Homophobic? Maybe You’re Gay

[BigAppleBucky]

I considered adding this to the Christian-gay thread, but decided it was a worthy topic of its own.

***

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

. . . the piece mentions several instances . . .

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.

* * * *
It’s a compelling theory — and now there is scientific reason to believe it.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/op...-gay.html?_r=1

[Malacandra]

Very glad you brought this up as, somewhat surprisingly, this topic has never been addressed on these boards before.

[mister nyx]

That study appears to have used subliminal messages as part of its methodology; I'm definitely not a psychologist but I was under the impression that in general the idea that quickly flashed messages can be subconsciously recognized was generally not really favored anymore.

Alternative theory: it's the examples of people being obviously hypocritical that make the news. How many people could have even named Ted Haggard before that national news story? The great majority of straight fundamentalist preachers out aren't news stories, so we just hear the juicy cases. Hell, Ted Haggard was fairly friendly towards gay people by the standards of fundamentalist preachers, from what I understand.

In fact, we'd see some public figures who are anti-gay outed even if the overall percentage of them who are gay were lower than the general population (and I suspect it probably is, because lots of gay people raised in fundamentalist Christianity end up rejecting it).

So this study is interesting, and I bet there are some people who are anti-gay because they're trying to reject their own same-sex attractions. But I don't know that there are enough that they represent a large percentage of homophobes. A few news stories about anti-gay preachers and politicians being outed doesn't mean there's necessarily any phenomenon to explain, any more than a few news stories about mothers killing their children would represent a trend rather than a small number of aberrant incidents.

[Tamex]

I thought this thread was going to be about this song.

[Giles]

Well, this thread might have some relevance to the topic. It even mentions the same experiment.

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

That study appears to have used subliminal messages as part of its methodology; I'm definitely not a psychologist but I was under the impression that in general the idea that quickly flashed messages can be subconsciously recognized was generally not really favored anymore.

No evidence has been presented that flashing something on the screen too short to register consciously is able to register subconsciously, so subliminal messaging does not work.

The Master Speaks.

And again.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Musicat

No evidence has been presented that flashing something on the screen too short to register consciously is able to register subconsciously, so subliminal messaging does not work.

The Master Speaks.

And again.

Are you agreeing with me? The first link only briefly mentions effectiveness, but it seems to agree with my point that it doesn't work. The second link is about subtle images hidden in pictures (things like the arrow in the FedEx logo), which doesn't really relate to this study's methodology at all unless I'm missing something.

[Odesio]

In the 1990s the gayest show on television was The 700 Club. Honestly, I saw more portrayals on homosexuality on Pat Robertson's show than I did in most mainstream television shows. What got me to really thinking that some of those anti-Gay conservative Christian types might be gay was from reading some of their articles. I wish I could provide a cite but it was a long time ago and I don't even remember what publication it was.

The long and the short of it was that homosexuals can lure straight people to their side because they're so good at pleasing other men. Seriously. I think some of those folks are so deep in the closet. They think that homosexuality is wrong but they've got these urges they can't explain. They're good Christians though. As good Christians, if they have these temptations then every other man must be going through the same thing.

[Mosier]

I don't think all conservative anti-gay people are closet homosexuals, just the ones that talk about how you should resist urges or temptations. Straight people don't think of homosexuality as a temptation that needs to be fought.

[grude]

Originally Posted by Mosier

I don't think all conservative anti-gay people are closet homosexuals, just the ones that talk about how you should resist urges or temptations. Straight people don't think of homosexuality as a temptation that needs to be fought.

Bingo, if someone is ranting about the temptation of homosexuality, that every straight person is standing on this precipice just barely holding on.......yea that isn't how most people roll.

Also I've met plenty of people who hate gays but I didn't think were actually gay, because they usually say it is gross or wrong and thats all they comment. Some though are so obsessed with homosexuality they think about men having sex with each other more than anyone else, expect weirdly lurid comments about erect penises entering male rectums and that is ho........er gross very gross.

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Are you agreeing with me? The first link only briefly mentions effectiveness, but it seems to agree with my point that it doesn't work. The second link is about subtle images hidden in pictures (things like the arrow in the FedEx logo), which doesn't really relate to this study's methodology at all unless I'm missing something.

