Simply, some people fear what they cannot understand.
I think that those who are physically violent to homosexuals are basically bullies to begin with. I don’t know of any men who decent, peaceful and compassionate in all other circumstances and who only become violent and hateful when they come across a gay man.
There is a certain type of guy who can only reinforce his self-image by expressing some physical dominance over others. Accordingly they seek out those who they perceive as “weaker” (women, “faggots,” dogs) for their targets. They will also seek out individuals who they feel they have some sanction from society (or at least a weaker proscription against) for victimizing. In times past, these guys used to look for blacks to beat up on, because that was a group with little or no political power, and who were seen as “lesser” than the aggressor.
Homosexuals fall into that same category. They have historically been characterized as “deviants” or “perverts,” even as criminals who would molest children. As such they are safe targets for the neanderthals. They not only get to show dominance over a weaker victim, they also feel they have a religious justification to do it.
Of course, all of the other variables that people have mentioned in this thread are aggravating factors. Such things as psychic distress caused by repressed homosexual feelings, personal feelings of disgust (which are by no means exclusive to heteros, ask a gay guy how he feels about the thought of eating pussy) simple ignorance about negative stereotypes (i.e. they’re all child molesters) all play a role. I would also throw in the pack dynamic. Guys will do things in a group that they will not do on their own. Some guys may feel pressure to join in a gay bashing exercise to “prove they’re not a faggot.”
To sum up, I would say that homosexuals are a handy target for guys who are already assholes. I don’t think that it would necessarily have to take a homosexual target to make these guys happy. These day a “towelhead” would probably do just fine.
This stereotype is often applied to the powerless minority. Jews in Hitler’s Germany, Irish in Boston, blacks in the US… Replace “men” in above with the dominant group.
There were, for a long time. 16th-century Protestant religious propaganda is full of complaints about the “deviancy” of monks and nuns. Many other Protestants at the time referred to the celibacy of priests as an unnatural state that led to social problems: fornication (by priests), depopulation of rural areas, breaking of oaths, etc. Indeed, one could say that some of the 16th-century attacks on the regular clergy and the adoption of celibacy were similar in form, if not in word, of some of the cruder forms of homophobia.
Granted, a lot of the attacks were fed by religious intolerance, but there is at least some connection. I guess there aren’t really any monk-bashers today mostly because there just aren’t many around any more in Western society. In the 16th century, monks and nuns comprised a significant portion of the population.
originaly by: Diogenes the Cynic
I think you just hit the nail on the head!! I am reminded of Mathew Sheperd and how it took 3 big tough men to beat up on 1 small frail man to make themselves feel better about being assholes.
originaly by ; Lissa
Can I get an “AMEN” for Rev.Phelps, Rev.Robetson and Rev. Fallwell??
I’m going to have to disagree with this statement, unless you are saying that homophobia automatically makes someone an asshole (which may well be true, but makes the statement a tautology). I find myself in the unfortunate position of knowing people who are otherwise quite nice, wonderful people, except for the fact that they are rabidly anti-gay. It reminds me of that song from a few years ago “Some of my best friends are racists”.
The worst joke I’ve heard from someone I respect(ed) was “now that they’ve made homosexuality legal, I better get out of town before they make it compulsory”.
It’s in trying to see what gives these sorts of people their attitudes that I think the most progress can be made in answering the OP. I partly agree with the idea that latency can lead to hatred, but it seems too political to me, as if it’s trying to hurt gay bashers (“You’re a faggot” “You must be gay to say that”), without getting to the root of the problem. I often use myself as an example - about ten years ago, I also hated gay men. Why? Because of ignorance. When I actually started to meet men and women from across the sexual spectrum, I no longer hated them, as it became a non-issue for me. I don’t believe that my sexuality changed at all over that period of time, just my knowledge of the world.
It disturbs me when people I respect make ignorant comments about homosexuality, and when I call them on it, I usually get a response along the lines of it being ‘unnatural’, or ‘self-evidently wrong’. These can be people who will (in a non-religious context) raise money for charity, help out the socially disadvantaged, and do other things that seem inconsistent with a random hatred. I guess people’s characters just aren’t meant to be coherent.
