Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Proof That Homophobia Is Associated with Homosexual Arousal
Breaking news! All that you thought you knew about homophobic people turns out to be true. You’ve been saying it for years, and it turns out that you were right. It’s scientific and stuff, too. Yes, imagine the fun you can have citing this study that proves that homophobia is associated with homosexual arousal to back up your claims that those who hate homosexuals are actually suppressing homoerotic urges. And this is bigger than Freud and his misogynistic, creepy theories.
In a Department of Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens study published on PubMed.gov, the authors come to the conclusion that homophobia is associated with homosexual arousal:
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
This study is actually years old, and yet never as relevant as it is today as Republican candidates take to the stage to squeal that they will repeal DADT and make gay marriage illegal on a federal level, while ignoring jobs and the economy. It’s enough to make any sane person wonder.
Psychology Today broke it down:
When viewing lesbian sex and straight sex, both the homophobic and the non-homophobic men showed increased penis circumference. For gay male sex, however, only the homophobic men showed heightened penis arousal.
Heterosexual men with the most anti-gay attitudes, when asked, reported not being sexually aroused by gay male sex videos. But, their penises reported otherwise.
Darn penises (or peni as The Donald would no doubt say). The Republican Party flees in terror.
I haven’t seen additional studies on this, and one would want to see these results duplicated, but this study does differentiate from arousal that can result from anger and specifies the arousal measured as sexual. I think we can all agree that the penis doesn’t lie as often as a politician or demagogue con artist raking in millions by appealing to hate.
This theory has been out there since Freud posited it. It is predictable that the Republican Party suffers reliable and consistent public humiliation after their most ardent anti-homosexual puppets get busted in public bathrooms doing the dirty deed.
Many theories in psychology account for this other than the homoerotic enlarged penile circumference. There’s projection that allows the person to distance themselves from what they most fear and despise in themselves. There’s denial leading to all kinds of machinations meant to assist in avoiding facing the truth.
And then there’s just common sense. How much energy does it take to hate an entire segment of people, to work tirelessly in order to deny them the right to serve in the military, to marry, to get access to healthcare and the pension of their spouse, even the right to visit their partner in the hospital?
Most people simply don’t care what strangers do with their life. It’s beyond telling when a political party and so called religion come together in service of this kind of hate. Fear often drives the individual; fear of their own desires and fear of their own choices. But the agenda of the political religious group is much more suspect. What do they stand to gain from focusing on something quite irrelevant to most of our daily lives? And more importantly, what are the results of their efforts?
Children bullying other children based on this kind of purposeful hate is on the rise. What causes homophobic bullying?
The root cause may well be prejudice against gay and lesbian people. Even very young children, who do not understand what homosexuality is, may be encouraged to indulge in homophobic behaviour by this general prejudice.
Individual motivations may be more complicated and, as in the case of other forms of bullying, may include a desire for power or a need for affiliation: some people gain satisfaction from imposing their power on others and a group will be strengthened if someone else is outside that group. Identifying people as being different because of their gender orientation may be a convenient excuse for isolating and persecuting them. The bonds that tie the members of a group together are strengthened because the members are not “different”.
Fear may also be a motivation – as the word “homophobic” suggests. This can be a fear of the unknown, a fear of someone who is perceived to be different, or a fear which is based on uncertainty about the nature of their own developing sexuality
Sure, you already knew this, but now you can back it up with science. The groups who perpetrate such ugly hate on a national, macro level are not much different from the childhood bully; they’re afraid, they’re attempting to put themselves in a position of power and authority over another group for their own benefit, and they are attempting to pull their group together by singling out those who don’t belong – a tactic often used by weakened groups whose only hope at survival is to divide and conquer.
The results of this deliberate appeal to the politics of hate have been horrific and unconscionable. We must stand together as a nation in order to call out the use of bigotry and hate as a political ploy and money-raising scam.
Related Posts :
The homophobic flood gates opened and the sewers are filling with hate and self-loathing by voices consumed ...
What do you get when you mix a conservative Republican mayor who ran on family values for congress with a ...
Governor Jerry Brown of California signed the FAIR Education Act (SB 48), authored by Senator Mark Leno ...
We saw the hate group known as the American Family Association (AFA) go after Ben & Jerry’s over a flavo ...
Bryan Fischer - Inventing his own research Bryan Fischer just seems bound and determined to dominate the ...
53 Responses to Proof That Homophobia Is Associated with Homosexual Arousal
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 6th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
I hate it when my own peni gives me away!
