Why does homosexuality elicit a violent reaction from some people?

Great Debates
101

I appreciate the research, however I already agreed that homosexuality is a successful trait. That homosexuality is successful does not rule out a biological explanation for aversion. In fact, I’m starting to think it supports it (surprise, right?). If homosexuality is so universally accepted, what possible reason would people have ever had to become disgusted with it? Sexuality is a combination of successful random traits. People aren’t intrinsically sexually attractive, they’re just clumps of organic material. Mutations are responsible for the chemical reactions leading to attraction, so why couldn’t they be responsible for chemical reactions leading to disgust?

Good point. The only reason I don’t think this applies to aversion to gay sex, is that a lot of people are not raised to be disgusted with gay sex as explicitly as Indians are raised not eating beef. And again, I’m only offering the possibility of innate aversion, which makes the job of disproving it that much harder.

I’m sorry, I don’t think you’ve demonstrated that. In fact, the only thing that I believe would prove it either way is a controlled study showing that couples with aversions to homosexuality have children with or without the aversion at a predictable frequency. Citing examples of homosexual acceptance throughout history only proves that homosexuality has been successful.

102

If a gut reaction to gay sex is instinctual, what’s with all the bi and gay people, then? What’s with the number of cultures (many previously cited) in which homosexuality has been common or bisexuality the cultural norm?

My reaction to same-sex sexual activity is much the same as my reaction to golf. The evidence of my senses suggests that there are people who enjoy it a great deal; I, on the other hand, don’t share that enjoyment and am not interested in playing. (My husband confirms that he’s of much the same opinion.)

103

They either don’t have the trait or they have it and it’s not expressed (if it is indeed a trait).

I don’t mean to be rude, but if you were capable of reading the cites, you are capable of reading my responses.

104

zwaldd, I think the problem here is that you are offering a hypothesis based on nothing more than your personal feelings combined with speculation and expecting people to take it seriously. The burden is not on anyone else to disprove your hypothesis, but for you to come up with some actual evidence to support it.

105

**

No, no, no! As I said before, you will NEVER find a culture where every single person likes, accepts or approves of the same things. It’s absolutely impossible. You’re waiting for proof that will never come. I’m sure there are some Indians who love beef, and I’m sure there are some people who like the taste of shit.

As Lissa pointed out, whether or not homosexuality is considered normal is a matter of cultural perception. However a gut reaction to gay sex itself may not be. . . .That homosexuality is successful does not rule out a biological explanation for aversion. In fact, I’m starting to think it supports it (surprise, right?). If homosexuality is so universally accepted, what possible reason would people have ever had to become disgusted with it? **
[/QUOTE]

It’s called SOCIAL PROGRAMMING. As I’ve said countless times, disgust for a social behavior is LEARNED, not innate. Just about only repulsion that we, humans and animals, instinctually have is an abhorance of incest. We have a firm foundation for this because incest can lead to malformed and retarded young. Homosexuality, on the other hand, has no negative repercussions on reproduction.

**

If this is true, then you must admit that your hypothosis is equally unprovable. However, I have legions of sociologists backing up my assertion that aversion to any social behavior must be learned.

When we are young children, we’ll accept anything which is taught to us, whether directly, or by watching the reactions of our peer group. If our peer group hates blacks, or Jews, such a hatred will seem perfectly natural to us, and the thought of having sex with one of those people will fill us with revulsion. If our peers teach us that homosexuality is gross, we will be digusted by homosexuality. We are products of our conditioning. The power of social conditioning is such that when an idea takes hold, it goes bone deep, and feels natural. (Yes, predjudices can be un-learned, which means that they are not biological, or ingrained in our genes.)

Toilet training is a good example of social conditioning. As our parents potty-train us, they teach us that it is disgusting to soil our pants, which was perfectly “natural” to us, only a few months before. The idea that urinating or defecating in one’s britches is nasty is drilled into us.

Years ago, a famous experiment was done to teat how deeply potty-training conditioning goes. Researchers gave test subjects vast quantities of water to drink. When the need to urinate became overwhelming, the researchers told the subjects to urinate in their pants, that no one would judge them for it. Most of the subjects could not do it, no matter how painful the need became. When they were small children, they would have “went” when the need arose, but shame had been drilled into them, and they could not relieve themselves.