In my opinion, a big cause of it is that homosexuals have been marginalised, and then in the same way that many races have needed to, they have identified themselves with what marginalised them, by saying proudly “I am gay”. I wish this wasn’t necessary, and I’m curious whether there is any homophobia in a society (perhaps a hypothetical one) in which sexuality is not seen as part of people’s self-definition.
Hell, there are people today who claim that celibacy among the clergy is the reason that some priests are pedophiles. Of course, most people should know better.
Personally, I never CARED if anyone was gay or straight or whatever. Even when I was little. And then it was more of a giggle thing, like you’d giggle at ANYTHING.
I remember watching a documentary where this guy was harassing a gay protest or something, and he got into a yelling fight with this one woman who was a lesbian. And I thought to myself-why does he care so much? She has nothing to do with him?
I think with some people, it’s just an outlet for their own insecurity-and it’s not necessarily being insecure about their own sexuality.
And again, it’s the unknown. The fear of someone who is “different.”
Speaking as a gay man–and that is NOT IMHO!–I think nearly everything that has been put forward here has a degree of validity; ie, it is a contributory factor.
To add to the discussion:
-
Note that a lot of the really extreme baiting/bashing behavior is done by young men in front of their male peers. To an extent, it’s part of the game and dilemma of interpersonal politics: it is thought that, if one fails to express violent disgust for Them, one is hinting that one is one of Them. I happen to think males tend to be competitive; unfortunately, in some circumstances they can also compete in hating and hitting.
-
There is another “unspeakable” subject that is sexual in nature and riles people to the point of violence, namely what is called (often erroneously) “pedophilia.” These very boards have echoed with calls for testicular decapitation on the spot. I asked in one thread for some comment on why this particular crime excites stronger feelings than, eg, murder or treason. Lots of theories, no general conclusions. Explain why fondling an 11-year-old brings forth a visceral response (in some people) that is not aroused by the torture-rape of a 30-year-old, and we will have made some real progress.
I recommend to everyone the book “Sexual Landscapes” by James D. Weinrich, PhD. It’ll learn ya good.
Scott, thanks for pushing some buttons and pushing this debate out of the safety zone. I’m sure many people (including those who are totally fine with homosexuality), are currently thinking awful things about you, despite themselves. And at the same time, there are many gay people reading what you’ve written disgusted by the fact you’ve linked homosexuality and pedophilia. It seems like almost everyone has a line they draw somewhere between acceptable and unacceptable. I haven’t seen the book you recommend, but I will search it out.
I have one question and one comment.
-
Why do you say that “pedophilia” is used “often erroneously”?
-
The ‘nice but homophobic’ folks I mentioned in my post almost never have a reason to bring up gay people when they do. It’s not like they are walking down the street and see two men holding hands and make a comment, or something like that. It’s always just an out of the blue spewing of hatred. They’re also well beyond the age when they should be showing off their strengths, or needing to overcome their sexual anxieties (having been married for many many years).
I really hope that people pick up on what Scott’s written, without just kneejerk-flaming him.
Diogenes, I like you, but c’mon.
The social pack dynamic is the definitive reason – not the pseudo-psychology of latency (which is the gay equivalent of “Jimmy’s gay! Jimmy’s gay”).
Simply put, homosexuality upends the social pecking order. In the game of life where the a guy dating a supermodel has “hit the jackpot,” homosexuals upends the game, declaring it irrelevant. Those whom their entire life has revolved around moving up and moving down in this game are of course threatened – not by some hidden sexual desire for cock – but by the upending of the social order. If you don’t compete with my for women, you’re saying my whole social order is irrelevant, and the irrelevancy is what’s threatening.
Minor versions of this “social priority irrelevancy” are buddhists and vegetarians, and do they not get similar treatment when recognized? Sure they do.
Here’s a thought experiment. America values a degree. Many of you have worked hard, maybe for even a graduate degree? If so read the next:
The new generation says Graduate Degrees are shit. The new idea is that you need work experience these days to amount to anything. You’ve wasted your time, and you start from scratch, zero:
(Easy, the above was just making a point) Feel threatened? Sure! That’s your social value being eroded, and your hard work, your “social capital” depreciating as the meme propogates, and I don’t blame you at all for emphasising the old meme to protect your capital.