Actually, as the self-anointed great American philosopher (me) said, Homophobia is the fear that you are gay. Fear is the catalyst. By god I will kill you in case i get the gay! If there are no gays, I wont get the gay! Egads! I have solved the problem! As I am now old enough i could care less if I get laid again(living with a mean korean lady does that to you) I say we do away with heterosexuality!
Ignia
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 6:00 am
You have more than one?
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 7:58 am
Inquiring minds want to know about this prodigy!
Jimmy James
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Dude’s got six hands. Gotta keep them busy somehow.
Anonymouse
Dec. 6th, 2011 at 7:41 pm
The phrase; thou doth protest too much, comes to mind.
DannyEastVillage
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
The sentence (not phrase) is, “The lady doth protest too much, Methinks.” It’s from Hamlet.
Edward
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
“a sequence of two or more words arranged in a grammatical construction and acting as a unit in a sentence.”
Source: Dictionary.com
Taylor Bell
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 1:14 am
Anonymouse’s biggest mistake was his assumption that his audience would recognize the existence of alternate (and, in fact, more common) definitions of the word “phrase” by way of context.
Reynardine
Dec. 6th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Aside from the fact that the very donning of a penile cuff may cause a sexual focus that wasn’t there, the kinds of men willing to deck their boughs with pounds of collars may be different from those who aren’t. Projection, nonetheless, seems like a good mechanism for the more virulent kinds of hatred. I recall when the daughter of a friend, a rather sexually uninhibited young woman whose favorite recreation had been hobbled by a difficult delivery and badly healed episiotomy, could not stop harping about all those “bad n****** mothers” who were killing their babies by throwing them out windows. I halfway expected her little girl to be dead by the age of fivem she halfway wasn’t. Projection is truly big in those women, I think, who accuse “feminists” of being babyjhating, baby-killing whores: I haven’t seen even one such woman who didn’t have miserable children. Some of these women also project Lesbianism onto evil librul Feminists, but in most cases, it is liberty that is the quality at once most craved and hated. It would be interesting to somehow test female homophobes who focus on their own sex and homophobes of both sexes whose animosity is towards the opposite sex (though quite normal people can, at times, look at two attractive members of the opposite sex marrying each other and sigh, “ah! What a waste!)
Reynardine
Dec. 6th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
I note my alt key is sticking a little.
Sarah Jones
Dec. 6th, 2011 at 7:57 pm
They did put that cuff on the heteros who weren’t homophobic as well, though, and they exhibited no arousal….
Reynardine
Dec. 6th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
True. Might help to use some other means, though: if brain activity could be scanned, it might provide a more detailed depiction of the lust/hate linkup, as well as working equally well for women and detecting cases where psychological arousal doesn’t manifest physically.
calesuar
Dec. 6th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Well, “proof” is a premature word, but it sure as hell points in that direction. That was an 1996 small study. I would have thought there would be many more supporting studies by now and a larger sample. I agree with everything else you said.
Sarah Jones
Dec. 6th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
I pointed out the need for that as well, but I would consider this further proof of a long-standing psychological theory that had been tested in a variety of ways prior to this study.
DannyEastVillage
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Strictly speaking the word, “proof” isn’t appropriate for use on the basis of one study. This study generated evidence that homophobia is associated with homosexual arousal. If the study is replicated it may be expected to generate more such evidence. If many studies provide similar evidence the conclusion that could be drawn is that research demonstrates a correlation between homophobia and homosexual arousal. Proof would be elusive because proof would have to be based (I believe) on tracing the response of the “circuitry” of the central nervous system in the presence of certain types of stimulation, controlling for innumerable variables among individual. Therefore, in such a case science ordinarily contents itself with words like “evidence” and “correlation.”
Sarah Jones
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
There are many studies on this topic that have come to the same conclusion. For me, as a psy major, that is like telling an environmental scientist that they have to say global warming is a theory because it has not been proven. I am comfortable with the weight of the evidence on this issue, and I have assessed it in my opinion as a proven theory.
Louise
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 1:36 am
A theory *can’t* be proven – you can substantiate it or support it, or otherwise *dis*prove it.
If it is supported often enough it becomes a principle and then law. But a “proven theory” is an oxymoron.
