Methinks they doth protest too much: interesting study on homophobia

[Guest]

I was cruising the GLBT board and ran across a thread entitled, "Why are straight people so offended at homosexuality?"

One post mentioned, in vague terms, a study that showed homophobic men becoming more aroused while watching gay porn than homosexual-friendly men. So, I just had to go find the study, which I posted on that thread.

Then I thought, why should the folks on that board have all the fun?

I don't know if the 1996 study been replicated (the numbers involved are fairly small) but it may give some substance to the old perception that much homophobia is actually repressed homosexuality. If nothing else, it could be an interesting plot bunny.

Citation and abstract are below. The link doesn't work here, for some resason, so I removed it and reposted in a later message.

Your thoughts?

http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/h...al_arousal.pdf

Adams, A.E., Wright, L.W., & Lohr, B.A. (1996). Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 3, 440-445

Abstract:

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. [Emphasis added]

 

[Safe_Bet]

Any studies for women? I love to watch lesbian porn... umm, umm, I mean - Oh golly, that's terrible. Oooo. Gay women having sex - I must be lesbiphobic. Make me watch some more so that I'm sure I am. Strictly for the sake of research, mind you!

 

[starrkers]

Link gives a 404 Error: file not found.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

How do you explain me, then.....oh, wait, I'm bisexual.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Oh! If the truth be told homophobics are likely closet queers.

I dont think straight men give gays any thought.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Oh! If the truth be told homophobics are likely closet queers.

I dont think straight men give gays any thought.

Except for the fact that they mean less competition for the ladies.

 

[Belegon]

Homosexual male porn is kinda just not there for me... I mean, it can be there in the room and I might glance over once in a while, but it's not an agitator. But it's kinda like if I were sitting in a room with someone watching a show about cross-stitch. I might find something interesting once in a while, but I wouldn't be upset nor would I be searching for a needle and thread.

 

[TE999]

I'm not homophobic..whatever floats your boat's ok with me...love is love and sex is sex...with whoever.

That being said, Gay porn does zip for my libido...Lesbian sex on the other hand is incredibly erotic. I think it has to do with the tenderness along with the passion.

Rough hetero, homo or lesbo sex is not my bag either.

 

[Guest]

Link gives a 404 Error: file not found.

That's weird; it works in the other forum.

Try this:

http://www.oogachaga.com/downloads/homophobia_and_homosexual_arousal.pdf

 

[sweetness6280]

I know how most of the authors here feel about lit crits, but there is an interesting argument from the 80s and 90s that homophobia is tied to homosocial behavior in men, but the reverse is not true for women. The tighter the homosocial bonds, the higher the level of homophobia within the group. The seminal piece in that argument is one by Sedgwick, but I'm not at home right now and don't have the info to cite the article, so I'm not gonna misquote anything. When I get home, I will look it up.

Homosexual male porn is kinda just not there for me... I mean, it can be there in the room and I might glance over once in a while, but it's not an agitator. But it's kinda like if I were sitting in a room with someone watching a show about cross-stitch. I might find something interesting once in a while, but I wouldn't be upset nor would I be searching for a needle and thread.

I can't help it... Tying the phallic symbolism of the needle piercing the cloth to homosexual male porn is just too Freudian for me this early in the morning.

Ducks and runs....

 

[Recidiva]

I think this is dismissing the fact that some folks are just drawn to what's forbidden or strange and that's just part of their brain chemistry.

Being on Lit has solidified this.

It's a bit like saying "all women really want to be raped" because they might be turned on by a rape fantasy.

Fantasy gives an entirely different flavor than reality.

So I think this is a flawed concept.

 

[Guest]

I think this is dismissing the fact that some folks are just drawn to what's forbidden or strange and that's just part of their brain chemistry.

Being on Lit has solidified this.

It's a bit like saying "all women really want to be raped" because they might be turned on by a rape fantasy.

Fantasy gives an entirely different flavor than reality.

So I think this is a flawed concept.

I could agree with you except for the fact that homosexuality is, presumably, equally forbidden for non-homophobic men. If your argument holds, I would expect that the arousal for both groups would be a great deal more similar than turned out to be the case (see below). By the way, "homophobic" on the screeing measure was defined as subjective discomfort at being placed in close proximity to a homosexual; there was nothing asked about sexual activity, as far as I know--but I'm not familiar with the measure used and I could be wrong.