HenrySpencer makes a good point. My parents are quite pleasant people, but they don’t like and can’t handle the idea of homosexuality. A very good friend of mine is gay, but I have to be careful when I talk about him because mentioning his spouse disconcerts them. Considering I usually spend as much time talking to his spouse as I do him, this gets awkward. In their case, from what Mum’s said, I think it’s simply that they grew up in an era where sex in general was simply not discussed and homosexuality was unheard of, outside of Oscar Wilde. In all fairness to them, too, I think if one of her kids were gay, Mum would do her level best to make the paradigm shift and accept them as they were, spouse included, and Dad would grumble but do the same, if only for the sake of the family.
Regarding homosexuality and Christianity, homosexuality is only mentioned in a handful of passages which can be interpreted in various ways, some of which might be due to squeamishness about sex in general. Adultery is specifically and unequivocally prohibited in several places, starting with the 10 Commandments. Still, when it was found that several Republican members of Congress, including Henry Hyde and Helen Chenoweth, had committed adultery, the only people crying for their removal from Congress were Democrats, not conservatives (this was during the height of the Monica Lewinsky contretemps). Hyde is still in office. For some reason adultery seems to be considered more acceptable than homosexuality, perhaps because people can picture committing adultery? My point is, despite Biblical adultery is seen as being almost acceptable. Divorce is also specifically prohibited by Christ, Himself, yet the so-called Bible Belt has the highest divorce rates in the country.
I suspect this comes down to people being sympathetic to people they know or situations they could find themselves in. After all, anyone can have a bad marriage and anyone could find out their spouse cheated on them. They can’t picture being homosexual. I think they also see homosexuals as consciously choosing to reject conventional values and, by extension, them. I’ve seen quite a few debates here where people are against homosexuality keep talking in terms of homosexuals choosing to sin. I’m not always sure they grasp the difference between what one chooses and what one is. To such people, me sitting here and thinking, “Boy, Antonio Banderas is gorgeous!” is natural and reasonable enough. Hamish thinking the same thing is vile, gross, and disgusting.:rolleyes: I think it’s because they see him as defying convention.
Oh, Ace of Swords, I hate to disappoint you, but this relative codger agrees with your spoilered coment and agrees with you that college degrees are vastly overrated. I’ll even argue that there is no reason for some people to go to college. Sorry.
CJ
I’ve read all the posts and thought I might as well join the forray as well. Hi, I’m bi (arguably only on a physical level, but its worth mentioning). From personal experiance; being one of (apparent) higher intellect living in an artsy college town (my entire life) immediatley surrounded by corn fields and front yards littered with broken down automobiles, I’ve likely witnessed a large portion of male behaviours; both ignorant and educated. Across the board, in the male gender, you’ll notice blatant homoerotic activity (specifically in the younger years) generally being accepted as the norm. This leads me to conclude that if not latent homosexuality, at least a large degree of latent (pre)bisexuality is quite common in boys if not men.
Now for the connundrum, you have practiced homoerotic relationships formed within an area where (barring the actual town center) homosexuality is still something that can be reacted to with extreme hostility. Being taught that relationships that were once completely innocent are suddenly ‘wrong’ once you’re of a certain sexual maturity may lead you to lash out against your own instincts. Think of this as the softer side of the selfloating thats been mentioned before. Someone you thought of as a close friend suddenly becomes something threatening, someone with whom the threat of intimacy is possible. If you are to give in to this ‘weakness’ and allow the friendship (and possible relationship) to flourrish, and someone might call your ‘weakness’ into the open and suddenly you’ve become stigmatized. Granted this is an extreme example, but it makes a valid point IMO.
Beyond this, we’re giving the generic man WAY too much credit. I don’t like saying this, but especially on this board we have to look at the fact that the majority of us are those capable of higher thought process. Im saying this because of typical mamalian herd mentality. Ever been to the grocery store and noticed people standing in the longest available line, when there are other SHORTER lines available? You can say that theyre not in a hurry, or that they just love waiting in lines… but honestly, thats rarely the case. This is a common example of the herd effect. People will pick up and follow thoughts and actions given to them for no apparent reason, other than the instinctual need to follow. Am I saying most people are incapable of indepent thought? Of course not, but when one has no opinion on something its much easier to adopt the position of another than to actually invest the time and thought into making their own minds up.
let it be known that I meant to say ‘fray’ rather than ‘forray’. Im trying to force myself into wakefulness and its not going terribly well.