Louise
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 1:37 am
Sorry, meant to add, “just to be pedantic”… :)
Sarah Jones
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 1:38 am
You know what they say: If you want to start a fight, say something on the internet. Of course, parsing things into pieces is sometimes meant to distract from the power and truth of the message:-)
mikeyhatesit
Dec. 6th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Reynardine: the collar used is made with a thin material and a skosh of velcro. Basically, the same design holds a tire pump to the frame of a bicycle. The [physignometer (sp)] is used quite often in other arousal studies, including rape agression. There’s even a female equivalent that measures lubrication and contractions.
By all means, in the interest of scientific ethics, the study should be reproduced several times to examine its falsifiability. For corroboration, EEGs and functional MRIs can monitor cognitive activity.
I recommend Marcus Bachmann as the first test subject. We need a control…
Reynardine
Dec. 6th, 2011 at 9:43 pm
We need to control the Bachmanns!
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 7:59 am
But not occupy them, because that would be just nasty…
Reynardine
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 9:28 am
I yield to your superior vulgarity.
SinghX
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Ahhh…I was waiting for someone to mention, “Marcus, honey, you slip is showing”…
You gotta’ love old Marcus; he’s only doing what his evil mistress tells him to do…or is it the other way around? I mean, he’s the one who got his on-line-only-took-two-years-Phd in psychology! Who controls whom? It’s only speculation but, she probably has him on a short leash, whips and chains while he uses gobs Pavlovian-style experimental mind control techniques on her, hence those goofy eyes and empty head…
This really does beg the question, how a homophobic (like Marcus) actually pray away the gay if the penis “monitor” is correct and gay arousal is a fact of life? How can anyone be allowed to collect a fee for counseling away the gay when in fact they are praying with no way of testing their theory or it’s result? Isn’t this considered fraud?
Brown cow
Dec. 6th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
I think the entire Phelps family should be tested.
Reynardine
Dec. 6th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Yes, for rabies.
Brown cow
Dec. 6th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Good one ! Or maybe for mad cow too, but definitely for teh gay.
Diane
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 6:41 am
What scares you makes you angry.
My first thought was that the republican reaction is going to be;
‘another government liberal website’!!!!!
Glad the study was done in Georgia.
Could you imagine any republican, homophobic man submitting to that test today, on the off chance his ‘gay barometer’ would test positive???
Ole Ole Olson
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 7:53 am
Nice to have an actual scientific study to back up what is pretty common knowledge to begin with. Going to cite this over and over for years anytime some social conservative starts getting off on queer bashing.
chaiwy163
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 8:40 am
The root cause may well be prejudice against gay and lesbian people. Even very young children, who do not understand what homosexuality is, may be encouraged to indulge in homophobic behaviour by this general prejudice.
HarryFerro
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 10:23 am
IMHO all of us, men and women, have a hetero- and homosexual tendence. That is natural, it is society who dictates rules, more or less stringent, and forces suppression when the forbidden drive is too strong. It isn’t surprising that a sample of men who for religious or ideological reasons have embedded the prohibitions more radically but whose drive is the stronger project their self-hate onto those who “indulge” freely into their nature. Their own fear to be unmasked, or their own horror to “indulge”, makes them the intolerant inquisitors who persecute what in facr is the object of their desire. Whether unwittingly or consciously they struggle to suppres the danger.
I recommend “Eyes Wide Open”, a film I recently watched where this social and ideological tension can be openly examined.
Shiva (Moderator)
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 10:49 am
I agree completely.
I think there is a vast amount of permutations that can occur when a human is born that results in our sexuality and what we think of our sexuality, and of what sex we feel we are. There is very little uniformity in the millions of births that occur every year. most of us lean one way or the other. I once read a study and I cannot vouch for its factuality, but the study said that there was no human being who had not had at least once had feelings or thoughts that leaned towards homosexuality. This scares people who are unsure of or afraid of their own view of their own sexuality. Of course that’s just my opinion too
KatzKids
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 11:31 am
Wasn’t there a Harvard Study quite awhile ago that produced the same results. I’ll have to google it – I’m too lazy to do it now.
Sal V.
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Remember, science does NOT prove anything; it merely provides evidence to support a position or disprove a position. Also, correlation does not imply causation.
A Walkaway
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
I find this study to be a bit simplistic, although the findings are rather convincing regarding one major cause of homophobia. There is more to the picture than repressed homosexual urges.
I personally know of two reasons for homophobia, and one isn’t the fear of being gay, but the fear of being coerced into a relationship one doesn’t want and away from relationships one DOES want. It’s a programmed fear introduced by the churches and explains the things I experienced.
