Whence Homophobia?

Great Debates
21

Surely, this is a most modern explanation.

I say, homosexuality is a defect, just as my myopia or my fallen arches. These defects are physical, not moral. Such freaks of nature do exist, but not every flat-footed caveman is caught by the sabre-toothed tiger. Defective heterosexuals reproduce their non-fatal defects.

By definition, the homosexuals should not be reproducing in sufficient numbers to propogate the homosexual defect. So why are they still around? For some reason, it must always be possible for some small percentage of people to be homosexual. Which means that a most basic urge (reproduction) is frustrated when a homosexual child is born. “Normal” people want to 1) survive, 2) reproduce, and 3) have their children reproduce. Any disruption of this natural order is very upsetting, especially in Biblical times, when few children reached puberty.

22

From:
Adams, Henry E. Wright, Lester W. Jr. Lohr, Bethany A.
Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?.* Journal of Abnormal Psychology.* 105(3):440-445, August 1996.

Here’s the abstract:

From an evolutionary psychology perspective, homophobia is a psychological defence mechanism that enhances the ability of homosexuals to breed.

Posted by Zenster:

Cultural transfer of homophobia is also possible. However, this possibility simply means that the above study is at the very minimum as significant as the results show. The study measured the difference between reported arousal and the size of erection. Thus in people not predisposed to homosexuality but pressured by societal norms into being homophobic, they would have little difference between the reported level of arousal and actual level, except perhaps a tendency to under-report. However, presumably both this group and the control (non-homophobes) would have both reported minimal arousal to the man-on-man porn.

So in short, evolutionary psychology can explain the origins of homophobia, a phobia being an unconscious irrational fear. But since then there could have been a lot of non-homophobes jump on the band-wagon as it developed into a societal norm. There are lots of societal norms around that are quite irrational but whether that means all those who proscribe to the norm have a phobia is debatable.

23

You want a cite for the Bible being an enormous source of anti-homosexual propaganda? You need a cite for how the Bible has influenced large portions of America and the world’s population and their view of homosexuals as evil? You need a cite for how parental upbringing in an anti-homosexual home or peer pressure or role models can influence the thinking of someone who may not already be anti-homosexual? You need a cite for how major psychological institutions have only recently reclassified homosexuality as being a form of sexual orientation instead of a sickness? Do I really have to reinvent the wheel for you?

24

Some gay people want kids too. If you’re curious about why having homosexuality around to some degree actually seems to be an evolutionary plus, do a little searching on past debates on the subject (there are plenty of them).

(Quoting that bit again) On the other hand, I think it’s quite possible THIS has something to do with the Biblical opposition to homosexuality.

25

I am heterosexual. My brother is gay. We are the best of friends, perhaps the closest siblings I personally know.

We talk, honestly, about our relationships, and again I am the closest confidante, always seeking to empathise rather than advise or pass judgment.

But when he talks about kissing men, my toes curl and my chin lowers as though he were talking about eating cockroaches. Now, of course, there’s nothing wrong with eating cockroaches and indeed where I to have been brought up in another culture I would not feel such repulsion. Every day, he is subjected to heterosexual kissing and therefore feels no such repulsion.

So, to homophobia (literally “man-fear” which is perhaps a less accurate term than something like “sexism”, which it essentially is, surely? Denying a person the right to marry or find attractive a man based on their gender?) I believe homophobia arises as a result of an inability to see this “repulsion” as a solely culturally engineered response. Were I to be born into Ancient Greek soceity, I would feel no such thing as homosexuality was socially acceptable.

(Incidentally, I feel no such antipathy towards lesbianism. Quite the opposite, in fact).

26

I’ve said this before (and I’m not qualified in any field related to psychology), but it really does seem to me that the manic, religious, zealous hatred of homosexuality (such as displayed by Fred Phelps) might actually be rooted in self-loathing - a gross overreaction to one’s own repressed desires - an attempt to ‘prove’ the repressed feelings false.

Just my opinion though.

27

Nitpick: Homophobia would be “same-fear” - the ‘homo’ in ‘homosexuality’ means ‘same’ (as in homogenised), not ‘man’.

28

I think it was P.J. O’Rourke who said that a literal reading of the word “homophobia” would be “fear of having the same fear again”. Does that sound right?

