This may be the basic fault line in this discussion.
The prevailing understanding of the term IME has been that homophobia is prejudice against a class of people, just like racism and sexism. That’s why it’s morally wrong.
That may be so, but removed from the moral context of bigotry, is it worth worrying about?
Look at the emphatic expressions of revulsion some people round here have made about unexceptional, non-rotten food that other people very much like. Foods you just don’t understand. and It tastes like sin, why do people eat it? were substantially devoted to this exercise, but it crops up in many food threads. But most everybody is untroubled by this, because these are obviously personal aesthetic/sensory/emotional reactions. Don’t like it? Don’t eat it. Really extremely don’t like it? Well, you may have a “problem,” but the answer is the same.
As long as someone isn’t interfering with other people getting what they like, or despising and discriminating on such basis–what’s the problem?
How about this: more of the male respondents have personally thought something roughly akin to the statement, but either know or want to represent that they are not homophobic for it.
Alternatively, or in addition: more of the women respondents are reading the mindset they suppose to be behind such an expression, rather than strictly the statement in isolation.
It’s homophobic, though not egregiously so. What pushed it over the line for me was the suggestion that sex with someone of the same gender is inherently, fundamentally gross, rather than gross to the speaker. The thought of me having sex with a man grosses me out, but I’m sure there are many folks who would find it not at all gross, and may even find it the opposite of gross.
Though others in the thread also pointed out that the quote also seems hostile to public displays of affection, and since they’ve pointed it out, yeah, that’s a problem too. Gays (like anyone) should keep their sexual intercourse private, but kissing, holding hands, etc. in public should be no more odious than straight couples doing the same.
And you didn’t specify which hobbit we’re holding for ransom, so I refrained from checking off the ice cream option.
Yup. The second bit isn’t homophobic, it’s just a personal preference, though an extreme one.
Hearing the first bit would make me sigh and prepare for mild homophobia in the future. It would also make me ask how they feel about gay people getting hot and heavy on the kitchen table, fellating each other in the shower or having a quickie in the corridor.
I didn’t like the choices offered all that much, because there’s a big semantic gap between “mildly” homophobic and “as homophobic as reparative therapy,” because the latter is a seriously major level of homophobia. I think the statement in question is on a middling level, but you didn’t offer that choice, you jumped from mild to serious. It is an unquestionably, blatantly homophobic statement, but I went with “mildly homophobic” as the nearest choice, only because of applying the statement to oneself instead of others.
I think it’s very bizarre to get disgusted by anyone’s having consensual sex with anyone at all. But then I’m kind of bi, so of course I would say that.
I’m also intensely vegetarian, but the thought of eating meat does not nauseate me at all. My carnivorous girlfriend discusses meat recipes with me all the time, though they’re only theoretical for me. In fact, because I like cooking so much, I study and research meat recipes, with a view to developing vegetarian versions of them. If I accidentally ingest meat, it does make me want to puke. But merely thinking/seeing/talking, no.
As a statement on its own, without assuming other context: not homophobic at all. Which is how I voted.
But I agree there are a lot of contexts in which the statement verbatim would be homophobic, and you’re more like to hear someone say something like this in one of those contexts than in a more neutral or positive one.
Exactly what flavor of ice cream are we talking about here?
This is almost certainly true. However, it’s also completely true that one can have homophobic thoughts and feelings without being an outright homophobe or out-and-out bigot. In fact, pretty much all of us straight people have homophobic thoughts and feelings because we have been enculturated to have them. The statement in the OP being a common one.
That kind of homophobia exists too. But the sort I’m talking about isn’t exactly a moral failing so much as a …failure of coolness? Of sensibility? I’m not phrasing this very well.
Basically, I wouldn’t want to legislate against the kind of homophobia I’m talking about … but I also wouldn’t want to be the friend of someone with those ideas or reactions. Just exactly the same as i would not be friends with someone who said “sushi makes me puke”. I’m cool with someone not wanting to eat sushi, i’m not cool with hypersensitive attention-seekers.
Only, like I said, on a social level. It’s not a moral judgement. It’s a social commentary - anyone who is physically repulsed by the very idea of same-sex activities is just not cool. Ditto for cross-sex activities.
And I made it very clear in my first post that I was speaking about my own opinion, not setting out guidelines for everyone.