I was very hostile to homosexuals for many years because I’d been taught (and believed until I encountered evidence to the contrary) that the gay movement was all about forcing people to become gay/lesbian and denying them their own choice in partners.
I mentioned some time in the past on this blog about an ersatz “gay magazine article” that was going around the Assemblies of God back in the early 80s, which called for laws making rejection of gay/lesbian advances an act of discrimination and therefore against the law. That fed right into the meme being programmed that LGBTs were only interested in sex and wanted to force everyone to be like them. At the time, I was single, lonely, and frustrated – and as I learned later, that was exactly where the dominionists wanted me. I didn’t had then (and never had) any interest in sex with other men, and was afraid of being denied (what was to me) a legitimate relationship.
As it turns out, they were projecting… trying to dictate with whom one could have relationships and how those relationships formed, and they’d been deliberately blocking me from having a “legitimate relationship” because some brain-dead asshole “PROPHET!!!” got it in his or her mind that God meant for me to be single all my life (I was actually told that a couple of times). I had to leave the Pentecostal churches before I met the young woman with whom I’ve been married to for the last 29 years.
It wasn’t until I returned to school that I learned what I’d been taught was bullshit. Then I learned that my best friend (whom I’ve known for over 30 years) was gay… he understood the programming I had and kept it hidden so as to not cause me discomfort. He respected my orientation. The couple of bad experiences I’d had with gays turned out to be the exception to the rule – that most LGBT people are not hedonistic sex fiends, and that most would not sexually harass a straight person (the sort of harassment that is against the law, by the way).
This study needs to examine the literature done by anthropologists, who find that sexual orientation and behavior covers a wide spectrum and really can’t (and shouldn’t) be forced into fixed categories. They need to do a bit of open-ended work (inductive vs deductive) to expand the scope of their findings. I admit that sex and related behavior is not related to my areas of study and interest, but even with the general readings I’ve done (even as an undergraduate), I understand that sexuality is a far more complex subject than usually depicted, and that homosexuality-heterosexuality is actually more of a spectrum (I am one of the rare people that fall at the fringe of the bell curve – to the heterosexual end of the spectrum).
Still, at the same time, this research is important because it does show that repressed sexuality is one of the factors in persecution and discrimination of sexual minorities. It shows that the accusation directed towards gay-bashers that they’re repressed homosexuals (or they are people repressing the “homosexual” portion of their makeup) could be very accurate.
Shawn
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 1:33 pm
I dislike anyone that splatters their sexual thoughts all over the place. This is because I am sexual and I am trying to control myself and Homosexuals do not feel the need to be professional or keep these things to themselves. Nothing I say or do indicates me as a heterosexual why do they need to? This is the part of the homosexual culture I dislike not the individuals. The very fact that I know you are a homosexual is a problem because that means you are out there broadcasting it to the world. I dislike hetero horn-dogs always talking about their balls or how they would like to bang this chick or that one.
Sky
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
The presumption of heterosexual priviledge is pervasive in our society and the fact of the matter is, discuss my boyfriend with friends at work is not splattering my sexuality all over the place. Have you ever discussed your assumedly opposite sex, sex partner in a public place. Anyone asked how your girlfriend/wife is? Hmmm It seems to me that heterosexuals are all about flaunting thier sexuality. Have you ever held a girls hand in public. I would respectfully say that likely you have done one, or many of these things, so why when we do it, is it forcing our agenda. Grow up.
A Walkaway
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
You want to know something?
I don’t encounter much sexual talk from the LGBT people I know, although we do often mention our “significant others”, such as my mentioning my wife (married 29 years) and things she’s doing or interested in or other such topics. (Ditto for my friends, who for the most part have been in lengthy relationships as well.) I don’t drag our bedroom into the conversation with them and they don’t either. That’s private stuff and we all keep it that way.
I often inquire as to how their partners are doing, because in several cases the partners are known to me and I like them. Sex rarely comes in any discussion with them.
At the same time, the greatest embarrassment I experienced came from a young hetero woman who described some of her escapades in great detail. I wasn’t interested in hearing about her sex life and some of the comments she made caused me to be very uncomfortable (I don’t think she realized that there was someone in her presence who didn’t consider sex to be the totality of existence and end-all of experiences). I’ve found that “straight” people can be just as nasty and offensive as LGBT people are reputed to be – the secret to remember is that we are all PEOPLE and there is variation in every group. In the people I associate with, sexual orientation isn’t a big deal. Sex is also not the totality of existence with my friends, and there is more to life than getting one’s jollies.
