The Psychology of Homophobia

[rousseau]

A few events in the past couple weeks have got me thinking about this: why homophobia is a thing, why it persists, and why it's so pervasive in under-developed countries and rural areas. I find the psychology of it fascinating because it makes no sense.

You'd think it'd be as simple as some kind of selective pressure away from homosexual sex, and toward heterosexual sex, but I'm not completely sure.

Anyway, I've had a few whiskies and it's about bed time so I'm going to leave this thread here and maybe try to expand on it a bit later.

 

[bilby]

A few events in the past couple weeks have got me thinking about this: why homophobia is a thing, why it persists, and why it's so pervasive in under-developed countries and rural areas. I find the psychology of it fascinating because it makes no sense.

You'd think it'd be as simple as some kind of selective pressure away from homosexual sex, and toward heterosexual sex, but I'm not completely sure.

Anyway, I've had a few whiskies and it's about bed time so I'm going to leave this thread here and maybe try to expand on it a bit later.

Homophobia exists because some men are horrified by the idea that other men might treat them the same way that they themselves treat women.

That's why homophobia is most prevalent in places (and times) where women are treated most poorly - underdeveloped countries, rural areas, anywhere where paternalistic religion dominates.

 

[Bronzeage]

Homophobia is a purely social and cultural phenomena. There have been enough cultures where homosexuality was seen as a variation of normal, to demonstrate it is not some natural instinct in humans.

 

[fromderinside]

Yet, ancients, Freud - grin -, were able to identify pathologies associated with the occurrence of homophobia. If one accepts tribe or group as legitimate basis for discrimination and association homophobia is likely to be considered abnormal. Such findings fall within the if you want to find a reason you will find a reason science. Homophobic behavior just as normal as most any tribal associative condition. The fact that it is most often found among those less educated and more those fearful for self are strong tells of it's irrational basis.

 

[Lion IRC]

Why do societies condemn any sexual taboos at all?
If homophobia is irrational so too is any yuck factor directed at another person's sexual proclivities.
Why this irrational hang up with monogamy, age of consent, pets, consanguinity, public nudity, bodily fluids... Probably the answer is that we're not very good at minding our own business.

 

[James Brown]

It was remarkable to me to observe while I was in college that heterosexual men would adopt stereotypical homosexual mannerisms. They would talk with a lisp, droop their hands, and pretend to admire another man. The purpose of this was to generate hysterics as everybody in view would laugh themselves silly.

In extreme cases, a man would even nuzzle another man in order to induce mild panic in him--a sort of arm-waving "get away from me, you homo!" reaction, followed by the aforementioned hysterical laughter at the other's expense.

Quite baffling, when I think about it, and yet it was everywhere.

I grew tired of it, and one time I turned the tables. I was playing a computer game and focused on the screen. One of my dorm mates came up from behind and started stroking my shoulder, saying "Hey, Big Boy!" in an effeminate voice. I was supposed to freak out and interrupt my game play as if someone had dropped ants into my shirt, followed by the requisite laughter. Instead, I stoically remained concentrated on my game, not reacting at all. After a moment, my dorm mate himself began freaking out, on the notion that I was in fact homosexual and was welcoming of the attention. I wasn't playing my assigned role, thus the joke was ruined.

Some of my long-gone friends would also speak to each other in ghetto accents for similar reasons. We mock those whom we despise.

 

[bilby]

Why do societies condemn any sexual taboos at all?
If homophobia is irrational so too is any yuck factor directed at another person's sexual proclivities.
Why this irrational hang up with monogamy, age of consent, pets, consanguinity, public nudity, bodily fluids... Probably the answer is that we're not very good at minding our own business.

That's certainly true. Religion as practiced is basically an excercise in sticking your nose where it doesn't belong.

Obviously consent is important under the golden rule, which implies that 'age of consent' and, in many cases, 'pets' don't belong on your list - but then, you probably knew that and put them there to put people off defending the abandonment of the other, less legitimate taboos on your list.

Monogamy is a matter of agreement and honesty; relationships in which all parties are aware that it is not expected, and in which monoandry is also not expected, are perfectly fine.

Consanguinity is not a problem as long as no offspring are produced, which these days is easy to ensure.

Public nudity is harmless, but is a matter for the public at large to decide whether or not they want - just like any public behaviour, acting against the consensus makes you an arsehole.

If bodily fluids are not involved in your sex life, then you are probably doing it wrong.

Sexual taboos are mostly like religious dietary rules - a hangover from times when people were expected to obey, not understand (and certainly not think).

