me? with gay-related words and pictures faster than they associated ?me? with straight-related words and pictures). Over 20 percent of self-described highly straight individuals showed this discrepancy.

Notably, these ?discrepant? individuals were also significantly more likely than other participants to favor anti-gay policies; to be willing to assign significantly harsher punishments to perpetrators of petty crimes if they were presumed to be homosexual; and to express greater implicit hostility toward gay subjects (also measured with the help of subliminal priming). Thus our research suggests that some who oppose homosexuality do tacitly harbor same-sex attraction.

What leads to this repression? We found that participants who reported having supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation and less susceptible to homophobia. Individuals whose sexual identity was at odds with their implicit sexual attraction were much more frequently raised by parents perceived to be controlling, less accepting and more prejudiced against homosexuals.

It?s important to stress the obvious: Not all those who campaign against gay men and lesbians secretly feel same-sex attractions. But at least some who oppose homosexuality are likely to be individuals struggling against parts of themselves, having themselves been victims of oppression and lack of acceptance. The costs are great, not only for the targets of anti-gay efforts but also often for the perpetrators. We would do well to remember that all involved deserve our compassion.

 

[101flyboy]

I hate the homophobe=gay connection because it's sort of self-aggrandizing but I've seen it happen too many times and there are too many studies showing the exact same things to deny there is a connection. There is, at the very least, a clear cut connection between insecurity with one's identity and homophobia.

 

[101flyboy]

See, I think that the whole thing of Homophobia verses Gay Hate-crime works a bit like this:

Homophobia is You having some sort of negative attitude against gays. As much as you might want to not dislike gays, you intrinsically do.

Gay Hate-Crime is doing something to gays 'cause they're gay. Murder, assault, theft, you know, crimes.

See, what you've got now is Homophobia. BUT, you're actively trying to suppress it, and it isn't moving to hate-crime. In other words, the only negative reactions you have are the intrinsic ones that you can't control. You can try and suppress them, maybe even succeed, but the fact of the matter is it's something that's happening even as you're actively not wanting it. I don't think there's a court in the world that would punish you for that much. (Or I would hope not, anyway.)

If you were going out punching gays in the face when they held hands, yeah, I'd start to have a problem, and the courts would too. But that's because punching people is more controllable, and it isn't a victimless crime like having homophobic thoughts but keeping them to yourself is.

In other words? Yep, you're homophobic, but it's beyond your control and you're not acting on the thoughts beyond trying to suppress them and avoid having them, and anyone who says you deserve punishment for that, well... I can't agree with them, at least.

This is a good post. Except for one thing............I do think it's in your control. Not necessarily the fact people are indoctrinated into being homophobia, but it can be eliminated. That is something that can be controlled and repression in itself is controlling it and oftentimes leads to a deletion of homophobia because you just because used to thinking a certain way and your thought processes working a certain way. But as long as you admit that homophobia is wrong and you don't harm non-heterosexual individuals and impose your homophobia onto them, then no-one can do anything about it and no-one would need to, because it's not an issue in the first place.

 

[Jenvas1306]

People have natural, instinctive reactions to certain situations, and some of them are unpleasant or negative. As long as they don't make important decisions off of the back of such behaviour or treat their disgust as universal/valid, keeping it to themselves, I don't see a problem.

well, I would say that disgust is mostly a learned reaction and not necessarily a natural one, especially in this case.
Natural disgust is probably more about the smell of food that has gone bad or feces, things that could make us sick. I highly doubt that being disgusted by the sight of display of affection between individuals of the same gender would ever increase chances of survival.

For me there isnt much difference if its a gay, lesbian or hetero couple who is kissing or what else, but I'm certainly also not especially attracted to watching either of them.

 

[TJC]

There are several degrees of homophobia, honestly.

I respect your honesty and I'm sorry whatever occurred in your childhood has left scars. I disagree, though, with you more or less saying low level/moderate homophobia is acceptable. It is not acceptable whatsoever. It's unhealthy, to the homophobe, to homosexual persons, and to society. Very unhealthy. We should all strive to better ourselves in the end and that means working at admitting to yourself you have internalized issues you need to deal with.

You do realise that you're coming off as more of a bigot than the supposedly homophobic people you're spouting about? They're made uncomfortable by gay acts of affection, but they are perfectly willing and happy to ignore that minor feeling of discomfort for the sake of the homosexual people involved. That seems reasonable to me.

Whereas what you're saying is that these people ought to change what is essentially, to them, a gut reaction. Whether that reaction is caused by an innate psychological aversion or societal indoctrination, it is still going to be really fucking difficult to get rid of it completely. And you're saying they should do that anyway, giving absolutely no reason why? "It's unhealthy" does not qualify as a reason because there is no backup whatsoever to that claim.