You're right, Cecil's 2nd link isn't as directly related. it's the first link that debunks the idea of subliminal advertising. It doesn't work.

[Rune]

And if you are an anti-fascist, you are probably, at least in part, a fascist. And if you are misogynic, you are probably a suffering from a grave case of gynephilia. If you don't like Sarah Palin, you're probably a closet Republican. Many of those around these parts.

[John Mace]

From the article in the OP:

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.

Well, I think we already had empirical evidence for that.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by Rune

And if you are an anti-fascist, you are probably, at least in part, a fascist. And if you are misogynic, you are probably a suffering from a grave case of gynephilia. If you don't like Sarah Palin, you're probably a closet Republican. Many of those around these parts.

Originally Posted by John Mace

Well, I think we already had empirical evidence for that.

Rune, I sense sarcasm. I take it your throwaway counterhypotheses have just as much studies and empirical evidence behind them as the protesting-too-much variety of homophobia?

[Otara]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_stimuli

The Master spoke in 1987 and 1977 which is a wee while ago. They've found subliminal stimuli does 'work' but not for things like advertising, as explained in the link.

This is a new study, the one in the other link was from a fair while ago too, and one thing interesting about it was the lack of research since.

Of course it pretty much confirms what we 'know' ie that some people are taught to deny thier own sexuality and others arent.

Otara

[Bam Boo Gut]

Originally Posted by grude

Also I've met plenty of people who hate gays but I didn't think were actually gay, because they usually say it is gross or wrong and thats all they comment. Some though are so obsessed with homosexuality they think about men having sex with each other more than anyone else, expect weirdly lurid comments about erect penises entering male rectums and that is ho........er gross very gross.

These are the ones you can shut up with the homophobe = homosexual thing. I don't know if it changes their views, but it does shut them up.

[BigAppleBucky]

Originally Posted by Malacandra

Very glad you brought this up as, somewhat surprisingly, this topic has never been addressed on these boards before.

So the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

I searched this board and the great debate board thinking the subject wouldn't have been on the election board or one of the "trivial" boards.

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by Rune

And if you are an anti-fascist, you are probably, at least in part, a fascist.

Maybe if the reason you're anti-fascist is because you believe that fascism is so tempting and attractive, and that everyone would vote fascist if they were given a choice, so people have to be taught to resist the temptation of choosing the fascist lifestyle...

[gamerunknown]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Hell, Ted Haggard was fairly friendly towards gay people by the standards of fundamentalist preachers, from what I understand.

It's more that in retrospect he was quite obviously gay and projecting.

There are plenty of studies using briefly presented data to measure almost instant responses. For instance, there's a study involving presenting letters in rapid succession to measure the shortest gap in recognising two different letters. I think studies on racial bias have involved presenting faces for short periods and asking people to make quick judgements. Still consciously available, but too fast to deliberate AFAIK.

[Hamlet]

If I ever get a pulpit from which to spread my views, I'm going to seriously condemn sex with supermodels.

[MEBuckner]

Originally Posted by Odesio

In the 1990s the gayest show on television was The 700 Club. Honestly, I saw more portrayals on homosexuality on Pat Robertson's show than I did in most mainstream television shows. What got me to really thinking that some of those anti-Gay conservative Christian types might be gay was from reading some of their articles. I wish I could provide a cite but it was a long time ago and I don't even remember what publication it was.

The long and the short of it was that homosexuals can lure straight people to their side because they're so good at pleasing other men. Seriously. I think some of those folks are so deep in the closet. They think that homosexuality is wrong but they've got these urges they can't explain. They're good Christians though. As good Christians, if they have these temptations then every other man must be going through the same thing.

