I quite often see the idea thrown about that if a person holds strong anti-gay views or is active against the gay/lesbian community that they are (or could be) homosexual themselves and just repressing it/living in denial etc.
Often it seems to be mentioned in a school-yard level ‘takes-one-to-know-one’ way, but is there any real evidence to back this kind of claim up?
Have there been any studies that show links between anti-gay behavior and repressed homosexualtiy?
*Mods, I hope GQ is the right place for this, I understand given the subject it could end up in GD or (hopefully not) The Pit.
Let’s sit back and wait for real evidence to appear. However, observation of human nature should lead us to realize that one frequently is resistant to (in varying degrees of strength) qualities in others that one recognizes, however slightly or willingly, in oneself, and which qualities one dislikes, or even tries to disavow. Some degree of interest in the same sex can be one of those qualities, particularly in light of widespread societal, familial, cultural, or religious disapproval or proscription. xo, C.
As with all human endeavors, I believe there is a full spectrum of motivations. Therefore, yes, there are some people who could be described as Homophobic = repressed. However, applying strict logic to your formula, I think it fall apart:
(fill in the blank) hating = Repressed (fill in the blank)
Conservative hating = repressed conservative
Liberal hating = repressed liberal
It’s a fairly controversial study and there have been a number of methodological issues raised with the setup. It’s certainly not conclusive of anything.
Based solely on what Otto quoted, a couple of questions and/or observations occur:
“The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.”
1.) Does “a significant increase in penile circumference” mean statistically significant (which I’d assume it does), i.e., some did and some did not? An affirmative answer here would get us to Icarus’ observation.
2.) Does “a significant increase in penile circumference” necessarily indicate sexual arousal, or could it also, perhaps, be a physical expression of an aggressive response? I don’t know the answer - it’s just an observation.
Came across this quote in a totally unrelated article: “But all moral crusaders are tested by the seductions of the world. The measure of their mettle is what they do when they discover that they desire what they despise.” I believe this is quite true, and that in some cases, what they do is to reap more scorn on their targets and crusade just that much harder. xo, C.
The homophobe=repressed gay argument seems pretty closely allied with the old saw that anyone who says “some of my best friends are black” must be a racist.
I don’t see how it’s necessarily hypocritical for a “repressed gay” to criticize homosexuality. Criticism of homosexuality is frequently limited to homosexual acts, not the mere fact of “being gay”. Someone with gay tendencies, but who genuinely thought homosexual acts were wrong and chose not to perform them, could criticize others for acting on their impulses. I also don’t think there is anything inherently wrong with self-repression. Civilized people repress their impulses all the time.
On the other hand, there are plenty of people who actually have a problem with the stereotypical gay personality, regardless of whether the person is actually having gay sex. That’s another story.
According to some calculators I have used, if you want to have a 95% confidence level in your findings, and you are willing to tolerate 3% one way or the other, if you are dealing with a population of 5,000,000 people, you would need a sample of 1,067.