You would do well to accept something closer to this philosophy:

Here's my question: Is harmless homophobia alright?

Of course. Harmless homophobia is, tautologically, harmless. If something hurts no-one, but helps a person find happiness/comfort, then there is nothing wrong with it. Someone finding me and my fiancée to be an unsettling concept has as much right to that feeling as we have to be in love. I'm not going to stop them if they don't stop me; live and let live, etc.

Otherwise you're just causing a problem for other people. You're being intolerant, in other words. Tolerance does not mean being a blank slate with absolutely no preferences or aversions. In an ideal world, yes, we'd aim for something like this, but the fact of the matter is that human beings do not work like that. So what tolerance means, in the real world, is letting other people do what they want to do in spite of whatever preferences or aversions you might have.

No... no no no no no
Tolerance does NOT mean tolerating the intolerance of others. Never has, never should be and only bigots try to hide their spiteful feelings behind demands of tolerance from other people. My parents are bigots. They claim that they'll support my choice of partner no matter what but "y'know it would be nice if you didn't bring a black girl because... well just because." Sure, they'd never ACT upon that racism. They'd never actively try to beat down black people, or use their non-existent influence to make lives for black people harder. So it's perfectly "harmless" racism. Does that make it right? Hell no and I call them out on that bullshit every single time. Same thing for misogyny, same thing for homophobia. You don't get brownie points for not being a total asshole towards certain groups.

No matter how you try to justify it (it's my opinion, I'm hurting no one, you have to tolerate me) bigotry is bigotry, even if it's silent. Flyboy has done nothing but calling everyone out on that (very nifty debating skills by the way, kudos). He's not denying you your opinion, he's not stopping you from saying anything, he's just pointing out that irrational feelings of disgust because of internal projection are kinda dick moves.

You're right with one thing, though. Human are never completely unbiased. Probably never will be. That doesn't, however, excuse anything. If the civil rights movement taught us anything, society as a whole can change. It takes time and it might seem like we'll never ever get there but just because the situation is shitty right now, that shouldn't stop us from striving for an ideal. Nothing stifles positive change more than "eh, no one's getting hurt so why bother?" from a large amount of people.

 

[101flyboy]

You do realise that you're coming off as more of a bigot than the supposedly homophobic people you're spouting about? They're made uncomfortable by gay acts of affection, but they are perfectly willing and happy to ignore that minor feeling of discomfort for the sake of the homosexual people involved. That seems reasonable to me.

It is reasonable. I never said it wasn't. Homophobia in general isn't an issue until it's made one so as long as a person doesn't make it one, it's not a concern. However, the words "uncomfortable" have not been used. The words used have been unnatural and disgusting. Finding affection between same-sex couples uncomfortable, while irrational in itself, is generally something a person can work through. The way to stop being discomforted is by becoming comfortable. It takes time but the person is making an effort.

Calling same-sex affection, and homosexuality in general, disgusting and unnatural? No. It is not bigoted to call that bullshit out. Some things are right and some things are wrong. That is wrong.

Whereas what you're saying is that these people ought to change what is essentially, to them, a gut reaction. Whether that reaction is caused by an innate psychological aversion or societal indoctrination, it is still going to be really fucking difficult to get rid of it completely.

It's honestly, legitimately, not as difficult as people think it is. It's not *that* difficult because it's happening every day in the world around us. People becoming increasingly comfortable with homosexuality. Why? Because they OPENED their minds.

That's the point I've been making. You shouldn't want to feel discomfort around friends because their love lives or they showing affection with mates makes you squeamish. No-one should want that. This isn't a two-way street type deal. It's understandable to be uncomfortable with homosexuality given we all have grown up in a homophobic world, but it's not a right way of thinking, either, it's harmful to the person who feels that way.

And you're saying they should do that anyway, giving absolutely no reason why? "It's unhealthy" does not qualify as a reason because there is no backup whatsoever to that claim.

So it's not unhealthy to more or less dread your friends/family showing affection towards their mate because they're same-sex oriented? It's not at all a problem that basic same-sex affection, which is increasingly common in the USA at least, causes you to avert your eyes and borderline panic? That's a rational response? No.

Otherwise you're just causing a problem for other people. You're being intolerant, in other words. Tolerance does not mean being a blank slate with absolutely no preferences or aversions. In an ideal world, yes, we'd aim for something like this, but the fact of the matter is that human beings do not work like that. So what tolerance means, in the real world, is letting other people do what they want to do in spite of whatever preferences or aversions you might have.

That's respect. Not tolerance. Not hitting a man or not throwing up on them when you see them kissing a guy (I know, extreme examples, just making a point) is NOT an accomplishment, so that needs to be made clear. It is NOT a cause for celebration, and it is NOT anything to be proud of, because the underlying issue still exists.