There was a 1999 article in Rolling Stone magazine, "The Holy War on Gays". The article quoted a certain Dr. Paul Cameron, a former pyschologist and (at that time at least) go-to guy for Christian gay bashers. The article had a number of very interesting quotes from Dr. Cameron:

Originally Posted by Paul Cameron, as reported by Rolling Stone

Untrammeled homosexuality can take over and destroy a social system...If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one's own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get--and that is what homosexuality seems to be--then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm....I'm convinced that lesbians are particularly good seducers...People in homosexuality are incredibly evangelical...It's pure sexuality. It's almost like pure heroin. It's such a rush. They are committed in almost a religious way. And they'll take enormous risks, do anything...Martial sex tends toward the boring end...Generally, it doesn't deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does.

The only thing in that series of quotes that makes me have just the slightest smidgen of a doubt that the person who said all that was a great big flaming homosexual who secretly longed to have lots of hot man-on-man sex is the bit about lesbians being "particularly good seducers". Really, I think only a straight guy would say that.

[Giles]

Originally Posted by Hamlet

If I ever get a pulpit from which to spread my views, I'm going to seriously condemn sex with supermodels.

If G*d had intended us to have sex with supermodels, he would have made us either incredibly handsome or incredibly wealthy. Since I'm neither, I can join with you in condemning it as contrary to G*d's will.

[Blaster Master]

The psychology behind this seems pretty straightforward. Some people were raised believing it is wrong or evil or icky or whatever, at some point they have some feelings that don't align with their upbringing. Faced with that contradiction, I think most people will either react by reevaluating or rejecting one or both of those. So, inevitably, some of those cases will be people who hold tight to their upbringing and reject their feelings. So their anti-gay rhetoric is as much or more to convince themselves as to convince others. I don't think that's true for all of them though, some people just think homosexuality is wrong or evil or icky and never had any feelings in that direction at all. So I think it's dangerous to think that everyone who is anti-gay is secretly gay themselves.

I do think the observation of those talking about temptations are probably more of a tell of this case. If you're straight, there just isn't any sort of temptation or concern of "turning gay" or whatever. The only real reason to separate oneself from something is if there's actually concern that there is temptation and it might win.

[Boyo Jim]

I disagree with you about this:

Originally Posted by mister nyx

...Alternative theory: it's the examples of people being obviously hypocritical that make the news...

We hear about a lot of people like Ted Haggard before their gay... adventures... make the news. In fact, it's their very public anti-gay stances, coupled with the later exposure of their private behavior, that make them hypocrites in the first place.

As to how widely known Haggard and his ilk are, I don't really know. I'd heard of him because I watch and read a lot of news of politics. I suspect people in fundamentalist Christian circles know more about him than the general public.

My prediction as to who's next... Marcus Bachmann. That is a dude with some seriously unmet needs.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

I disagree with you about this:



We hear about a lot of people like Ted Haggard before their gay... adventures... make the news. In fact, it's their very public anti-gay stances, coupled with the later exposure of their private behavior, that make them hypocrites in the first place.

As to how widely known Haggard and his ilk are, I don't really know. I'd heard of him because I watch and read a lot of news of politics. I suspect people in fundamentalist Christian circles know more about him than the general public.

I guess I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

My prediction as to who's next... Marcus Bachmann. That is a dude with some seriously unmet needs.

Careful now. Making these tired "Marcus Bachmann is faggy" jokes apparently says more about your sexual orientation than his.

[gamerunknown]

Marcus Bachmann used his influence to promulgate "ex-gay" teachings. There's an entirely different category of vehemence that goes into perpetuating the culture of the closet and opposing it (and longing for its proponents to be revealed as hypocrites).

[SmithCommaJohn]

I'd wager that the vast majority of virulent homophobic bigots aren't latent homosexuals.

I think it's far more likely that most of them are just hateful assholes.

[mister nyx]

An article in Slate does a nice job of putting this study in context. It makes their technique for determining who's secretly gay sound even more questionable -- there's no strong evidence that it works well, because it's only ever even been used in one previous study. And apparently the differences in reaction times that it measures can be confounded by the fact that subjects who feel anxiety (for instance, those who might be very uncomfortable at a depiction of homosexuality) also respond more quickly.

It also goes into that older study that used penile plethysmography to make a similar argument, but I assume everyone is already aware of the reasons to doubt the results of that method.

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

My prediction as to who's next... Marcus Bachmann. That is a dude with some seriously unmet needs.