Being disgusted is a personal reaction. Going on about it (and making threads about it) is uncool. Threads about casa marzu or 1000-yo eggs? That’s OK (amusing, even). Going on about how disgusting coriander (cilantro) is for like the third or fourth hundredth time? Get a life!
…don’t go on about it.
That’s kind of how I feel about the statement in the OP - there’s nothing homophobic about not wanting a same sex experience, at all. But the actual statement in the OP went beyond just a “no, thanks”
Because they can be a better person, and maybe a little social ridicule will help them get over themselves.
It’s off topic, but why do you have the right, responsibility, or authority to decide what others need to do to become better persons, MrDibble? For that matter, why are you so certain you know what makes some persons “better” than others? Why does this nebulous notion of betterment justify ridiculing others – i.e., causing them psychic pain, however transitory?
“By my right to do as I see fit”. That’s always been the Whole of the Law.
You kidding me? Because I’m me. Because any move towards equality is better.
Because they make life shitty for the rest of us. It’s self defence to want to make your society better-suited for your own tastes.
Self-defence gets brought up here all the time in the context of violence and guns and the like. Well, I’m a pacifist, but social engineering? Hell yeah. I get social engineered all the time. So I’m not allowed to fight back?
You asked if your hypothetical was homophobic. MrDibble is explaining why he finds it so. What did you start this thread for if you don’t want discussion on the topic that it’s about?
Also, “psychic pain” because someone’s been told that something they said may have been problematic? Are you joking?
I’m not certain that is true. While I’m a contextual ethicist – i.e., I believe that no action has a moral value outside its context – I don’t believe that the end always justifies the means. Gay rights is a laudable goal, but I’m not comfortable with the notion of policing people’s thoughts: only their actions. Forgive me if I have misunderstood your actions, but you seem to be saying that a person known to be homophobic (or to harbor other prejudices), but who does not act on such beliefs in any way that affects gays (or other minorities) still deserves mockery as a form of social engineering. Am I misunderstanding you?
That would depend on what you were fighting against. If someone were acting to deny you a genuine right, that is one thing. But everyone has the right to their own thoughts: even the stupid, bigoted, and/or evil ones.
MrDibble, thanks for the response above. I think I have a better idea where you’re coming from, and I agree with the principle you conclude on there. I guess we voted differently in the poll, but I don’t really disagree with what you’re saying here. And yes, some of the that-food-you-like-is-disgusting stuff is pretty tiresome.
On an entirely different note,
Is it? And if so, which way? I’ve never entirely bought it myself as a characteristic of male/female distinction (as opposed to just differences among people), but it was presented to me, in a different context but roughly as stated, by women, and as a good thing–the superior “feminist” mind gets to the real, core feelings, you see. (Maybe I spun it skeptically by using the words “suppose to be” there; would you take it differently if that had been “see”?)
I think the comparison to food likes and dislikes is a good metaphor for why I think a statement like this is mildly - or rather, environmental - homophobia. In western culture, eating a bug is generally considered extremely gross. Other cultures, on the other hand, will chow down on a handful of grub worms like they were Kit Kat bars. Why the difference? It’s not anything inherent to the inhabitants of those two cultures (or to the grub worm itself), but rather, there’s a very strong cultural taboo against eating bugs in the west, that most people in that culture pick up unconsciously, just by being around it their whole lives.
Similarly, I suspect that a lot of people who have strong aversion to the thought of homosexual behavior are exhibiting a learned, environmental homophobia, even though the person in question is not prejudiced against gays in anyway. I wouldn’t classify this as a moral failing in anyway, though - no more than being grossed out at eating an octopus isn’t the same as being bigoted towards Japanese people.
This may also explain the disparity in reactions based on gender. The taboo against homosexuality isn’t as strong for women as it is for men in this culture. Nor is there much of a taboo against women expressing non-sexual intimacy with other women, as there tends to be with men. So women may perceive this sort of statement as more homophobic, because their cultural experience hasn’t instilled as strong a sense of taboo against homosexual acts.
Of course, the flaw in this whole theory is gay people being disgusted at the thought of straight sex. I can’t figure out how to make that fit, so I’m just going to fall back on my default assumption:
Mildly homophobic as it stands, because the person is saying it’s okay for other people to be gay in their bedrooms. The implication is that it’s not okay for them to be gay in public.
Also, it depends why and when they’re saying it. Is a gay couple walking across the street, holding hands, and they’re saying this to their straight friend without any other provocation? I can’t imagine anyone with a hint of empathy saying this with a gay person within earshot.