Bad behaviors are bad behaviors. You can respect the fact people have their views yet not in any way think it's OK for them to have those views. Ignorance, insecurity, isn't good, and there is no point in calling it good.

The point is, if you are respectful, and you don't make your problems my problem, then everything is fine, and that's what has been said throughout the thread. But clearly, that isn't happening, hence there is a problem. When you have posters saying "I can't help but look away or give a dirty look" or "It's unnatural" or "I voted for traditional marriage", then you know that this is much more about a true dislike of homosexuality than anything else. Not for everyone, but several here. And unless you call it out, and challenge it, the cycle continues.

If a person made a "I find heterosexual kissing disgusting" thread, what would the responses be? Oh yeah, threads like this are barely ever made. Let's call it what it is. And I by no means am attacking you, but let's stop being dense.

 

[101flyboy]

It can easily be said this thread is intolerant. So why are we talking about tolerance? This thread began with someone saying he finds male homosexuality gross and fetishizes female-female intercourse. So homophobia and some subtle misogyny, quite frankly. If you want to promote "tolerance", then why do we have threads like this stating homosexuality is gross? Or people calling homosexuality disgusting and unnatural? Then saying "I'm tolerant............I have gay friends." Even when SEVERAL straight MEN have said it does not matter to them who kisses who.

Can we drop the excuse making and blame game and take responsibility? I'll do it, you do it, we all need to do it. Don't run to the excuse locker to justify yourself; that does nothing but expose you.

 

[Jenvas1306]

You are so smart I bet you believe everythign you say is true wait probably not you probably think some crazy stuff about people I bet alot of what you think about other people is the stuff in your head leaking out into the world you might not want that to happen because then you look crazy.

Isnt a discussion automatically lost of you get personal? Ad Hominem, is the latin term, if I recall correctly.

 

[generals3]

But you don't find it pleasant because they're unattractive. And that's actually, you know, something qualifiable, to a certain extent. It's at least something you have a reason for. You can at least back that up with reason. Can you do so with same-sex couples? No you cannot. You're saying, they are a same-sex couple, thus unnatural, thus gross, thus effectively wrong. That's an abstract way of thinking, not something solid like "they're ugly", something you can point out and see. So although you're not a bigot and I don't wish to have you think I believe you are, you're not truly accepting. You still ultimately have the "I accept the fact you're gay, but not your gayness" mentality. You're happy they're happy, if it makes them happy, live and let live, as you said before. That's still not acceptance. It's conditional acceptance at the most.

But then again..............it's good enough. I'm not going to force you to go the extra mile. It's good enough because you're not impeding on our lives. You respect our lives. That's a good thing. Respect given, respect you get. So that's sort of how I see it. It's good enough but not ideal.

How can i not do the same with same sex couples? I don't consider men attractive at all, how is that different from considering an ugly girl not attractive?

Gay isn't a sexual preference, it's an immutable orientation, hence it's not about taste. Taste indicates preference. Few choose to be gay. Few choose to be straight. It's an attraction, you're ATTRACTION is towards women. Then you have taste regarding what women you're interested in. That's taste, not liking to see two unattractive people kiss is a taste thing. Not "homosexuality is unnatural and not normal and I find 2 guys kissing disgusting." That's not taste. That's a train of thought. Based on essentially nothing. That's why it's homophobia, and why homophobia is classified as irrational.

Tastes can be very immutable. My orientation is in a sense a key determinant of my taste. And my attraction is not towards all women, just like it is not towards any males.

Actually the problem I have is that you are determined to knowing why i don't like seeing two men frenching better than myself. In a sense I find it rather pretentious you would know me better than myself. The only person who could make such claims is my shrink (if i ever were to have one). You could be right, but i'm not convinced. I doubt you have sufficient knowledge of Psychology and my mind to make such claims with enough certainty.

 

[hooblabla6262]

Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings towards homosexual people, or people who are identified as being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.
Last time I checked, disgust was negative.

So yes, that would make you homophobic. You have an irrational fear, or disgust, of gay men.
And yet, not of gay woman. Why is that?

You seem to think it goes something like this. That straight men like gay woman and not gay men, and that straight woman like gay men and not gay woman. That's silly. Don't justify your intolerance, m'kay?

I could try to determine why you personally find acts of affection between two men disgusting, but there are usually a number of reasons and I don't know you on a personal level.

My advice? Try to show a little more maturity and rational behavior in those situations. Also, try to be around more gay men, so that the sight can "normalize" for you.

Or be homophobic, your call.

 

[101flyboy]

No, it is NOT a false analogy.

It is, and essentially stomping your feet will not change that, but I'll go along with it.

When seeking to emulate the feeling of disgust one might have at observing one thing they know is not wrong but still causes them pause has parallels between both.