Sociologists have written reams on the intensity of social programming. You, for example, probably would not walk out of the house dressed only in a hollowed out gourd to cover your genitals, but there are cultures which do so. I would not walk around with my breasts exposed, but I have quite a few pictures in my collection of * National Geographic * of women in Africa doing just that. Why? Because we have been conditioned to cover our bodies, and to feel embarassed when they are exposed in public, whereas the tribal mentality is that there’s nothing shameful about a naked breast. For some “modesty” is so deeply ingrained as to seem innate, but, again, it’s all a matter of social progamming.

See this site on the Social Constructionist view of human sexuality.

This is a very short page which discusses socilization and homophobia.

This is a study of apparent predictors of homophobia.

A short page on children’s socilization and homophobia.

There are thousands of sociology pages on the 'Net. I just selected a few. The general consensus among those who study human behavior is that homophobia is a learned trait: not innate or inborn. Few traits are. Humans are born as blank slates: what is written upon them depends on your socilization.

106

One of the most widespread taboos is that against incest – if anything could be deemed “instinctual” rather than “culturally conditioned,” it would be the incest taboo.

Yet there are numerous cases of violation of that taboo, with apparent general public acceptance, in the Bible, in ancient history, and here and there in cultural anthropology studies.

107

Of course. If a taboo exists, there will be people who get their jollies by violating it. However, incest isn’t necessarily fueled by sexual desire, but desire for power and dominance, much like rape. (I did previously mention the incestuous habits of Egyptian royalty.) Animals in captivity will also violate the taboo if no other mates are available. However, incest has not spread to the general culture at large as an accepted lifestyle choice. Participation is still somewhat limited in numbers. There is a small tribe of which I have heard in which fathers ritually take their daughters’ virginity on their wedding night, but this is more religious than sexual in nature.

Cannibalizing one’s kin is another ingrained taboo, but there are a few scattered recorded instances of this, as well.

108

This boggles the mind. A lot of people are raised to be disgusted with gay sex, explicitly, and the vast majority of those who are not raised explicitly are certainly subject to a number of instances in which it is implicit and expressed repeatedly in their interactions with the cultural environment around them.

I was not explicitly taught to believe that larvae are icky icky. I am disgusted by the thought of eating them. Hardly anyone I’ve heard about tries to justify larvae-eating disgust through religion, as they do with homosexuality. Is ‘gays will burn in hell’ explicit enough for you, I wonder? It’s not an universal sentiment, but it’s still alive and well in enough sectors of society that someone, growing up in modern western nations, will probably be exposed to the message at least a couple of times, though fortunately far less in some places than others.

As usual, I fail to understand the need to assign cultural and behavioural preferences to a genetic origin based solely on the perceived nature of the feeling as coming from one’s gut. That is all the evidence you have to sustain your theory, zwaldd, beyond the assertion that homophobia is consistently present in individuals who have not been exposed to homophobia themselves. Since I have a hard time believe such immaculately sheltered individuals exist in any relatively modern society in enough numbers to be of any statistical relevance, I fail to see where you can draw this data from.
And now, for something completely different. TMI anedoctal evidence warning.
I’m even dubious on the incest thing. I had a huge crush on my sister when I was younger. Hardly any instinctive repulsion there. No, I’m not ashamed of it, either. I mean, feelings are feelings, what are you going to do about them? Besides, I was very young, and though the crush was mildly eroticized in my mind, as kids do eroticize things in their own way, I had hardly any idea of the sexual implications. I wanted to marry my sister. I don’t, anymore, but not out of any innate sense of disgust for the idea, but rather because I no longer have a crush on her and I am more than aware of the social taboos regarding this sort of coupling. It’s anedoctal, of course, but then…it goes to show it’s hardly an universal feeling.

In addition, let us define incest. I am not speaking of rape here. Incest = !rape. While there are almost universal rules against marriage within the family group or clan (with notable exceptions that I can hardly believe are explained through the lack of a given genetic trait in the populations that practice these exceptions), the very definition of family group or clan varies wildly, and the nature of the prohibition does as well. Some are associated with a feeling of repulsion. Some have very practical political and economical reasons. Even in our society, to which degree of familiarity does this supposedly ‘instinctive’ repulsion extend? Uncles? First cousins? You’ll find it varies with time.
The problem with most assertions that seek to assign specific human behaviour, beyond the most vague of preferences, to an innate origin, is that they are, typically, based on ethnocentric thought. I do it this way, my people do it this way, it must therefore be natural. I’m not saying that zwaldd is going that far, but he’s certainly justifying his theory with nothing more than a gut feeling. I have had the same gut feeling. I know it. It wasn’t innate, since I’m over it now.

