I think that’s worth repeating as it seems to have gotten lost in all this talk of arousal. Be comfortable with who and what you are, and MYOB. Wouldn’t that be a wonderful world?
I also had to wonder about it.
How many genuine homophobes would be willing to sit down and watch gay porn while they had a device hooked up to their dick?
They didn’t know the details of the test before they were shown the video.
A lot of times when these kinds of studies are done, the volunteers aren’t told exactly what they’re going to see before they see it. I volunteered for a similar study in college. Volunteers were told they would be rigged up with sensory apparatus and see porn, but weren’t told what kind of porn they’d be seeing. As it happens, it didn’t involve gay porn (the purpose of the study was to measure how long a male would stay excited by a single female as opposed to seeing multiple females or the introduction of new females - the prof running the study said he found that males reach a certain level of “saturation” from seeing one female, where arousal starts to fade, but that arousal will become revived if a new female is introduced), but nobody knew exactly what they would see before they saw it. We were told only that it would be porn.
But-but-but, he/she’s FRENCH! Do Teabaggers now hate America?
If the competition’s intense enough, nobody gets laid.
It’s a zero-cum game!
Just curious: were you financially remunerated for your participation in the study?
Careful with your answer… I think he may be selling thesauri.
No it was for credit in a psych class. You could bolster your grade by being a guinea pig in psych studies. Most of them were dead easy - just filling out questionnaires, for the most part. One or two involved doing little computer tests (I can remember doing some test where yiu were supposed to quickly choose between a series of images on a computer, but I can’t remember what they were anymore). For the easy ones, you only got like one or two points of credit, but the porn study offered like ten or twelve. It was a way to rack up all your volunteer credit for the semester in one fell swoop. Plus you got to watch porn! I guess I lucked out. They easily could have been studying reactions to tubgirl and goatse. It was a gamble.
Trousertentometer not good enough for you?
I don’t even think there’s even anecdotal evidence to support this alternative explanation.
That’d be one hell of an anecdote.
Heh.
They wrap said equipment around your penis to measure the blood flow/erection. Yes, I’m serious.
It’s only gay if the equipment is made of leather and studed.
These experiments sound about as valid as the Tosh.o Viagra Gay Porn Challenge.
Totally agree. Any evidence of people being turned on by something because they find it wrong?
I am amused by these posts suggesting that male arousal is so hard to measure and any attempt to do so is unscientific.
I am a male and have been aroused. I assure you that it is not that there are measurable physical signals when men are aroused. Wrong tree.
If you want to argue against the study for some reason, you’d be better off cooking up some preposterous alternative explanation for the homophobes getting hard while watching men do it, like whatshisname up there.
Indeed. Or more exactly half of it. The rest was about AIDS and sex ed. Maybe they filter all comments?
The study itself is interesting - at least when on reads the whole study, rather than the abstract - albeit very limited. What I found most interesting is that the correlation for arousal of the “homophobes” was fairly flat whether they were shown heterosexual, lesbian, or gay porn. And it was less for viewing gay porn than heterosexual porn, only very slightly. It was quite high for viewing lesbian porn.
They called the difference in aggression between the homophobes and non-homophobes as being not significant, but it was higher, and I believe later studies have linked greater aggression of the homophobes with a higher level of sexual arousal overall. Which of course has led some to conclude that all homophobes, everywhere, are just sexually repressed ticking time bombs in general, and that the gay porn would turn them about as much as straight porn, animal porn, or plant porn. The authors of this study in question refer to an earlier study where anxiety is touted as one possible reason for the results, they also speculate that their aggression index they used may not have adequately captured the aggression aspect of the arousal. For example, see Bernat et al. “Homophobia and Physical Aggression Toward Homosexual and Heterosexual Individuals” Journal of Abnormal Psychology 110.1 (2001): 179-187.
In any event, a review of the literature out there shows this alleged correlation between homophobes and gay porn isn’t very well studied. An interesting study by Parrott et al. uses a group of nearly 400 heterosexual males to determine if homophobia was related to anti-feminine bias, and they found indication that homophobia may be more linked to anti-feminine tendencies - thus leading to speculation that homophobes might be turned off by gay porn which has effeminate men, but turned on by butt-slamming bears. Manly man gay porn, you know, with lumberjacks and steel workers.
Google Scholar shows the initial study in discussion was “cited by 192” but it only seems to be cited as an aside in most of the first 40 or so I looked at, and then I got bored and stopped looking. I won’t say the study is wrong, or flawed, rather it’s very limited in size and scope, and there isn’t the typical wealth of backing information out there I find when I research topics like this.
I notice that with gay activists we are all pretty much gay, in one of three categories 1gay and out of the closet 2 gay and in the closet 3 gay and in denial. I’m surprised that anyone at this site would nbandy around words like homophobe, which is a word created by gay activists not psychologists and in usage is an insult for anyone who disagrees about any part of the gay agenda. It was used when people criticized NAMBLA, for God’s sake.
If there truly are homophobes (please remember that a phobia is an unreasonable and irrational fear.
Myself I am disgusted with the idea of anal intercourse with another man. Sickening to think of feces associated with reproductive organs. That isn’t unreasonable or irrational, and since I am not going to do it and have no real worries about being raped it is not a fear.
Nor in general is a worry about our declining morals as a group an unreasonable thing to fear. Cause and effect is observable.
Homophobia is a nasty word that serves no purpose except for ad hominem attacks against people gays and their supporters do not like, and nothing more. Using it is an abandonment of reason.
And where is the counterpart, heterophobe? If there is a legitimate unreasonable fear of people with different sexual orientation, why doesn’t it work both ways?
When I see people criticize people who speak out against the gay lifestyle, and then he gets called a homophobe and accused of being gay himself, it makes me sick. It is common for politicians to be afraid to speak out anymore, and the reason is that they get bullied from activists. How about those criminal glitter attacks? You may not realize it but breathing some glitter in is a serious matter, or it getting in your eye. I have no doubt that some gays get bullied, but they are turning into pretty good bullies themselves. The activists anyway.
All men aren’t gay, even if they speak out about it. But pracctically soeaking all men have lust. Some have so little concern for morals they choose a gay life in order to follow that lust.
I know one ex gay from my high school. He was sure he was gay back then and had a boyfriend. Later he switched to women and I asked him why, and he told me that he simply would have done anything for sex and had been rejected by some girls so he hooked up with the gay guy who liked him. How many are like him, that wouldn’t be gay if the appropriate woman came around?
I’m a live and let live kind of guy and have always been mad when anyone interferes with basic rights of anyone, including gays. They can’t be denied housing, jobs, medical care, etc.., the basics of life. But that doesn’t mean I have to approve. And I certainly do not approve when a group complains of bullying and then sets out to do it themselves. They just want to be the new bullies, and anyone who disagrees publicly is their target.
The glitterers need to be jailes until they understand reasonable public behavior.