 

[Lion IRC]

My point is that people have a 'phobia' about sexual activity below a certain age for the same reason they have phobias about other unusual yuck factor type of sexual activity.
Suppose my sexual fetish involved dressing up like a scary clown and loitering around kids playgrounds. Would the phobia that might arouse in others be rational or irrational? Can't I just tell those Puritan bigots to mind their own business?

 

[Lion IRC]

The Op amounts to an attack on our universal human right to have phobias.
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/crime-scene-real-estate

 

[bilby]

My point is that people have a 'phobia' about sexual activity below a certain age for the same reason they have phobias about other unusual yuck factor type of sexual activity.
Suppose my sexual fetish involved dressing up like a scary clown and loitering around kids playgrounds. Would the phobia that might arouse in others be rational or irrational? Can't I just tell those Puritan bigots to mind their own business?

Your 'point' is a straw man.

Phobias are irrational.

Opposition to paedophillia is based on a rational application of the understanding that children cannot give fully informed consent, and are vulnerable to coercion. It's got nothing to do with it being 'icky', or with people being frightened by it; and everything to do with it being morally wrong.

As to loitering around playgrounds, if you are scaring children, you are doing something wrong whether or not your motives are sexual.

 

[rousseau]

The Op amounts to an attack on our universal human right to have phobias.
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/crime-scene-real-estate

Your thinking here is a bit too binary. You've gone ahead and framed my thread as an 'othering' of homophobics, when what I'm actually doing is seeking to understand the why of homophobia.

Not everything has to be about scoring a point for your team, sometimes it's just learning about the world for the enjoyment of knowing more about it.

 

[rousseau]

Why do societies condemn any sexual taboos at all?
If homophobia is irrational so too is any yuck factor directed at another person's sexual proclivities.
Why this irrational hang up with monogamy, age of consent, pets, consanguinity, public nudity, bodily fluids... Probably the answer is that we're not very good at minding our own business.

The distinction between one phobia and another is the reason for the phobia.

There is no material reason to be homophobic besides 'my friends are too'.

 

[rousseau]

It was remarkable to me to observe while I was in college that heterosexual men would adopt stereotypical homosexual mannerisms. They would talk with a lisp, droop their hands, and pretend to admire another man. The purpose of this was to generate hysterics as everybody in view would laugh themselves silly.

In extreme cases, a man would even nuzzle another man in order to induce mild panic in him--a sort of arm-waving "get away from me, you homo!" reaction, followed by the aforementioned hysterical laughter at the other's expense.

Quite baffling, when I think about it, and yet it was everywhere.

I grew tired of it, and one time I turned the tables. I was playing a computer game and focused on the screen. One of my dorm mates came up from behind and started stroking my shoulder, saying "Hey, Big Boy!" in an effeminate voice. I was supposed to freak out and interrupt my game play as if someone had dropped ants into my shirt, followed by the requisite laughter. Instead, I stoically remained concentrated on my game, not reacting at all. After a moment, my dorm mate himself began freaking out, on the notion that I was in fact homosexual and was welcoming of the attention. I wasn't playing my assigned role, thus the joke was ruined.

Some of my long-gone friends would also speak to each other in ghetto accents for similar reasons. We mock those whom we despise.

It's stuff like this that I find interesting. Maybe it's that I've never been homophobic and so can't understand the mind-set of someone who is. Basically the thought process of someone who would willingly use a homophobic slur.. how does that happen? How is awareness of self and world so low that something like that can happen? And how does a person like this experience the world around them?

 

[abaddon]

My point is that people have a 'phobia' about sexual activity below a certain age for the same reason they have phobias about other unusual yuck factor type of sexual activity.
Suppose my sexual fetish involved dressing up like a scary clown and loitering around kids playgrounds. Would the phobia that might arouse in others be rational or irrational? Can't I just tell those Puritan bigots to mind their own business?

"Phobia" isn't just another word for fear. It's a persistent overreaction that becomes a needless source of distress.

A man in a scary clown suit loitering around playgrounds would be a rational fear, and thus not a phobia.

You can't justify your irrationality by falsely claiming justified fears are irrational too.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

A few events in the past couple weeks have got me thinking about this: why homophobia is a thing, why it persists, and why it's so pervasive in under-developed countries and rural areas. I find the psychology of it fascinating because it makes no sense.

You'd think it'd be as simple as some kind of selective pressure away from homosexual sex, and toward heterosexual sex, but I'm not completely sure.

I think that's all it is. Homosexuality meant lower birth rates within a population. We don't need higher birth rates today, we actually need lower birth rates so homosexuality is not so "selected against" anymore. But the instinctive rejection of homosexuality is still there in the population because of history.

