Question 2

[Stella_Omega]

The horrible truth is that it's not political to express disgust or extreme dislike of anyone or anything these days....

The problem is that if people are banned from verbalising certain sentiments it doesn't make the sentiment go away - instead it forces its way to the surface through alternative means, often physical.

This thread is not about how to shut homophobes up-- we're trying to figure out just what the elements of homophobia are.

And so far, we haven't gotten much actual data. People who reflexively abhore things in that way may not be self-aware enough to examine those reflexes.

 

[off2bed]

I feel that this is a false analogy. You are comparing acts inflicted upon unwilling participants to acts performed between consenting adults. What you are talking about are acts despised because of social contract.

I wouldn't want those things done to me against my will therefore I understand that doing them to others against thier will is wrong. By expressing disgust, I attempt to make those who would in engage in these acts ashamed of doing so. If they feel shame, those who would be victims may be protected from such acts.

There a very big point to proclaiming disgust about the acts you mention that doesn't apply to proclaiming disgust with homosexuality.

Fair enough. I still don't see a connection between feeling disgust for something and having a secret tendency to do that something. Eating one's own feces, for example. If someone gets a thrill out of it, go for it. But it disgusts me and I'm not afraid to say so.

I also see no connection between disgust for something and irrational fear, which is what a phobia is.

 

[Shwenn]

Fair enough. I still don't see a connection between feeling disgust for something and having a secret tendency to do that something. Eating one's own feces, for example. If someone gets a thrill out of it, go for it. But it disgusts me and I'm not afraid to say so.

I also see no connection between disgust for something and irrational fear, which is what a phobia is.

If it is at all interesting to you, it is a Jungian theory. I think it's called Shadow Personality but don't quote me on that.

It really only applies if a person seems inordinately upset. If you regularly got passionately irate about poo eating, yeah, I'd think you wanted to do it.

There is a line between the two. Between being inordinately upset with homosexuality and just finding it gross. We are on that line here with this discussion. I'm not going to lie about that.

I mean, in another thread, amicus was making misogynistic comments to me. It didn't make me think he wanted to be a women. It made me think it would piss him off if I insinuated he had panties. So I insinuated he had panties. That's usually about as far as I go with this sort of thing.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Fair enough. I still don't see a connection between feeling disgust for something and having a secret tendency to do that something. Eating one's own feces, for example. If someone gets a thrill out of it, go for it. But it disgusts me and I'm not afraid to say so.

I also see no connection between disgust for something and irrational fear, which is what a phobia is.

I would assume that "secretly want to" theory is based on the human tendency to empathy-- What biologists call mirror neurons. For most of us, it's a pretty common occurrence, to "share" a sense of body while watching someone else perform an action -- know I am very susceptible to being sucked in to a performance, be it dance, or race car drivers, or football -- or sex.

If I witnessed men kissing-- those mirror neurons would fire in my brain. If I were told by society, if I "KNEW" that men kissing is a disgusting thing, I think there would be a very deep visceral reaction in my mind and body, that could lead to nausea and possibly violence. But it isn't really a "secretly want to" thing, the observer only "wants to" because they are observing the action-- and only during that time, for the most part.

But since I am positive that men kissing is a good thing-- my empathic reaction doesn't have any societal glitches, and I can just relax and enjoy those little neurons doing what they do so well.

eating shit-- I'm right in line with most of society on that one.

 

[scheherazade_79]

This thread is not about how to shut homophobes up-- we're trying to figure out just what the elements of homophobia are.

And so far, we haven't gotten much actual data. People who reflexively abhore things in that way may not be self-aware enough to examine those reflexes.

Homosexuals fought long and hard just to be accepted for who they are. The right to exist without being probed, analysed, questioned, categorised and 'cured'.

And here we are repeating the pattern with homophobes - wondering what experiences have led them down the 'unnatural' path of hatred, and looking for things that might have 'caused' them to alienate themselves from politically correct society.

See what I mean?

