In the past few years we have experienced a phenomenon…oops…let’s not use that word…a trend, of closet or repressed homosexuals being exposed in circles, organizations, etc. where homosexuality is generally frowned upon or openly condemed. Most everyone is by now familiar with the scandal inside certain Churches of homosexual conduct (with children, no less) and also the recent discoveries of several Republicans engaging in homosexual activity who have sponsered, voted for and supported legislation to deny rights to homosexuals.
Internalized homophobia is defined as :
Internalized homophobia (or ego-dystonic homophobia) refers to homophobia as a prejudice carried by individuals against homosexual manifestations in themselves and others. It causes severe discomfort with or disapproval of one’s own sexual orientation.
In light of this information and the confirmed incidents of homosexuals inside the organizations that generally condem homosexuality, can we reasonably infer that the Republican party, the priesthood and other organizations, by their very nature, will attract closet homosexuals ?
I believe that closet homosexuals are attracted to the proposition of belonging to and engaging anti homosexual groups in a misguided effort to fight their inner conflict by fighting homosexuals in general.
So, do you think there are more closet homosexuals in groups that don’t care about your orientation or more closet homosexuals in groups that do care ?
Also, the problem the Catholic Church (among other religious organizations) had was with pedophiles being members of the clergy, not with homosexuals. Pedophilia is a seperate and distinct orientation that has little to do with homosexuality. Most pedophiles are largely indifferent to the gender of their victims, who don’t display any of the gender-distinctive secondary sexual characteristics that are attractive to healthy hetero- and homosexual adults. Indeed, it is the very lack of those characteristics that makes children attractive to the pedophile.
Well, I don’t know that it’s neccesarily internalized homophobia, so much that it is the nature of the organization is such that its homosexual members are more likely to be closeted.
In other words, if we take for a given that there’s a high level of homophobia in the Republican party and the Catholic Church hierarchy (which you’re arguing), then homosexuals who are members of those groups are going to be more likely to stay closeted for their own protection, and open homosexuals are going to be less likely to join those groups because they’d be at a disadvantage in them.
Hmmm…you say members of the group are likely to remain closeted. Didn’t they have to join at some point ? You contend that open homosexuals just won’t join but those already in the group will remain closeted. So, the closeted homosexual joined, at some point. Why ?
For the most part, no. To most pedophiles, the most important factor in choosing a victim is ease of access. It’s usually easier for an adult male to be put in a position of authority over boys than girls, so most male pedophiles (and the overwhelming majority of them are male) target boys instead of girls.
It’s also worth noting that the majority of pedophiles who also seek out adult relationships, seek them out with adults of the opposite gender.
Well, in a lot of cases we’re talking about older men here, so I’m guessing that they chose their current occupations back when it was risky to be openly gay in almost any job. As time has passed, tolerance has grown and it has become harder legally for even the intolerant to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, so gays in most other occupations have been able to come out without fear of damaging their careers. But preachers and politicians who serve conservative communities are in some of the last jobs in the US where coming out can mean the end of your career, either because your constituents or congregation will leave abandon you.
In other words, I suspect that closeted gay men weren’t necessarily more likely to become preachers and politicians so much as gay people in those positions have had to remain closeted while their peers in other walks of life have already come out.
In addition to what Malodorous said, both groups I mentioned (Republicans and Catholics) stand for a lot more than just homophobia. Somebody may be gay and still conform to the general ideological/philosophical stance of the group. Somebody might say, “Well, while the Republicans don’t like gay people that much, they support all sorts of other things (tax cuts, the war in Iraq, pro-life, whatever) that I’m in agreement with, so I’m going to join.”
This is something I think, based on my own personal experiences, but I have no real evidence to support it.
I think that there are a lot of men in the Catholic priesthood who would consider themselves sexual deviants*, either because they are homosexuals, or because they are attracted to children. I believe these men join the Church because they believe it will cure them of their deviancy. Of course it doesn’t, so they become priests because I think they believe if they are totally devout and turn themselves over to the Church, they will be relieved of their sins. But, of course, it doesn’t, and they go on to have problems. There is also plenty of evidence that this happens in Protestant churches too, and I think it involves a similar phenomenon.
When you consider how the religious element in this country overlaps with the Republican party, I don’t think it is a stretch to believe something similar is happening.
In other words, I think these people join in an effort to cure themselves, but when no cure is forthcoming, they end up doing the very things they tried so hard to avoid.