This is from the study itself:

"Another way of evaluating these data is to calculate the percentage
of men who demonstrated no significant tumescence (i.e., 0-6 mm), modest tumescence (i.e., > 6-12 mm), and definite tumescence (i.e., > 12 mm) based on their mean tumescence score to the homosexual video. In the homophobic group, 20% showed no significant tumescence, 26% showed
moderate tumescence, and 54% showed definite tumescence to the homosexual video; the corresponding percentages in the nonhomophobic group were 66%, 10%, and 24%, respectively." [Emphasis added]

And:

"There were no significant main effects of groups or an interaction with these two videos, indicating that both groups showed significant engorgement to these videos [heterosexual and lesbian].

"For the male homosexual video, there was a significant main effect of groups, time blocks, and their interaction: F( 1, 62) = 6.14, p < .05; F(5, 310) = 19.04, p < .001; and F(5, 310) = 5.14, p < .001, respectively. These results indicate that the homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video but that the control men did not."

And, finally, the researchers asked for ratings of the participants' subjective feelings of arousal during each of the videos:

"This finding indicates that reports of subjective arousal were not consistent with penile responses with the male homosexual video. These data appear to be due to underestimates of arousal, particularly by homophobic men, to the homosexual stimuli."

So while reiterating that this is a small sample, it appears clear that there's a different dynamic going on for the homophobic men than for the non-homophobic.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I could agree with you except for the fact that homosexuality is, presumably, equally forbidden for non-homophobic men. If your argument holds, I would expect that the arousal for both groups would be a great deal more similar than turned out to be the case (see below). By the way, "homophobic" on the screeing measure was defined as subjective discomfort at being placed in close proximity to a homosexual; there was nothing asked about sexual activity, as far as I know--but I'm not familiar with the measure used and I could be wrong.

This is from the study itself:

"Another way of evaluating these data is to calculate the percentage
of men who demonstrated no significant tumescence (i.e., 0-6 mm), modest tumescence (i.e., > 6-12 mm), and definite tumescence (i.e., > 12 mm) based on their mean tumescence score to the homosexual video. In the homophobic group, 20% showed no significant tumescence, 26% showed
moderate tumescence, and 54% showed definite tumescence to the homosexual video; the corresponding percentages in the nonhomophobic group were 66%, 10%, and 24%, respectively." [Emphasis added]

And:

"There were no significant main effects of groups or an interaction with these two videos, indicating that both groups showed significant engorgement to these videos [heterosexual and lesbian].

"For the male homosexual video, there was a significant main effect of groups, time blocks, and their interaction: F( 1, 62) = 6.14, p < .05; F(5, 310) = 19.04, p < .001; and F(5, 310) = 5.14, p < .001, respectively. These results indicate that the homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video but that the control men did not."

And, finally, the researchers asked for ratings of the participants' subjective feelings of arousal during each of the videos:

"This finding indicates that reports of subjective arousal were not consistent with penile responses with the male homosexual video. These data appear to be due to underestimates of arousal, particularly by homophobic men, to the homosexual stimuli."

So while reiterating that this is a small sample, it appears clear that there's a different dynamic going on for the homophobic men than for the non-homophobic.

That's a pretty bizarre definition of homophobia. Since gay men don't go around wearing red H's on their shirts or being forced to wear yellow hats the only way one could be sure that he was sitting on the bus with a gay was if he'd been told. Of course, if more homophobes hung around art departments where being gay is considered a different version of normal, they might get used to the idea after a while. Like maybe a month?

 

[Stella_Omega]

That's a pretty bizarre definition of homophobia. Since gay men don't go around wearing red H's on their shirts or being forced to wear yellow hats the only way one could be sure that he was sitting on the bus with a gay was if he'd been told. Of course, if more homophobes hung around art departments where being gay is considered a different version of normal, they might get used to the idea after a while. Like maybe a month?

My arts-high son and daughter have brought home some sad and funny stories. Even fundy, homophobic kids may have artistic talent-- but the school of course, is primarily metrosexual, free-wheeling experimental types, with a higher than average queer population, both boys and girls.

One young man spent weeks and week in a high state of horror at the fags all around him. The other kids would tell him who was gay and who was straight -- changing the names on the list every time, in totally contradictory ways.

I laughed-- does that make me a bad mommy?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

My arts-high son and daughter have brought home some sad and funny stories. Even fundy, homophobic kids may have artistic talent-- but the school of course, is primarily metrosexual, free-wheeling experimental types, with a higher than average queer population, both boys and girls.

One young man spent weeks and week in a high state of horror at the fags all around him. The other kids would tell him who was gay and who was straight -- changing the names on the list every time, in totally contradictory ways.

I laughed-- does that make me a bad mommy?

If it does, I'm a terrible dad. That just about made me fall out of the chair.