No, no, no, no, and no. Cites on the two matters for which I actually asked for cites would have nice, though. Although mrsam beat you to it on one of them. His post was a laudable attempt to bring in some facts here.

29

What’s the second thing you want a cite for weird al? Cultural programming? I’m presuming you don’t want one for homosexuality in the animal world, but I can fetch one if need be.

In short, my opinion on cultural programming of homophobia is that is has arisen from a need to ratify the irrational. A minority of individuals are left with homophobia as it is evolutionarily favourable for them to possess it. They feel the need to ratify the phobia and if they succeed in convincing others that homosexuality is abhorrent then hey presto, it becomes a societal norm. The reason this particular norm is so prevalent IMHO is because it got itself into a couple of books.

I see two potential ways in which a child can be “culturally programmed” into thinking homosexuality is wrong.

  1. The Peer Group.

The environmental aspect of personality seems to be almost solely moderated by the peer group (see Group Socialisation Theory if interested). So if a child is in a peer group with a large number of homophobes, they will pressure the others into accepting it as a norm, as by the mechanism mentioned above. This is dependent on whether the topic of homosexuality is discussed in the peer group. If the peer group has no views or prejudices on an issue, then other factors come into play.

  1. Religion

Non-homophobes can be led into thinking homosexuality is wrong if their religion says so. Fundamentalist types take religious texts and turn them into the set of norms for their group. You can either accept the norms, or leave the fundamentalist group in general.

So homophobia can be induced by either direct evolutionary psychological mechanisms (defence mechanisms for homosexuals) or indirect ones (pressure into adhering into societal norms created to rationalise irrational fears).

Does that cover the second cite you wanted, or am I way off track?

30

As long as the population grows, I don’t think “evolution” cares one way or the other.

31

For society as a whole, this is not a necessary evolutionary trait and does not matter much.

For homosexuals, it is absolutely pivotal that they somehow supress their homosexuality so they can procreate, so in this case evolution most certainly “cares”.

32

I think it is, most simply put, a “bully” thing. These are the same people who think niggers are uppity, women better get in their place, and the fuckin’ chinks are ruining our economy. They’ve picked on people who don’t “fit in” to their idea of the world since time began. As children, they picked on the fat kid. As teens, they picked on those kids who didn’t do well in sports. And they’ve never grown up.

I don’t see how it can be an inherited thing. I feel it is a chosen behavior to act like a moron to people who are different. The idea was most likely put in their heads by their parents or someone else when they were young. And no one bothered to speak up and tell them the ideas were unfounded.

33

Forgive me, I missed the “gay gene” finding. Can you point me?

34

Bullshit. Do you have a cite for the relationship between homophobia and these other behaviors? Because I’ve got counter-examples. You can find bullies, racists, and misogynists in any sufficiently large group.

I’ve recently discovered in another thread, to my surprise, that I’m a homophobe. But none of these other things describe me or the people I know who share my views of homosexuality. So I think this is what you want to believe, because it makes them easier for you to hate.

35

We do not live in a culture where, traditionally and currently, it is the norm for females and males to glance around looking for attractive people of the opposite sex and, upon finding them, indicate that attraction in a mirror-image reciprocal manner and toddle off to bed and/or relationship together.

What we have instead–definitely traditionally and, while not absolute and universal, still quite the significant factor currently–is an environment in which males do (and are expected to) pursue females far more openly, far more aggressively, than vice versa, in a non-reciprocal, non-mirror-image manner that posits males as the appetites and females as the objects of lust. (For example, behavior that might be regarded as a pretty blatant and explicit sexual come-on if exhibited by a woman, e.g., saying to a male at a singles bar “You haven’t asked me up to your apartment yet, why not?”, might scarcely register as serious flirting when exhibited by a man towards a female in the same singles bar. )

That means the men who end up with sexual access to women end(ed) up in that situation not as a consequence of being cute + female lust being expressed but instead as a triumph, an accomplishment. He “won her”. Usually this winning had/has to do with some sort of competition with other men, and not really in quite the same sense that attractive women are in competition with each other (i.e., to successfully inspire male sexual appetite and direct interest). In fact, it is portrayed as a triumph over the attractive females (who “surrender” or get “taken”, as if they’d never engage in such activities if given any choice in the matter) as well as over the other males.