Also, pedophilia isn’t the same as homosexuality, just to join the chorus.
*I do not believe homosexuals are deviants, but I think, especially a couple generations ago, the people with this orientation very much saw themselves this way.
I’ll try to find the study, but I’m pretty sure this is not the case. Pedophiles have a definite sexual orientation beyond their predilection for pre-pubescent “partners”. Pedophiles who target young boys almost always are attracted to adult males even when they do not acknowledge it, or even repress it.
Or to convince others that they aren’t gay. I think that may be why they end up in leadership positions; they join an anti-gay group like the Catholic Church or the Republicans to prove to others or themselves they aren’t gay, and gain popularity by spouting anti gay rhetoric longer and louder than everyone else.
Actually, I’ve heard that they have had quite a “problem” with more and more priests being gay. Thus the insulting term “Pink Palace” for seminaries with many gays. I expect it hasn’t gotten as much news coverage because unlike pedophila, it’s not illegal.
While this undoubted happens in some cases, without further study, I don’t think you can make assumptions for a significant percentage of these groups.
We read about priests and Republican politicians because they make the news. We don’t read about the closeted plumbers or bankers because not everyone busted in airport stalls makes the headlines.
While this might have some bearing on a limited number of Fundamentalist preachers, (although I would not want to rush to any numrical conclusions based on a very small number of high profile cases), I think this conjecture falls apart when applied to Catholicism. Homosexuality is simply not a hot button issue in the RCC (aside from a small number of right-wing laypersons and one notable Cardinal hanging out in the Vatican). In fact, when the the various SSM laws were proposed in the last election, Catholics were the one religious group in the U.S. that did not overwhelmingly vote to define marriage as (and restrict benefits to) heterosexual couples. I don’t think I have ever heard homosexuality being mentioned from the pulpit and I certainly have not seen any rallies or lectures on the topic. Aside from a bit of hoopla in Washington state about ten or fifteen years ago where a lay group protested their bishop permitting a Catholic Homosexual Support group to use church facilities (and the aforementioned Vatican Secretary), I cannot think of any serious association between conflict over homosexuality and church leaders.
Defined by whom? Is this supposed to be from the DSM-IV? Is it from the APA? Is it some ancient Freudian definition that may or may not have any bearing on psychology or psychiatry in the 21st century?
We have a whole thread started off on a foundation of sand.
I very much doubt thats a good cite. One of the biggest demons the gay men I know face is people thinking they’re into kids. I’ve known several that wanted to be fathers, but would happily kill anyone that would touch a child of theirs in that way.
As was stated earlier, a pedophile wants easy access to children. The easiest way for this is being with a woman with children.
Yes there are what used to be called chickenhawks, I have no idea if that is the term still used, who like teenaged but underaged. If you haven’t looked at a porn site lately, that is SO not restricted by sexuality.
My apologies. I pulled that from Wiki. Let me restate:
Internalized homophobia is definedby Wiki as :
Internalized homophobia (or ego-dystonic homophobia) refers to homophobia as a prejudice carried by individuals against homosexual manifestations in themselves and others. It causes severe discomfort with or disapproval of one’s own sexual orientation.
As a side note, contrary to popular belief, a foundation of sand is actually quite exceptional, even desirable, as Bob Vila explains:
"Some Soil Types Are Better Than Others
How fast the soil pressure builds as depth increases depends on the type of soil. Of the major soil types (gravel, sand, silt, and clay), gravel and sand impose the smallest loads, even when wet, because friction between the particles keeps the soil somewhat stable. Silts, with their smaller particles, are more fluid when soaked and exert about 50 percent more pressure than sands. Clays get soft when moist, can flow when saturated, and may apply three times the pressure of sand or gravel soil. "
Thanks for the cite. I can no longer find it, but on recall, I remember getting it from a link in one of the Family Research Institute’s web pages (not entirely impartial, I know- but at that time, I wasn’t able to find other data, and I was impressed with the methodology of the experiment.) I just recently searched for links between homosexuality and pedophilia and I came up with much much more information supporting your contention and from impartial sources.
In the 1960s, chickenhawk referred to a man approximately forty or older who preferred the companionship of much younger males, but not specifically underaged males.
Once again, most pedophiles are heterosexual.
As far as I know, the Boomers have been the first generation of Democrats who have been supportive of gay rights. My impression is that the G.I. Generation (in general) is and was more homophobic.
Those are generalizations and not meant to describe all Democrats of either generation – just my opinion of possible trends.