I think the change took place just about the time I started taking studio figure classes. I'd read The Sleeping Beauty series and it just about made me a homophobe but I'd also read an article in Scientific American about the high incidence of bipolar disorder among recognized artists over the centuries and it got me thinking. Somehow, when the subject came up in class I allowed as how since it was a known fact that bipolars tended towards the arts there might be some bio/neurological link to the arts and to homosexuality as well, given how many there were in the biz.

Sitting on the horse next to me was what I to this day must describe as the cutest little butch dyke you could imagine and during break she thanked me for my comments. We were buddies for the rest of the semester. From there on, I became the most sex-positive politically conservative old sergeant anyone could imagine. No one ever hit up on me, I guess I was too obviously uninterested (or possibly uninteresting) but I firmly believe that the majority of homophobes simply have never met anyone who was gay . . . at least that they knew of.

 

[Recidiva]

I could agree with you except for the fact that homosexuality is, presumably, equally forbidden for non-homophobic men. If your argument holds, I would expect that the arousal for both groups would be a great deal more similar than turned out to be the case (see below). By the way, "homophobic" on the screeing measure was defined as subjective discomfort at being placed in close proximity to a homosexual; there was nothing asked about sexual activity, as far as I know--but I'm not familiar with the measure used and I could be wrong.

This is from the study itself:

"Another way of evaluating these data is to calculate the percentage
of men who demonstrated no significant tumescence (i.e., 0-6 mm), modest tumescence (i.e., > 6-12 mm), and definite tumescence (i.e., > 12 mm) based on their mean tumescence score to the homosexual video. In the homophobic group, 20% showed no significant tumescence, 26% showed
moderate tumescence, and 54% showed definite tumescence to the homosexual video; the corresponding percentages in the nonhomophobic group were 66%, 10%, and 24%, respectively." [Emphasis added]

And:

"There were no significant main effects of groups or an interaction with these two videos, indicating that both groups showed significant engorgement to these videos [heterosexual and lesbian].

"For the male homosexual video, there was a significant main effect of groups, time blocks, and their interaction: F( 1, 62) = 6.14, p < .05; F(5, 310) = 19.04, p < .001; and F(5, 310) = 5.14, p < .001, respectively. These results indicate that the homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video but that the control men did not."

And, finally, the researchers asked for ratings of the participants' subjective feelings of arousal during each of the videos:

"This finding indicates that reports of subjective arousal were not consistent with penile responses with the male homosexual video. These data appear to be due to underestimates of arousal, particularly by homophobic men, to the homosexual stimuli."

So while reiterating that this is a small sample, it appears clear that there's a different dynamic going on for the homophobic men than for the non-homophobic.

I would say this study attempts to prove something. It doesn't try to disprove something.

I think this is incredibly fuzzy and rather shameful attempt at using science to prove a psychological agenda.

I really don't buy into the idea that if you "hate" something you therefore must "love" them really deep down.

There is such a thing as independent disapproval.

If you say that because I have a "strong reaction" to child molesters, I really have a secret attraction, that's a bad conclusion.

I'm not a fan of homophobia, but I'm also not a fan of mischaracterizing every bit of homophobic behavior as repressed attraction. It doesn't make scientific or psychological sense when compared to the real world.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

VM

The notion that artists are nuts is discredited.

You get closer to the target replacing 'crazy' with 'uninhibited.' Artists score high on the psychopathological deviancy scale of the MMPI test. All this means is: How uninhibited are you? A high score means porous thought filters.

Real manic-depressives are too dysfunctional to apply lipstick correctly, much less paint a portrait.

 

[Guest]

I would say this study attempts to prove something. It doesn't try to disprove something.

I think this is incredibly fuzzy and rather shameful attempt at using science to prove a psychological agenda.

I really don't buy into the idea that if you "hate" something you therefore must "love" them really deep down.

There is such a thing as independent disapproval.

If you say that because I have a "strong reaction" to child molesters, I really have a secret attraction, that's a bad conclusion.

And if you have a strong reaction to child molesters but exhibit arousal when exposed to their sexual behavior (and I'm NOT saying you do, for Goddess sake!) then a reasonable person would, I think, have to conclude there's another dynamic at work.

I'm not a fan of homophobia, but I'm also not a fan of mischaracterizing every bit of homophobic behavior as repressed attraction. It doesn't make scientific or psychological sense when compared to the real world.

Re-read the orginal post, in which I wrote, "...but it may give some substance to the old perception that much [emphasis added] homophobia is actually repressed homosexuality" and the end of the abstract, which states that "Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies."

The authors are not claiming causation, just association. And I'm not claiming universality. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Recidiva]

Re-read the orginal post, in which I wrote, "...but it may give some substance to the old perception that much [emphasis added] homophobia is actually repressed homosexuality" and the end of the abstract, which states that "Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies."