No, his needs are being met. And the rumors here in Minnesota even specify who is meeting them. (Hint: it ain't Michelle.)

[panache45]

Originally Posted by Boyo Jim

My prediction as to who's next... Marcus Bachmann. That is a dude with some seriously unmet needs.

I'm gay, and I have seen Marcus Bachmann. Please . . . we don't want him on our team.

[dngnb8]

JMHO

When someone who is closet gay is an anti-gay activist, I tend to believe they scream the loudest to defer suspicion. Typically, these individuals are living in an environment that doesnt seem to be tolerant of gay lifestyles. Rather then deal with the flak, they just scream loud to defer suspicion.

I would like to clarify one thing since "religious officials" were included and I am not saying this was said or inferred, but it seems to be an issue with a lot of people


Pedophile and homosexual are not equal. Im referring to the Priests/boys scandal since that is typically what comes to mind when one includes religion.

A male adult and a male child does not make the adult a homosexual. It is about the age or the partner, not the gender, and boys are far more readily available then girls, and are far more likely to experiment.

I may have opened a can of worms there, but this error in judgment happens alot.

[runner pat]

Originally Posted by panache45

I'm gay, and I have seen Marcus Bachmann. Please . . . we don't want him on our team.

Too bad. Stick him out in right field.

[Mosier]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Careful now. Making these tired "Marcus Bachmann is faggy" jokes apparently says more about your sexual orientation than his.

No, his "faggy-ness" isn't what makes me think he's a closet homosexual. The way he frames the issue of homosexuality is what makes me think he's a closet homosexual. He's another one of those "it's just the devil tempting you, you have to resist the temptation and I can show you how because I've gone my whole life without giving in to that evil urge!" gay anti-gay activists.

It's not having sex with men that makes you gay. It's being attracted to men sexually that makes you gay. I'd bet everything I own that he's resisting his attraction to men.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Mosier

No, his "faggy-ness" isn't what makes me think he's a closet homosexual. The way he frames the issue of homosexuality is what makes me think he's a closet homosexual.

Yes, I'm totally convinced that you aren't responding at all to the large number of jokes about his (supposedly) effeminate manner that have been popping up all over the media lately.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Yes, I'm totally convinced that you aren't responding at all to the large number of jokes about his (supposedly) effeminate manner that have been popping up all over the media lately.

That's like asking whether someone who gets up at sunrise is responding at all to the crow of the rooster.

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Yes, I'm totally convinced that you aren't responding at all to the large number of jokes about his (supposedly) effeminate manner that have been popping up all over the media lately.

You'd be wrong, because I've never seen any joke about his supposedly effeminate manner in the media. I'm not quite convinced that there are a large number of jokes about that.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Somebody on the boards (Cat Whisperer?) once posited that the struggle for gay rights was basically a battle between openly gay people on one side and closeted, self-hating gay people on the other.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright

Somebody on the boards (Cat Whisperer?) once posited that the struggle for gay rights was basically a battle between openly gay people on one side and closeted, self-hating gay people on the other.

Whoever it is is an idiot. Do they think that, for instance, the Prop 8 passed in California because of the massive gay turnout to vote against marriage equality?

This is another reason to dislike this study, aside from the bad science. Not that it's the fault of the authors of the study, of course, but this makes it easier for the logically impaired to blame homophobia on gay people. Because clearly there are a lot of people out there who will reason that, if repressed homosexuality leads to homophobia, then homophobia is a sign of repressed homosexuality. "If P, then Q. Q, therefore P." Fallacious reasoning, but obviously very appealing to many people.

Originally Posted by Ludovic

You'd be wrong, because I've never seen any joke about his supposedly effeminate manner in the media. I'm not quite convinced that there are a large number of jokes about that.

I wasn't talking to you, so.

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

Thus my suggestion that, taking a page from Dan Savage's movement, some anti-gay group rename themselves It Gets Harder.

[Steve MB]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Thus my suggestion that, taking a page from Dan Savage's movement, some anti-gay group rename themselves It Gets Harder.

They've come pretty close to that:

The "National Organization for Marriage," the group behind the briefly infuriating "gathering storm" ad, has decided to call their anti-gay campaign "2 Million for Marriage." Or, as they themselves shortened it: "2M4M."