109

I want to make one thing clear before I start: barring the rather obvious example in section 4, I am neither condemning nor flaming any group of people entire in this post, no matter what I say. Any appearance of such is either a misrepresentation on my part or a misinterpretation on yours, and you have my apologetika for any of the former that might happen in advance.

Right, onwards.

  1. Why does homosexuality elicit a violent reaction from some people?

Because our attitudes towards gays develop in our teens. Teenage boys respond to behaviour outwith the norm with physicality, because that’s how males establish their pecking order.

1a) So why do women not beat up lesbians?

Because teenage girls are more inclined to establish their pecking order through ostracism and exclusion than through physical acts.

1b) So why does homophobia seem less prevalent among women?

Partly because the methods of expressing it are less overt, and partly because the practice of lesbianity is less out of the ordinary; compared to straight (AKA normal) sex, gay sex involves acts that a man would never have to do, whereas lesbian sex involves acts that a woman would either do to herself or have a man do to her.

However, do not make the mistake of thinking there are no female homophobes.

1c) So why do male homophobes not beat up and rape lesbians?

As has already been mentioned, some of them do. It’s a lot harder to spot lesbians, though, because women are as a rule more intimate in public - they do things as a matter of course that would instantly identify a Western man as gay.

1d) So why do female homophobes not beat up gay men?

See 1a - and besides, men are bigger and stronger.

1e) Why do men as a rule not hate lesbians, and women not hate gay men?

It’s complicated. Mainly, I think homophobia boils down to a person knowing what they as a man/woman “knowing what they should be doing” and seeing someone who is not doing it. This is always going to be a stronger feeling towards your own gender, simply because you know more about them.

1f) Why is it just homosexuality that gets people to be violent?

I’m sure the Pakistani gentleman who was kicked half to death by eighteen racist thugs not half a mile from where I sit would disagree with that idea if he were here and out of his coma, but he’s not and so I’ll do it. I reckon that more people have been beaten and killed in America because they’re black than because they’re gay.
2) Why is homosexuality considered unnatural?

Unnatural? Maybe not; it crops up a bit in the animal kingdom. But abnormal? Yes, absolutely and irrefutably, and the world would be a better place if the gay rights activists tried convincing people that “abnormal” doesn’t mean “wrong” or “fucked up” instead of making themselves look stupid claiming that it’s false.

2a) But what about the bonobos? Huh? Huh?

If I hear the bloody bonobo argument one more time, I think I’ll scream. The activities of Bonobos are not sexual behaviour; they have simply replaced social behaviour with sex. Humans do not bonk each other by way of saying “Hello”- which is just as well, 'cause if we did the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses would have taken over the Earth.
3) You know what it really means if you hate gays?

Yep - it means you really hate gays. Face it, folks; it makes far less logical sense to claim that people who hate gays are gay themselves than it does to say that people who say they’re gay secretly hate homosexuals. After all, if you have a case of self-loathing on your hands, saying something guaranteed to get you beaten up in half the known world would not be inconsistent.
4) “All homophobes are assholes!”

Wrong - all bigots are assholes, and that includes whoever it was gave us that little gem upthread. He’s just as much an asshole for saying a guy who hates gays because he was raped when he was 15 is, and probably far more so.
5) “Antigay violence is wrong.”

There are plenty of valid justifications for violence against gays. Curiously, they all apply to violence against heterosexuals as well. “He wouldn’t take no for an answer”, for example. Violence against someone because they are gay, OTOH, is not acceptable.
6) The Paedophilia Issue

The statistics I have been given - by someone defending gays from an accusation that they were all paedophiles, so I very much doubt they were lying or exaggerating - say that gay men comprise only 3-5% of the general population yet commit 15% of the sexual abuse of children. Make of that what you will; I’m saying no more on the subject, not even to defend those figures. It’s by far a lesser proportion than Ludovic was claiming, at any rate.
7) “Homosexuality […] has no negative repercussions on reproduction.”