Gay is not a thing. Snails for the purpose of eating is a thing. You're eating that *thing*, which happens to be a snail. In this case, this is about gay. And you not liking same-sex interaction between men. You don't like snails because it's a thing you don't connect towards eating. That's an actual quantifiable reason to not like something.

You don't like two men kissing because it's two men. There is nothing in that. It would be one thing to say "I don't like two men kissing, because men have more saliva" or "two men with beards kissing is weird, that looks like it would be super rough on their skin"........something of that sort. No. It's I don't like it, it's two men. There is ZERO quantifiable reasoning in that. When you have no similar feeling towards two women and a man and a woman doing the very same thing.

And actually, holding hands and sex came into the picture when it was brought up. The OP brought up hands holding and YOU brought up sex. It all comes down to insecurity of homosexuality and thus it all is on the table.

Do not just call "logical fallacy" without explaining WHY it is a logical fallacy. Both involve humans partaking in an action deemed strange (or maybe the better term is "queer") by society. Both spawn a sense of involuntary revolution. Both do not directly harm the viewer, participant or any part of society as a whole. Please explain how this is a false analogy.

Because you have zero reason to have such an irrational view towards same-sex kissing. Because you've been culturally brainwashed. Hell, you can say you've been culturally brainwashed into not liking snail as food because you only connect it to living sea life. But snails aren't human beings you have to associate with on a daily basis. So let's stop acting as if a gay man is comparable to a snail.

 

[The White Hunter]

Tell a homophobic person they are afraid of gays and they will go all macho and claim they aren't afraid, they are usually just prejudiced assholes where people of the same gender getting married would have zero impact on their lives but feel the need to cry about something that doesn't affect them in any real shape or form.

This.

OT: Ehhh, I'm bi, I don't like seeing two guys get off in public. I don't like seeing anyone do that crap in pbulic tbh, I don't need to see it and will usually attempt to ignore it as best I can.

 

[Treblaine]

Remember, Phobia doesn't mean "fear" that's just the single english word that is closest to the term.

Phobia is more than a fear, the fundamental aspect of a phobia is that it is dysfunctional and unreasonable.

Phobia is more like "severe aversion". Someone who has arachnophobia isn't just afraid of spiders like a sissy cowards, THEY HATE THEM! When they see a spider they want to crush it. It's completely unreasonable, they don't have such violent aversion to other small invertebrates like flies or ants.

That's what homophobia is: a sudden, irrational and paranoid over reaction to the appearance of same sex affection

It's not "fear" like "OMG! there's a giant bear in a theatre, run away", it's more like:

"Oh fuck, there's a giant spider on that seat over there"

or

"Oh fuck, There's two fags on the seats over there."

And I must add that Homophobia is NOT an accurate scientific term.

For one, Homo means Mankind, Homos means "the same". The illusion is in the term "Homosexual" it should be "homossexual" the "S" on the end is hidden.

But even if it was "homosphobia" that would still only be fear of things that are the same, and doesn't address how this well known phenomenon of how people react to men being sexually intimate with other men, it normally is very different to seeing two women being sexually intimate. If you are going to go greek, do all the say.

But none the less, "Homophobic" is a term that has stuck, even though the "Homo" prefix technically implies it's a fear of mankind, it's somewhat acceptable as "Homo" has become a term used for gay men, though hardly the most appropriate.

TLDR:

You know what arachnophobia is? It's that but the same reaction to seeing guys making out.

 

[maninahat]

People have natural, instinctive reactions to certain situations, and some of them are unpleasant or negative. As long as they don't make important decisions off of the back of such behaviour or treat their disgust as universal/valid, keeping it to themselves, I don't see a problem.

well, I would say that disgust is mostly a learned reaction and not necessarily a natural one, especially in this case.
Natural disgust is probably more about the smell of food that has gone bad or feces, things that could make us sick. I highly doubt that being disgusted by the sight of display of affection between individuals of the same gender would ever increase chances of survival.

For me there isnt much difference if its a gay, lesbian or hetero couple who is kissing or what else, but I'm certainly also not especially attracted to watching either of them.

Okay, that's true. Ammend "natural, instinctive" to "ingrained and automatic".

 

[dvd_72]

You know, I thought on this recently. I don't have a problem with homosexuals as they are, but overt displays of physical affection by them .... bugs me more than with heterosexual or lesbian couples. Thing is, I believe it to have something to do with my tendency to put myself in the shoes of people I observe. The thought of taking part in homosexual activities gives me the exact same uncomfortable feeling as I get when I observe these overt displays of affection.

I do believe that where I homosexual I'd have the same feeling of discomfort if I where to see overt displays of affection by a heterosexual couple (unless I put myself in the woman's shoes) or lesbian couple. That's just the way I think I am.