 

[Juma]

A few events in the past couple weeks have got me thinking about this: why homophobia is a thing, why it persists, and why it's so pervasive in under-developed countries and rural areas. I find the psychology of it fascinating because it makes no sense.

You'd think it'd be as simple as some kind of selective pressure away from homosexual sex, and toward heterosexual sex, but I'm not completely sure.

I think that's all it is. Homosexuality meant lower birth rates within a population. We don't need higher birth rates today, we actually need lower birth rates so homosexuality is not so "selected against" anymore. But the instinctive rejection of homosexuality is still there in the population because of history.

Doesnt hold since homophobia is a culture dependent thing.
Sex is seen as a sinful thing.
Sex is mostly driven by our brains.
All people are ”bisexuals” or rather omnisexuals: if we just could allow ourselves it, we could have sex with anyone, regardless of their sex, as long as we like them.

But homophilia stuck since is a (negative) spiral: a recursive effects makes it stay: if it is negative to behomosexual (yucky as lion say) then you see your own ”homosexuality” as yucky and reacts by alienating those feelings and thus build up your own (irrational) homophobia.
That the greatest homophobes have latent homosexuality has been scientifically verified. I believe this is true of all homoohobia.

 

[Lion IRC]

If the kids are scared then they have a phobia about something that they and their clownphobic parents think is reasonable to fear.

The 'clown' says he is born that way and has a right to express his sexuality.
Should we send the 'clown' to have reparative therapy or should we publically vilify those bigoted parents and condemn their hate speech against 'clowns'?

As for kids not being able to give consent (to have a loving sexual relationship) are you (bilby) excluding LGBTQ kids from the right to have a sexual relationship? And as for pet brothels etc, we don't ask animals for permission to do even more disgusting things than that. Besides, not to put too fine a point on it, but in many cases of beastiality the animal giving their consent is the HUMAN.

 

[Lion IRC]

The Op amounts to an attack on our universal human right to have phobias.
https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/crime-scene-real-estate

Your thinking here is a bit too binary. You've gone ahead and framed my thread as an 'othering' of homophobics, when what I'm actually doing is seeking to understand the why of homophobia.

Not everything has to be about scoring a point for your team, sometimes it's just learning about the world for the enjoyment of knowing more about it.

Yes OK
Point taken.
But I'm alluding to your apparent presumption that homophobia IS irrational.
If it's not, then homophobes don't owe anyone an explanation any more than people who loath adultery or beastiality or pedophilia and so forth.

 

[bilby]

If the kids are scared then they have a phobia about something that they and their clownphobic parents think is reasonable to fear.

No.

By definition a phobia is not rational.

The 'clown' says he is born that way and has a right to express his sexuality.

Then he is just as confused and wrong as you.

Should we send the 'clown' to have reparative therapy or should we publically vilify those bigoted parents and condemn their hate speech against 'clowns'?

No.

But it is illuminating of your character that you imagine these are the only, or the most appropriate, responses.

As for kids not being able to give consent (to have a loving sexual relationship) are you (bilby) excluding LGBTQ kids from the right to have a sexual relationship?

Children (of any orientation) are unable to consent to sexual relations. What part of that is causing you difficulty in comprehension?

And as for pet brothels etc, we don't ask animals for permission to do even more disgusting things than that. Besides, not to put too fine a point on it, but in many cases of beastiality the animal giving their consent is the HUMAN.

It takes two to tango. A sexual encounter between two humans, only one of whom consents, is not morally acceptable.

And we do not permit cruelty. Even animals slaughtered for meat are supposed to be treated in such a way as to avoid causing pain or distress.

But if an animal clearly has an desire for a sexual encounter with a human, and the human consents, then what's the problem? (Apart from your irrelevant personal revulsion; or the expression of some similar irrelevant revulsion in an old book).

Oh, and what the fuck does bestiality have to do with homosexuality? The association between the two exists only in the minds of homophobes, and is truly repulsive.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

A few events in the past couple weeks have got me thinking about this: why homophobia is a thing, why it persists, and why it's so pervasive in under-developed countries and rural areas. I find the psychology of it fascinating because it makes no sense.

You'd think it'd be as simple as some kind of selective pressure away from homosexual sex, and toward heterosexual sex, but I'm not completely sure.

I think that's all it is. Homosexuality meant lower birth rates within a population. We don't need higher birth rates today, we actually need lower birth rates so homosexuality is not so "selected against" anymore. But the instinctive rejection of homosexuality is still there in the population because of history.

Doesnt hold since homophobia is a culture dependent thing.

It is today, which is basically what I said. But go back far enough in human history and it was everywhere, homosexuality was naturally selected against. It was not as good a survival strategy as heterosexuality.