For anyone who missed it, here’s the implication of that sentence:

“Not desiring - and, as a general rule, not practicing - reproductive sex has no negative repercussions on reproduction.”

'Nuff said.

110

**

It “crops up a bit?” 430 different species is a bit? It’s not only social appeasement: there are animals who permanently pair up into gay couples. A few years back, I remember seeing in a nature film two male sea birds who coupled up, and even built a nest together. (This species was one which mated for life.) It was not for lack of available females, some of which, the film noted, had not been selected as mates. Apparently these two birds just liked each other.See this page for gay animal “marriages.”

**

We were explicitily discussing violence against people because they’re gay. “He wouldn’t take no for an answer,” is often an “excuse” to pummel a gay person because he smiled at them. The stereotype of the “aggressive gay” makes some people ultra-defensive, and a pass which could be easily dealt with by saying, “Not thanks, I’m straight,” is instead responded to with violence.

**

Cite? You throw out spurious, inflamatory figures and then refuse to defend them? How is anyone supposed to take your agrument seriously?

Pedophelia and homosexuality are two seperate issues entirely. A male dult who molests young boys may be disgusted by the idea of having sex with another adult male. His prey is children, and he is exicted by his power and dominance over them, not necessarily their gender, though he may molest a certain sex out of preference. An adult male homosexual is not “turned on” by anything with a penis, regardless of how young the person may be. Homosexuals are not slavering monsters rabid for penis, regardless of the age of the owner, for crying out loud! Their sexual preferece is toward adult males. Just because you’re straight, does that mean that you desire the opposite sex, regardless of age?

Maybe not.

A gay person can reproduce as easily as you or I, epending on current social pressure, and their desire for a child, that is. Gay Greek soldiers married and reproduced without any notable difficulty. The opposite sex may not be their preference, but they can still do it, if they should so desire. Especially given our modern medicine, in which two bodies need never touch in order to reproduce.

111

How do you go from ‘the only thing that I believe would prove it either way is a controlled study showing that couples with aversions to homosexuality have children with or without the aversion at a predictable frequency’ to the implication that I believe that a cultural explanation for aversion is impossible to prove? I will admit that such a study would prove it one way or the other.

OK, now we’re getting somewhere. Lets examine your cites.

From the Social Constructionist link:

A second widely shared belief of social constructionists is that humans have nothing which is innate, or immutable.

OK, that supports your belief. Might even be the end of the discussion if not one page back I found that:

**Essentialists also give credence to the biological and psychological factors surrounding homosexuality. Specifically:

``that sexuality is strongly influenced by natural, non-social factors, such as genes, and that people’s personal characteristics - in addition to their bodies - are shaped by evolutionary forces…’’[1]**

So we have conflicting sociological views. Does that prove anything? No. Does it rule out biological explanations? Certainly not.
Next link, the review of medical consequences of homophobia, doesn’t really address the issue of a biological aversion. It does contain this conclusion:

the process of homophobia-the socialization of heterosexuals against homosexuals and concomitant conditioning of gays and lesbians against themselves-poses a legitimate health hazard.

And I will again agree that a societal push by heteros against homos is cultural, and is not the same issue as aversion to gay sex.
Next link, the predictors of homophobia in female college students. Again, an interesting study, but it failed to define homophobia, so I can’t assume they mean simply ‘aversion to gay sex’. It is likely that they are referring to social interaction, which is not the same thing. The journal also lists the criteria tested, and ‘reaction to descriptions and depictions of gay sex’ was not among them.
The last link doesn’t directly address aversion, but it does have this:

Male children, through the absence of their fathers, develop a " fantasy" version of an ideal masculinity that they then attempt to live up to. With the father traditionally absent, this ideological male is generally everything that the mother is not…an opposite to her femininity. The male role model being absent, this is how male children learn that men are supposed to economically support a family, but provide no other real support. Female children, on the other hand, never really loose the connection to their mother.

It says that without a male influence, boys develop an ‘ideal masculinity’ and girls maintain a connection with their mother. Nothing about what causes these developments, so I’m not sure what this proves, but it definitely leaves open the possibility of innate sex-role directors.