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness

Thus my suggestion that, taking a page from Dan Savage's movement, some anti-gay group rename themselves It Gets Harder.

And they could hire homophobic ex-basketball player Tim Hardaway (I hate gay people, so I let it be known.) as their spokesperson.

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Steve MB

They've come pretty close to that:

Holy shit, Christmas came early this year.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

Whoever it is is an idiot. Do they think that, for instance, the Prop 8 passed in California because of the massive gay turnout to vote against marriage equality?

Yes? The point is that maybe all the people who are homophobic are so because they're repressing urges they don't understand. It's the only logical reason why one might refer to homosexuality as a "temptation": straight people just aren't "tempted" to have gay sex (as gay people aren't "tempted" to have straight sex).

[Ludovic]

Their theme song could be It's not a Fashion Statement, It's a Deathwish by My Chemical Romance. "You told me this gets harder, well it did." Works on so many levels.

[MyFootsZZZ]

A lot of people who argue that it's a choice probably have had some gay thoughts rustling through their head. How else can you argue that it's a choice without being faced with the choice yourself?

[Noone Special]

Originally Posted by mister nyx

... this makes it easier for the logically impaired to blame homophobia on gay people. Because clearly there are a lot of people out there who will reason that, if repressed homosexuality leads to homophobia, then homophobia is a sign of repressed homosexuality. "If P, then Q. Q, therefore P." Fallacious reasoning, but obviously very appealing to many people.

Originally Posted by SmithCommaJohn

I'd wager that the vast majority of virulent homophobic bigots aren't latent homosexuals.

I think it's far more likely that most of them are just hateful assholes.

This is probably factually true but also kinda-sorta missing the point.

If roughly 10% of the population are homosexual*, and fully 75% (a large majority, yes?) of "virulent homophobic bigots" are straight....* Well, you do the math.

OK, I'll do it -- if this (or similar numbers) is the case, then while it is not true that "most homophobes are gay," it is true that "homophobes are statistically far more likely to be gay than people who are not homophobic." Which easily morphs into "Homophobes are gay" -- a vast and counter-factual leap of logic, too be sure, but not completely out in left field, either.


* Don't know the range of currently accepted estimates, bear with me here, these are just ballpark numbers for the sake of the argument

[mister nyx]

Originally Posted by Noone Special

This is probably factually true but also kinda-sorta missing the point.

If roughly 10% of the population are homosexual*, and fully 75% (a large majority, yes?) of "virulent homophobic bigots" are straight....* Well, you do the math.

Okay, but by any standard, according to studies I'm aware of, nowhere near 10% of the population is gay or even gay/bi. And so, having known more than a few virulent homophobes -- I mean, like, seriously, I knew some dude who openly called for all gay people to be killed in a high school biology class, and I doubt my genocidal classmate was unique -- that 75% number seems a bit low.

OK, I'll do it -- if this (or similar numbers) is the case, then while it is not true that "most homophobes are gay," it is true that "homophobes are statistically far more likely to be gay than people who are not homophobic." Which easily morphs into "Homophobes are gay" -- a vast and counter-factual leap of logic, too be sure, but not completely out in left field, either.

Okay, well, I have no trouble accepting the idea that some self-haters are homophobes despite being gay. I have a big problem with the equation that the (perhaps aptly named) "Really Not All That Bright" posited, which basically exonerated straight people for homophobia. I have no doubt that there are self-hating queermos. I just think it is both statistically and morally unjustifiable to pretend that such folks are the sole font of homophobia.

The problem is that there are a lot of straight people who have a problem with gay people. Who don't think we should be allowed to marry, at very least. It's not like every instance of gay-bashing was gay-on-gay. Focusing on the relatively rare cases in which a closet gay person had the authority and used it against other gay people means ignoring the many cases in which straight people treated gay people like shit. Which, well, in realityville, that is how homophobia usually happens. I have a lot more to fear from actual-factual 100% straight dudes who really aren't dreaming about sucking cock than I do from folks pretending to be straight. Because, at very least, there aren't anywhere near as many of the latter.