With that being the case, you have a lot of psychological room in which for males to be attracted to females but to be at risk of being “heterosexually ineligible”, of being unable to compete effectively to get women. And homosexuality is/has been painted and portrayed not as “oh, some guys just find other guys cute instead, that’s the way they are” so much as "if you aren’t man enough, if you aren’t a winner, if you get beaten by the other men in the Big Competition, you are a fuck-ee, a homofaggot, you are triumphed over just as the “taken” women are, you’re more like a woman than a man. And by definition, that’s all about losing and ending up in an undesirable situation that you’re supposed to be trying to avoid! So of course there is much contempt for them!

So logically you’re going to have a widely shared fear of failure in this general endeavor, as with any competitive endeavor. So if you’re afraid of losing and being “turned into a homo”, how are you going to react to real live actual gay guys, who are in theory the ones into whose lot you’re gonna get cast and with whom you’ll end up having sex as a consolation prize if you don’t triumph in the Heterosexuality Iron Man Competition thingie?

I wrote more extensively on this perspective in a sociology paper "Same Closet, Different Door: A Heterosexual Sissy’s Coming-out Party which is available online here.

36

I have a possibly hare-brained notion about why some people might be so quick to condemn homosexuality as a sin when they are less quick to condemn people who engage in sins condemned far more strongly by the Bible. See, it’s a lot easier to cast your stones at those committing sins that you personally have no desire to commit.

It’s also tempting to condemn those who acted on desires that you managed to repress or overcome, but I’m not convinced that the majority of homophobes are acting from motivations that complex. For many I suspect it’s as simple as “I have been told X is a sin, and I certainly can’t imagine being tempted to do X, so anyone who does do X is clearly not just a sinner but an unusually weak and deviant sinner.”

I can see how this theory would work in, uh, theory, but I don’t think it makes much sense if you look at the reality of human reproduction. A woman is only capable of squeezing out so many babies. As long as she has no fertility problems and is having sex (without birth control) with at least one man with no fertility problems fairly regularly during some significant portion of her reproductive years, she’s going to have about as many babies as can be expected. If she’s also getting some action from a girlfriend on the side, has sex with women when she is not fertile anyway (already pregnant, nursing, menopausal, or just a day when she’s not ovulating), or even spends a portion of her peak fertility time exclusively having sex with women, it’s not going to make much of a dent in her reproductive odds.

With men things are even more straightforward. As long as a bisexual man’s attraction to other men is not so overwhelming that it interferes with his ability to either 1) maintain a fairly long-term sexual relationship with at least one woman at some point in his life or 2) play “Wham, bam, thank you, ma’am!” with a larger number of women for a shorter period of time, he should also manage to father as many children as the next guy.

37

Homophobia is very complex, comprising aspects of xenophobia, self-hatred, and, indirectly, infantilism, which is a root cause of religious mania. It’s further complicated by the very real support of homophobia offered by the current zeitgeist, or cultural status quo.

Its largest driver is fear; notably two fears: fear of the unfamiliar, and fear of one’s own differentness, i.e., one’s own latent homosexuality.

When these private fears are bolstered by one’s relgion and culture, and exacerbated by the self-loathing engendered by that culture’s condemnation, homophobia is transferred outward and, mixed with the envy felt toward those people who have apparently conquered those fears and are living normal, open lives–uncloseted homosexuals–becomes an active anger focused on those envied by the homophobe.

How focused anger manifests depends on the individual homophobe, and can range from silent self-loathing and internalized homophobia, all the way to self-justifying physical violence perpetrated on the envied.

Any questions?

38

Forgive me, I missed me mentioned a “gay gene” in any of my posts. Could you point it out for me?
The general consensus on homosexuality is that it arises from a complex variety of factors. Including genetics. If it is even only partly genetic, then the principles of evolutionary psychology still apply. Natural selection over time favours even very small advantages, such as that which homophobia would provide.
Lissener:

Just one. Cite?

39

No cite; original synthesis of lifetime of experience, reading, and discussion.

40

I take that back: not original, I’ve stolen all the concepts; only the synthesis is original, in that it’s in my own words.