We also have this:
homophobia is rooted in the taunters disturbed sense of self

This implies that homophobia here involves taunting, which does not describe the aversion we have been discussing. I am not arguing the possibility of a biological explanation for taunting.

So you conclude The general consensus among those who study human behavior is that homophobia is a learned trait: not innate or inborn.

I might agree with you depending on how you define homophobia. I do not necessarily equate an aversion to gay sex with homophobia.

112

Evil Death:

Woah! Can you explain that a bit? I don’t think everyone’s making the same assumptions you are. There are no standard acts in gay or lesbian sex.

No. “Abnormal” is an inheritly prejorative phrase. Gay rights activists would be wasting their time trying to change it’s meaning. “Normal” means right, or alright, “abnormal” means wrong. If someone exhibits “abnormal behavior”, they’re exhibitng behavior that needs to be corrected. It’s perfectly normal to have blue eyes, even though most people don’t. It’s normal for a person to experience a same-sex attraction, even though most people don’t.

Not exaclty. Since when did homosexuality mean that? Exclusive homosexual behavior would mean no reproductive sex. However, an exclusive same-sex attraction would only mean no desire for emotional or recreational sex with an opposite sex partner, it doesn’t mean the urge to reproduce is gone.

113

I have simply suggested a possibility. Anything is possible as long as it doesn’t violate laws of physics, and even then sometimes the laws change. My opponents in this debate have declared an absolute, shifting the burden of proof to their shoulders. I am content to walk away with the issue remaining open to debate. Apparently, they are not.
A passage from an article from Scientific American may explain why:

it is understandable why suppressed categories of people, such as minorities and women, fail to see biology as a friend. I would argue, however, that the danger comes from both directions, from bio-logical determinism as well as its opposite, the denial of basic human needs and the belief that we can be everything we want to be. The hippie communes of the 1960s, the Israeli kib-butzim and the feminist revolution all sought to redefine humans. But denial of sexual jealousy, the parent-child bond or gender differences can be carried only so far before a counter-movement will seek to balance cultural trends with evolved human inclinations.

http://www.sfu.ca/~dant/projects/psyc100/de_waal_nature_nurture.pdf

[Fixed link. – MEB]

114

I said “justification”, not “excuse”. A gay guy came onto me once, and I made it perfectly clear that I wasn’t interested. He did it again, I made it clear again. He only stopped when I caused him pain - specifically, I stuck out the first joint of two fingers from a fist and rested them against his sternum in such a way as to put intolerable pressure on his heart and lungs if he moved towards me.

Now - do you think that action was unjustifiable? Would you have thought it was unjustifiable if I were a woman and the guy were straight?

{Re: paedophilia figures}

**

I don’t have cites for those figures, which is why I’m not defending them. If you have figures with cites, then by all means provide them - I’ll listen to you. If you don’t, though, then don’t blame me for basing my conclusions on the best information in my possession when you have nothing better.

This study (http://home.wanadoo.nl/host/wilson_83/index.htm) is the only one I’ve been able to find spelling out numbers. The numbers given suggest that anywhere between three and eight in every nine paedophiles is gay, though I’m not sure how they fit into the general context because they’re taken from a survey of paedophiles. I suspect that they overinflate the actual proportion; using the upper bound would put the incidence of paedophilia among homosexuals at 50%, which doesn’t seem likely. I did find one article spelling out general population numbers, but since it ends with a footnote asking a gay activist to refute it “if you haven’t yet died of AIDS […] you scummy piece of filth” I’m choosing to ignore it.

As I said, though, if you have anything better, please do provide it.

115

I think most present would consider fellatio and/or anal sex to be the generally regarded “standard” acts of gay sex, and likewise cunnilingus and genital manipulation for lesbian sex.
**

No, it isn’t. “Abnormal” just means “differing from the norm”. If it has acquired a pejorative connotation, then that can be altered. That’s the aim of the fight for gay rights, isn’t it - to remove the pejorative connotations of homosexuality?

116

I’m very pleased you actually read the links. A lot of people wouldn’t have.