The authors are not claiming causation, just association. And I'm not claiming universality. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Okay, I'm actually not denying there may be truth to this premise in certain cases.

Just that the study and methodology are not proving anything to me.

 

[Guest]

Okay, I'm actually not denying there may be truth to this premise in certain cases.

Just that the study and methodology are not proving anything to me.

I agree with you; I'd never assert that one small study offers a definitive conclusion. I think it's interesting and suggestive; it would require considerable replication with much larger groups before I'd be willing to go any further.

From a methodological standpoint, though, I find it hard (no pun intended) to arue with the plethysmograph results in the presence of specific stimuli. I do think the screening measures regarding the two groups may be "fuzzy" but not being familiar with them, I really don't know.

 

[Recidiva]

I agree with you; I'd never assert that one small study offers a definitive conclusion. I think it's interesting and suggestive; it would require considerable replication with much larger groups before I'd be willing to go any further.

From a methodological standpoint, though, I find it hard (no pun intended) to arue with the plethysmograph results in the presence of specific stimuli. I do think the screening measures regarding the two groups may be "fuzzy" but not being familiar with them, I really don't know.

Here's my interpretation of modern attempts to "read" people's minds with FMRI and psych methodology.

I believe you can tell what part of the brain is being stimulated. I don't believe you can interpret other than extraordinarily broadly, what that part of the brain does for an individual.

Here's an experiment in Artificial Intelligence that is an illustration as to what I think is all wrong with assuming certain reactions are obvious and universal.

A computer scientist was attempting to get a computer program to identify "what's different" about two sets of pictures.

The pictures seemed obvious to him regarding what was different. One set was a picture of a forest. The other set was a picture of a forest, but each had a tank in them somewhere. Trying to teach the computer to recognize the tank was becoming problematic, because the computer was not getting it at all.

Ultimately they figured out that the computer was recognizing different light levels in the photographs. Some were in shade and some were in sun and the computer noticed those "differences" instead of the more "obvious" visual tank.

So when you create an experiment that you think is obvious, and you assign obvious values and you think the brain is that easy, I call the entire thing into suspicion.

Brains are very complicated things and very often it's the person thinking up the experiment that are the only ones postulating something is obvious. Brains have their own ideas.

 

[Guest]

Here's my interpretation of modern attempts to "read" people's minds with FMRI and psych methodology.

I believe you can tell what part of the brain is being stimulated. I don't believe you can interpret other than extraordinarily broadly, what that part of the brain does for an individual.

Brains are very complicated things and very often it's the person thinking up the experiment that are the only ones postulating something is obvious. Brains have their own ideas.

I think you're overlooking the part where the reported subjective arousal was at odds with the degree of physical arousal, but we'll agree to disagree, then.

 

[Recidiva]

I think you're overlooking the part where the reported subjective arousal was at odds with the degree of physical arousal, but we'll agree to disagree, then.

I'm disagreeing because just like "tank" and "sunlight" you don't know which is the arousal trigger factor.

Is it the idea of homosexuality, or is it just the idea of sex at all? Could some of them be turned on by medical fantasy and that's why they agreed to the thing? Could being asked uncomfortable questions turn on some humiliation factor?

Can't you just as easily postulate that certain people are easily aroused, embarrassed by it, and unwilling or unable to articulate their response?

You're asking a lot of a person to be able to articulate every moment of a deeply complicated chemical soup as sexual arousal. I think not only does it show a lack of insight in the case of those who participate, but a lack of insight in those who study.

 

[Guest]

I'm disagreeing because just like "tank" and "sunlight" you don't know which is the arousal trigger factor.

Is it the idea of homosexuality, or is it just the idea of sex at all? Could some of them be turned on by medical fantasy and that's why they agreed to the thing? Could being asked uncomfortable questions turn on some humiliation factor?

Can't you just as easily postulate that certain people are easily aroused, embarrassed by it, and unwilling or unable to articulate their response?

You're asking a lot of a person to be able to articulate every moment of a deeply complicated chemical soup as sexual arousal. I think not only does it show a lack of insight in the case of those who participate, but a lack of insight in those who study.

Sure. All of those are possible... as is an association between homophobia and repressed homosexuality. This study is by no means definitive but the data are intriguing. You clearly think that it's methodologically flawed and I can see a few areas that can be improved should the experiment be repeated.

For instance, I realized after I'd posted this morning that homophobic individuals would likely be motivated--consciously or otherwise--to minimize self-report of arousal (which, by the way, was their estimate of penile swelling, not emotions) due to viewing homosexual activity.

Just wondering, though... did you read the study itself?

 

[impressive]

I'm just here 'cause I like the word tumescence.