I'm not bitching about the thread - I think it's one of the most interesting debates we've had on Lit for ages and ages.

I'm just looking at things from a different perspective. If the thread were all about establishing the causes of lesbianism there'd be hair flying by now. The only difference is that homosexuality is about who you love and homophobia is about who you hate. And somehow it's more socially acceptable to analyse someone's hatred than it is to analyse someone's love.

What if homophobes were just born that way?

 

[NoJo]

eating shit-- I'm right in line with most of society on that one.

Cool, let's meet in McDonalds for lunch

 

[sr71plt]

What if homophobes were just born that way?

Yeah. Just like racists, right? I've found this thread quite revealing too.

 

[Munachi]

well, i would say if i express disgust for murder, or rape, or anything else, i am doing so not only because i wouldn't want to do it or to happen to me, but i know emotionally and/or rationally that it is unacceptable. expressing disgust seems to me a wider statement, putting the legitimacy of an act itself into question, apart from the question of whether i'd like to be involved in it.

the idea of two guys having sex, watching them at it, or whatever might do nothing to me, might even turn me off, but i wouldn't call it disgusting. i think that when someone calls it disgusting, they are doing more than just expressing a personal dislike...

as for the comparison with eating feces, that is a bit difficult, because i am very tempted to call it disgusting, too - even if i don't have to be involved in it... i guess there my rationality says "it's everyone's own business", and my emotions say "ew!"

The only difference is that homosexuality is about who you love and homophobia is about who you hate. And somehow it's more socially acceptable to analyse someone's hatred than it is to analyse someone's love.

so imho analyzing why someone is a homophobe seems different to me than analyzing why someone is homosexual - as being homosexual concerns only the person themselves, while being a homophobe means putting someone else in question (and there maybe comes my idea of that some of these homophobes might "hate" exactly because they see homosexuals as putting them in question)...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Sher, there's a difference between being straight-- and being homophbic. A phobia is a fear response, not a sexual preference.

Homosexuals fought long and hard just to be accepted for who they are. The right to exist without being probed, analysed, questioned, categorised and 'cured'.

And here we are repeating the pattern with homophobes - wondering what experiences have led them down the 'unnatural' path of hatred, and looking for things that might have 'caused' them to alienate themselves from politically correct society.

See what I mean?

I'm not bitching about the thread - I think it's one of the most interesting debates we've had on Lit for ages and ages.

I'm just looking at things from a different perspective. If the thread were all about establishing the causes of lesbianism there'd be hair flying by now. The only difference is that homosexuality is about who you love and homophobia is about who you hate. And somehow it's more socially acceptable to analyse someone's hatred than it is to analyse someone's love.

What if homophobes were just born that way?

*shrug*

I totally disagree with you-- in this country it's great to hate. We hate the other team, we hate business rivals, we hate ourselves, we hate towelheads, we hate the French, we hate libs, we hate conservatives, hatred is a driving force in our society. It's not enough to be uninterested in same-sex manifestation, it has to be a hatred.

I am pretty sure that straight men are born straight. But they don't HAVE to be phobic about GLBT, that's a learned response. And we know damn well how that response has been fostered in American society.
What if men who were non-gay oriented didn't have to translate that into fear and anger?

What if homophobes learned to separate their uninterest from their hatred?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Sher, there's a difference between being straight-- and being homophbic. A phobia is a fear response, not a sexual preference.

*shrug*

I totally disagree with you-- in this country it's great to hate. We hate the other team, we hate business rivals, we hate ourselves, we hate towelheads, we hate the French, we hate libs, we hate conservatives, hatred is a driving force in our society. It's not enough to be uninterested in same-sex manifestation, it has to be a hatred.

I am pretty sure that straight men are born straight. But they don't HAVE to be phobic about GLBT, that's a learned response. And we know damn well how that response has been fostered in American society.
What if men who were non-gay oriented didn't have to translate that into fear and anger?

What if homophobes learned to separate their uninterest from their hatred?