**

You don’t seem to understand the extrordinary difficulty in not transferring parents’ predjudices to children. Kids watch every single emotional/behavioral cue that parents display to learn about how they should react to society. Even if the parents are not aware that they’re transmitting the cues, something as small as a tic by the lip, or a look in the eye can clearly tell a child what the parents think. How would you control for peer influence? For influence by other family members? The only way to “prove” that aversion to homosexuality was biological in nature, would be to raise a child in a labratory, without ever seeing, or hearing another person discussing homosexuality, and then introduce the concept, and watch his reaction. Even this study would have seious flaws, since the child would be denied any chance for normal socilization.

Here is something I found somewhat relevant to the argument. This site discusses children of lesbian mothers.

The gist is that children of lesbian mothers often feel angry, hostile, etc. toward their mothers and partners initially becaue of their mother’s “violation” of the sex roles that they see displayed by their peers, and society’s portrayal of the traditional sex role. Not that they’re “naturally” grossed out by their mother’s sexual activity.

Sorry, I assumed that you knew something of sociology. There are different schools of thought, Social Constructionist, Conlfict Theorists, Functionalists, and Symbolic Interactionists, and so on. Each has a different perspective on the origin of social behavior.

And I think that it is, and so do a good deal of sociologists. Finding something “gross” is cultural and learned. Had you been raised otherwise, you would not feel this way.

**

Uhm, pretty much, it’s the same thing. Finding homosexuals “gross” means that you find their behavior “gross” as well, and vice versa. Most people do not make a distinction between the behavior and the person.

**

I used this link to try to point out social cues that children pick up from their parents. The absence of a father does not necessarily mean that there is no male role model in boy’s life: any male which is close to the boy, teacher, grandfather, uncle, next door neighbor, etc., can provide the child with social cues. In the modern era, television images can also be a powerful socialization tool.

**

This link was to show the way children pick up social cues from their schoolmates. Taunting, as you agree, is not biological, but is part of the “pecking order” which seems to accompany children’s socialization; to reject anything “different” and thus demonstrate your conformaty and “normalcy” to the pack. The point was that your childhood peers can instill predjudice as well as your parents.

Here’s some more on children and socialization.

A very simple socialization page.

This site says:

(Bolding mine.)

Here is a page on sex role socialization.

I researched your point of view that aversion to homosexual acts is natural, and the only pages I could find in support were Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christian websites, and a rather frightening link to a page suggesting painful aversion therapy for homosexuals.

117

Lissa, you do OK until you start spouting unproven absolutes.
Finding something “gross” is cultural and learned. Had you been raised otherwise, you would not feel this way.

This may be true in some cases, not in others. You cited one school of sociology that claims all behavior is learned, I cited one that claims some behavior is innate. Do you have proof that Social Constructionists are right and Essentialists are wrong?
** Finding homosexuals “gross” means that you find their behavior “gross” as well, and vice versa.**

I need look no further than myself to prove this wrong. I find gay sex disgusting, can’t watch it, try not to imagine it. I am able to interact and work with gay people on a daily basis with no ill effects.
Taunting, as you agree, is not biological

You need to read more closely. What I said was “I am not arguing the possibility of a biological explanation for taunting.” I did not agree one way or the other.
I researched your point of view that aversion to homosexual acts is natural, and the only pages I could find in support were Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christian websites, and a rather frightening link to a page suggesting painful aversion therapy for homosexuals.

Those being heavily biased sites, I will concede that the jury is still out.

118

**

As a woman who has been in similar situations, I have never felt it necessary to resort to violence. Once, in a bar, I reported the harassment to the bartender, who had the bouncer eject the jerk. I have threatened to call the police if a jerk would not leave me alone, and I have got up and left the area. Never had to hit anyone.

No need to be snippy.

The American Phsycological Association website has this to say:

(Bolding mine.)

This site says:

This site says:

(Bolding mine)

119

Oh, come on. I don’t care to picture my grandparents having sex, does that mean I hate them or I’m prejudiced against old people?

120

This was in a public place, and I didn’t hit the gay or resort to violence. I simply put him in a position where he would hurt himself if he persisted.

However, you’ve avoided my question. If you heard a woman had punched a man for coming on strong when she’d said no, would you be thinking she was out of order? I don’t think you would.

**

I was being no more snippy than you.

Your quotes are getting disappeared by the forum software, but I don’t think there’s anything conclusive that either side can present. Continued discussion is only going to lead to angry words, so let’s leave it. It’s not wholly germane to the topic anyway.