I don’t see how you can make a definitive statement like that. I am a heterosexual that finds gay (male) sex disgusting. I grew up in a modestly liberal community and the town where I live now has a large and vocal gay population. There is no social pressure preventing me from releasing my sexual urges with men. I don’t really even have any close male friends that I’d be afraid of offending. Yet I cringe at the site of men kissing. It’s a gut reaction. There’s no distinction between my reaction to gay sex and anything else to which I have an instinctive aversion, say, eating shit. I’ve never met a heterosexual male that feels differently. Heterosexual male dopers that disagree, please weigh in. Is it possible that the reaction is purely cultural? Of course. But to entirely dismiss any biological explananation out of hand without scientific proof is needlessly close-minded.
Let’s not misstate my theory. I haven’t argued that homosexuality is an unsuccessful trait. Obviously it is successful since it has lasted through the ages and displays itself all over the animal kingdom. What I’m saying is that I believe an aversion to it is also a successful trait. It is what prevents heterosexuals like myself from directing their sexual energy to same sex partners. Doesn’t mean homosexuality, bisexuality or non-sexuality are unsuccessful traits either. But an aversion to homosexuality…one that forces a sexually active person to have heterosexual sex because to them there is no alternative…would guarantee the advancement of a species. That’s why it makes sense to me that people do have this aversion.
Why would you need an aversion to homosexuality when you already have an attraction to heterosexuality?
Ah, but I think what is termed an “aversion to homosexuality” has different meanings to different people in this argument. It seems you interpret it to mean “aversion to the act of homosexual sex in your gender”, while it seems that the poster you responded to interpret it to mean “an aversion to anything connected to homosexuality, including the people who are homosexual”. So you’re arguing at cross purposes (Is that the correct use of that expression, by the way? I’m not very good in English.). At least, that’s how I see it.
Now, to address your actual question… I’m a heterosexual male. I don’t cringe on seeing men kissing. I do feel an aversion to homosexual sex that involves me but I don’t feel aversion on seeing others … well, I don’t feel good about it, but then I don’t feel good about watching what (IMHO) is a very private and personal act between consenting adults in any sexual configuration, unless I’m expressly invited to (but then, in my mind, I turn into a participant, since I’m interacting with the other participants.). And if I’m expressly invited by two men, then my aversion kicks in, and I’ll say “No thanks”. At least I imagine I will; I haven’t been in that situation yet.
I don’t. But if I just decided out of convenience to have sex with my male acquaintences instead of seeking out women, I would have no chance of reproducing. My aversion forces me to have sex with women.
I don’t see how one prevents the other. Many gay people have children though the usual process.
And I can’t just decide to like liver and onions. Frankly it repulses me. But it has never changed my opinion of someone who likes liver and onions.
HenrySpencer
I’m going to have to disagree with this statement, unless you are saying that homophobia automatically makes someone an asshole (which may well be true, but makes the statement a tautology). I find myself in the unfortunate position of knowing people who are otherwise quite nice, wonderful people, except for the fact that they are rabidly anti-gay.
With all due respect, I have a problem with such a calivalier stance toward individuals that harbor such attitudes toward any specific group( this group being homosexuals). How could any further redeeming qualities overshadow this irrational and malignant hatred? For this is much more than a minor character flaw, as I’m sure even Hitler loved his puppy. And by imposing your definition of “Rabidly Anti-Gay”, it assumes that these good folks would at their best behavior, secret their smiles over the news of a gay being viciously brutilized. These are people I would not care to share high tea with. And excuse the redundency, but it seems to me that you are saying that some of my best friends are assholes.
As I said in a previous post, I think that the same tendency that prevents heteros from participating in gay sex - an intense aversion to it - may also carry over into an aversion to gay people themselves. This is just the nature of people…I have no opinion on whether that nature is biological or environmental. But it is very common for someone to say ‘I don’t hate the person, just what he does’, while at the same time acting very much like they hate the person.
I will concede that how the aversion manifests itself may be cultural, but the end result - that you instinctively and explicitly avoid gay sex - supports the possibility of a hard-wired aversion.