BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

"homophobia" or "homonegativity"

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
matthew.
21:39 / 07.02.06
Did some thinking on this topic. I still have some problems with this study, but I am finding myself being won slowly. So I did some research. There's two studies. One by Wright in 1996, linked to above which appeared in the Abnormal Psych journal, a very credible and well-reviewed journal. The other is from Morgenstern, but I cannot find this on the net to link to.

In the study, homophobia is defined as "being uncomfortable around homosexuals". In the questionnaire, one of the questions is "agree or disagree: I am uncomfortable around homosexuals". I think this is too ambiguous: one could be uncomfy around gay people because one is still unsure about one's identity/sexuality.

Furthermore, homophobic people are often socially conservative. There is a correlation between conservatism and homophobia. I don't think the study controls for socially conservative people, religios people who are not generally familiar with pornography. They are less often exposed to it then someone say socially progressive. Also, this might create an exaggerated response on the part of the socially conservative because of less familiarity with erotic stimuli.

This kind of goes together with the above perceived problem with socially conservative people who are possibly still less sure of their own sexuality.

But in terms of the technique of the plethysmograph, I concede the point.
From THE EFFECTS OF SECONDARY STIMULUS CHARACTERISTICS ON MEN'S SEXUAL AROUSAL , By: Gaither, George A., Plaud, Joseph J., Journal of Sex Research, 00224499, 1997, Vol. 34, Issue 3

The penile plethysmograph is believed by many researchers and clinicians to be the most valid and reliable device currently available for assessing male sexual arousal (Howes, 1995; Maletzky, 1995; Proulx, 1989; Zuckerman, 1971). Although the main use of the penile plethysmograph is in the detection and treatment of sexual deviations (e.g., Abel & Blanchard, 1976; Kelly, 1982) and sexual dysfunctions (e.g., LoPiccolo & Stock, 1986), it has also been employed to examine such phenomena as the classical conditioning (e.g., Plaud & Martini, in press; Rachman, 1966), operant conditioning (e.g., Rosen, Shapiro, & Schwartz, 1975), and habituation (e.g., O'Donohue & Plaud, 1991; Plaud, Gaither, Amato-Henderson, & Devitt, in press) of male sexual arousal.

And another thing, this study says that males in general are more sexually aroused by any erotic stiumli (specifically in this experiment, same-sex erotic stimuli) than females:
"Using a relatively unobtrusive measure of sexual arousal towards same-gender sexual offers... analysis of data (ANOVA) revealed that males were significantly more sexually aroused than females"
"Moreover, females were significantly more angered by a same-gender sexual offer than males"
from Measuring receptivity to a same-gender sexual offer unobtrusively: Utilizing the 'list' experiment. Mulcahy, Edward Lee Jr.; Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol 62(3-A), Sep 2001. pp. 1106.

(If you really want to read this studies, and the Wright study in full, PM me and I'll give you my library card number and the links to the studies)
 
 
matthew.
21:43 / 07.02.06
Reading the Wright study:

Do these findings mean, then, that homophobia in men is a reaction to repressed homosexual urges, as psychoanalysis theorizes? While their findings are consistent with that theory, the authors note that there is another, competing theoretical explanation: anxiety. According to this theory, viewing the male homosexual videotape may have caused negative emotions (such as anxiety) in the homophobic men, but not in the nonhomophobic men. As the authors note, 'anxiety has been shown to enhance arousal and erection,' and so it is also possible that 'a response to homosexual stimuli [in these men] is a function of the threat condition rather than sexual arousal per se. These competing notions can and should be evaluated by future research.'
 
 
kaonashi
11:08 / 08.02.06
I find this a very interesting subject, and I must admit that I have had similar pedantic quibbles with "the fear of the same".

I don't have any intentions of arguing with the research, but I was just wondering if there would be any circumstance that a fairly rational non-homosexual individual would have problems with homosexuality on an intellectual or religious basis.

Without being a c*nt that is?

My mother is a devout Christian, and every time I talk with her on the subject she has expressed herself as
feeling intense pity for gay men.

And I know that is going to raise some hackles.

She has never expressed any negativity towards homosexuals as a group, its just that by her worldview being gay is a negative thing.

If you subscribe to secular humanism, it would be her negative actions or language that would make her a "c*nt",

Not a deeply held religious conviction.

I respect my mothers right to her beliefs and her opinion without thinking any less of her. And I am not saying that I agree with her by any means.

Its an issue that profoundly disturbs me, but I respect my mother, despite being gay myself.

Just my 2 cents, not intended to start a flame war, or even to to shit stir.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:27 / 08.02.06
Well. A similar issue has come up before on Barbelith - a few times, actually. The one I'm thinking of was when somebody suggested to (I think) Flyboy that he would not correct his grandfather if he used racist terminology. The response acknowledged that this was probably the case, but that he hoped that he would be honest enough with himself to admit the reasons why, which would be more about the risk of causing a ruckus in his family than older people being entitled to be racist.