I'm sure that I've said this before, I know I have, but the roots of homophobia are a complete mystery. The best examination of the subject was written about 25 years ago and if you want to see what the status of the examination is, you need to read it. Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality. John Boswell was one of those transcendentally brilliant gay men who should have been required by law to father children, by AI, if no other way. The loss of such DNA is a tragedy to the species. If you want to explore the origins of homophobia, start there. And if you are too lazy to read this fine book (which is still in print!) then quit bobbling this subject around.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm sure that I've said this before, I know I have, but the roots of homophobia are a complete mystery.

I don't agree.As I said in a previous post, I think we are beginning to throw light on many of these attitudes, through biological and neurological research.

The loss of such DNA is a tragedy to the species. ...

Arrgh, dude, DNA does not control behaviour or personality, or what uses a person makes of his mind. If that were so, then at least one of Einstein's parents would have discovered the theory of relativity before he did.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I don't agree. I think we are beginning to throw light on many of these attitudes, through biological and neurological research.

Then if that is the case, explain how same sex unions were still being blessed by the Church clear up into the 14th Century. Throughout Classical history, any dichotomy between same/opposite sexual behavior was considered an aberration and those who railed against same-sex relations were considered odd . . . unless they were Jewish, of course.

There wasn't even any word for homosexuality until the late 19th Century. Homophobia is a societal disease and a learned behavior. If DNA doesn't explain why Einstein's parents didn't discover Relativity then it doesn't do a very good job of explaining homophobia, either.

Same sex contact is perfectly normal among mammals. Read Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity

 

[Stella_Omega]

Then if that is the case, explain how same sex unions were still being blessed by the Church clear up into the 14th Century. Throughout Classical history, any dichotomy between same/opposite sexual behavior was considered an aberration and those who railed against same-sex relations were considered odd . . . unless they were Jewish, of course.

There wasn't even any word for homosexuality until the late 19th Century. Homophobia is a societal disease and a learned behavior. If DNA doesn't explain why Einstein's parents didn't discover Relativity then it doesn't do a very good job of explaining homophobia, either.

Same sex contact is perfectly normal among mammals. Read Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity

Well, if you want to use "DNA" as a shorthand for a host of biological properties and propensities plus cultural environment plus individual development, I'll go with that as a term (you can tell where I've been hanging out, huh)

But I don't think that the societal disease aspect is such a mystery either. Black Death, a papal schism, the roots of the Inquisition... The beginnings of all sorts of intolerance. Arguments for racial intolerance have some beginnings in this time period too.
I do need to read this book you recommend.

 

[CharleyH]

What is the UNappeal of a intimacy between two men?

Again, upon asking about this the overwhelming response is something between mild disgust and outright anger... why?

As a woman I find nothing UNappealing about 2 men. In fact, I find it a downright TURN ON. As a woman, I am not alone. I have tried to explain this fantasy to men who oppose the concept, and I've tried to explain the attraction in numerous ways, but they are so closed that one can't help but wonder about their sexuality. In my experience, comfortable straight men can see the attraction to another man and I am lucky that I've known and know more men like this than any other.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

As a woman I find nothing UNappealing about 2 men. In fact, I find it a downright TURN ON. As a woman, I am not alone. I have tried to explain this fantasy to men who oppose the concept, and I've tried to explain the attraction in numerous ways, but they are so closed that one can't help but wonder about their sexuality. In my experience, comfortable straight men can see the attraction to another man and I am lucky that I've known and know more men like this than any other.

That I agree with, having felt such an attraction twice in my life. It was a long time ago, though.

 

[joeys-game]

IMO it all depends on the two people that are having sex and the individuals that are observing the act. Some people are attractive to me, some arn't, doesn't rerally matter thier gender.

 

[Stella_Omega]

IMO it all depends on the two people that are having sex and the individuals that are observing the act. Some people are attractive to me, some arn't, doesn't rerally matter thier gender.

Joey!

 

[joeys-game]

Joey!

Hey Stella

good to see you.