Maybe your stereotyping and monolithic view of LGBT people is offensive to them and they’re responding by verbally trying to offend you?
moles
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Stop it! I laughed so hard the coffee came out my nose. That hurts.
SinghX
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 3:39 pm
“The presumption of heterosexual privilege is pervasive in our society…”
Wow! Seriously! I’m going to look into your premise, being that I’m a raging hetro; the word “privileged” never entered my mind. But, your right, Sky!!! Eureka!
I would take it a step further and say that the white males are the top of the “privileged” food-chain in terms of setting up whats acceptable socio-sexual behavior and what’s not (as in those women are “pure” and the other ones sluts as a way to define womanhood via sexuality).
Although, I can be proven wrong…my mind is wandering to the new movie “The Purity Myth”, by Jessica Valenti…www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAGqfEU-FpQ
…I digress.
And yes, I do “flaunt” by conversations all over the place about my hormonal bondage partner as it is my deliberate attempt to annoys fundamentalist homophobes…thank you for the insight that was obvious to you, but unknown to moi.
Sky
Dec. 8th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
I think your responding to a different post, or in your inchoherent rage have burst a blood vessel and are just spewing randomn sentences across the page. Your statements don’t make any sense whatsoever in relation to my response to Shawn, and frankly if you doubt the heterosexual bias in our culture just take a look around.
In future please try to make a coherent statement inchoate ramblings are off-putting and strangely offensive.
SinghX
Dec. 9th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Well, excuse me! I didn’t know that there was a code of conduct prohibiting any and all rambling from anyone who comments…that excludes a good portion of the commenting population at large, wouldn’t you say?
I was defending your point of view; a particular perspective of which I had no awareness, insight or conscious consideration, being a straight person. The term “heterosexual privilege” is not a common term in my world…I learned something from you.
I ventured to expand, convey that “privileged” (economic/racial/sexual) in our culture is, by default, owned by the white males; women are second class citizens within those realms, and, are also defined by sexual “extremes” (“virgins” or sluts with little in between, hence the reference to the movie “The Purity Myth); women are “damned” psycho-socially in bifurcated directions, in case you were unaware, had no insight or conscious consideration of the facts being not being female/heterosexual.
Perhaps you might consider that your “rant” was not as coherent as believed; that is why myself and others answered in different ways.
Do try to contain yourself as it bodes poorly to attack others when they are trying to gain knowledge of your experiences.
Sky
Dec. 9th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
Sorry about that Singh I really wasnt sure of that I though that the statements about Heterosecual privledge were sarcastic, mea culpa. I ‘m sorry for misinterpreting your response, thats why I wanted clarification because I wasn’t sure where you were coming from. Thank You very much for clarifying your stance!
SinghX
Dec. 10th, 2011 at 9:23 am
Think nothing of it–my mouth gets me in trouble all the time…
FYI…If you want to see one of the most outstanding, politically minded “classy” interviews on major media, go the the Rachel Maddow Show archives (this past week) and watch the interview with Newt Ginghrich’s sister…an outstanding, class-act leader from HRC if there ever was…she has such a powerful presences that it almost “commands” that you look her in the eye and “know” who she is…not many people can pull that off.
Again, my turban is off with warm support.
jv
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 9:35 pm
need we look any farther that Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, J. Edgar Hoover? check out the film “Outrage” and see the documented evidence that the Congressmembers who are the most anti-gay are the closeted gays. they film also cites David Dreier…and i believe it outs Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham …
Reynardine
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 9:57 pm
You know, our nearest living relatives, the bonobos, gleefully furniture-hump each other every time they meet, regardless of age or sex, as casually as we’d shake hands.
Dim
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
Sadly, this is a very poor posting. 1. Homophobia is not the sole dominion of the Republican party, we saw that in California in 2008.
2. Quoting “Psychology today” is nice, but that PT writer isn’t exactly a psychiatrist with 20 years experience.
3. Show and state all the studies showing this to make the conclusive “proof” statement.
While no one enjoys seeing a rabid homophobe caught with a snoot full of crank and a handfull of twink more than I, but this entire post is making a mountain out of a molehill.
Sarah Jones
Dec. 7th, 2011 at 10:23 pm
Don’t be so sad: The main study links to a medical government site before the PT link.
Twisted Facts
Dec. 9th, 2011 at 12:53 am
So, logically gays should have homophobia too. Right?
Sarah Jones
Dec. 9th, 2011 at 1:28 am
Hence your user name:-)