Which I think is salutary. How you react to people's opinion of your sexuality is kind of your affair, but it's useful to think about why you are reacting thus. Is it because you think that religious conviction is a reasonable excuse for homophobia, or because you don't want to have an argument with your mother about it? I don't think either is ignoble, but they are both a bit complex.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:52 / 08.02.06
Ye olde thread. Everyone sounds very young in it, although in a cheering way.
 
 
Lurid Archive
13:07 / 08.02.06
I don't really understand that. I mean, its not clear to me why religious conviction should provide some kind of cover for odious views. The views are still odious, after all, and the fact that a person may have a social and philosophical framework to support those views seems unexceptional.

I suppose I understand how religious indoctrination can be particularly powerful - "for good people to do evil things, that takes religion" - and that may make one pause about being overly judgemental, but I think one should always pause with that anyway. Its the almost reflexive respect towards religion that seems odd to me.
 
 
Ex
14:15 / 08.02.06
I was just wondering if there would be any circumstance that a fairly rational non-homosexual individual would have problems with homosexuality on an intellectual or religious basis.

Without being a c*nt that is?

My tuppence on the whole 'homophobia' thing (not your mum specifically, scarboi, but it was a good place to hop in).

I think that it's a useful rhetorical strategy to argue that homophobia is a malfunction in reason, an eruption of un-reason into our logical thinking, a processing error. Thus in a lot of anti-homophobic writing, you get the idea of ignorance giving way to understanding, even of classing homophobia as a mental malfunction/mental illness, as in this Headshop thread.

However, although I would like to believe that society is logical, and that prejudice is an error in that logic, I think that actually, it's a skewed assessment. We're absolutely saturated with images from childhood onwards of the naturalness, complementarity and rightness of heterosexual couplehood (stick in a few clarifiers like 'white', 'middle class', 'youngish' and 'able bodied'). Thus I am not at all surprised if many people, who are not c*nts, find same sex pairings odd, sad or incomplete in some way. It's not a malfunction, it's exactly what society has encouraged them to do. You simply can't go 'Straight is wonderful and lovely and splendid and in harmony with the spheres' for five years and then hold up a small sign saying '(it's OK to be gay, too, I suppose)' and expect it to sink in.

However, I think that people should think about it. Especially if they've been given a reason to confront it. I wouldn't use the word 'c*nt' (I've never met your mum, you've never met my ladyparts) but I think 'solipsistic', 'selfish' and 'tunnel-visioned' might crop up in there - it depends how much you expect people to take responsibility for having been dumped on the easier end of a large cultural poking stick. And whether that Makes Them Bad People, which is, as Flyboy points out, a tricky one that's been kicked around a lot.

Anyway, I'm supposed to be reading love poetry.
 
 
kaonashi
17:24 / 08.02.06
Well I'm certainly on board with the notion that gender roles in our society are largely constructions of that same society. But I think that evolutionary programming is responsible for the remainder.

My main difficulty with most religious practices are the remnants of patriarchal societies ancient taboos which they all seem to contain in some measure.

An aside to Lurid, my respect for religious beliefs stems in a large part from my respect for my parents.

They do hold many beliefs that I have a hard time reconciling with what my intellect tells me about my environment. And they do not have the excuse of either ignorance or stupidity.

They are profoundly moral and idealistic people, and I find the Christian strawmen I occasionally see erected in conversation to not share many similarities with these my models of Christianity.

I think that I have forgiven them for the constant religious indoctrination I was subjected to as a child and teenager. But the guilt that their teachings have given me remains, despite everything I believe to the contrary.


Its rather a pathetic position to be in,
caught between ideologies.

And its hell on my sex life.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
17:53 / 08.02.06
I can believe it. Poor old you.

I think it's possible for intelligent people to believe in things which are not themselves intelligent - and can create very complex and convoluted reasons to support the things they believe. I assume that, ultimately, your mother feels sorry for homosexuals because she feels they are sinning. However, everyone is sinning - that's why grace exists. Which sin you choose to single out for attention is a mattter of personal choice. I mean, does she feel sorry for people who covet their neighbour's ass? That's canonical, at least...
 
 
kaonashi
18:05 / 08.02.06
Right, I was kind of waiting for that.


Want the truth? I don't know what the hell I believe.

Who's side I'm on, or if I even believe in sides.

As far as the pity goes, I'm honestly not sure.

I think it might be more of aspect of her personality than a strict application of canonical scripture.

I like my parents, this doesn't change the fact that they will probably disown me if I ever get the balls to be honest with them about who I am.
 
 
kaonashi
18:23 / 08.02.06
No offense Haus, but I find posting on this board exhausting.

Its not because it forces me to think,

its that it forces me to admit that I don't know what to think. Which is a reality I can usually ignore.


I might be back after I get some sleep.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply