Homophobia May Reveal Denial Of Own Same-Sex Attraction, Study Suggests

[tombkk]

(CBS News) Do homophobic people actually fear their own unconscious feelings? A new study suggests that people who repress their own sexual attraction to the same sex are more likely to express hostility towards gays.

Read more...

[WarpSpeed]

Yeah what about an unwanted child hood sexual advance by another male? That's not an adult necessarily either but maybe someone else young and uncertain of their sexuality that makes the advance. Having experienced that wouldn't it make someone justifiably homophobic? I'm with the REAL scientists and think the study is <deleted>, look who initially published the story? Agenda a bit suspect that..

Edited April 10, 2012 by WarpSpeed

[tombkk]

The "story" (I think you mean research) was originally published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which is a respected APA publication.

Not sure how more "real" science can get...

[WarpSpeed]

The "story" (I think you mean research) was originally published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which is a respected APA publication.

Not sure how more "real" science can get...

Well I'm referring to the original source that reported it and that was Huffington a very liberal source with their own biased agenda. Secondly there is a lot of REAL scientists that question the methodology used and conclusions that's how much more scientific it can get. Basically it hasn't passed peer review yet and is still just a theory as much as some theorize about homosexuality in and of itself and whether or not it's a behavior/life choice or within a persons actual genealogical makeup ..

Edited April 10, 2012 by WarpSpeed

[tombkk]

The "story" (I think you mean research) was originally published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which is a respected APA publication.

Not sure how more "real" science can get...

Well I'm referring to the original source that reported it and that was Huffington a very liberal source with their own biased agenda. Secondly there is a lot of REAL scientists that question the methodology used and conclusions that's how much more scientific it can get. Basically it hasn't passed peer review yet and is still just a theory as much as some theorize about homosexuality in and of itself and whether or not it's a behavior/life choice or within a persons actual genealogical makeup ..

The Huff Post is not the original source... the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology is. And that journal is certainly peer-reviewed.

If you have any citation questioning the methodology I'd be interested. In the meantime, I'd be interested to know why it is so important for you to say that the study is flawed...

[WarpSpeed]

The "story" (I think you mean research) was originally published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which is a respected APA publication.

Not sure how more "real" science can get...

Well I'm referring to the original source that reported it and that was Huffington a very liberal source with their own biased agenda. Secondly there is a lot of REAL scientists that question the methodology used and conclusions that's how much more scientific it can get. Basically it hasn't passed peer review yet and is still just a theory as much as some theorize about homosexuality in and of itself and whether or not it's a behavior/life choice or within a persons actual genealogical makeup ..

The Huff Post is not the original source... the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology is. And that journal is certainly peer-reviewed.

If you have any citation questioning the methodology I'd be interested. In the meantime, I'd be interested to know why it is so important for you to say that the study is flawed...

Well of course we can tit for tat but I obviously meant main stream press.. The journal is peer reviewed and there is ongoing debate about the veracity of the study including the group size, this is the review process once it's posted, it's not taken as fact but merely a study based on a theory and that's where it stands at this early point..Just like a drug is announced in trials but not yet finally approved for human consumption..

I'm not up for debating this, I gave my opinion and I also know that there is no way it is going to be objectively viewed or considered, especially not in this forum so no need to enter this debate further.. I said the scientific community holds different opinions and they are much more qualified then I am so I'll defer to their experience about the studies veracity in this case..

It is certain though that this "scientific proof" is as much up for debate as is the reasons/causes behind homosexuality itself.

Edited April 10, 2012 by WarpSpeed

[Ijustwannateach]

Nice post, Tom- noticed news announcements about this research but didn't want to be the one to post it here.

The latest trend among science- hating conservatives is to cast doubt on all of science whenever something actually scientific is aired. They don't have to read the actual study, they just bring up the possibility of poorly selected samples, bad statistical methodology, insufficient validation in various dimensions, etc., etc.- but it may have nothing to do with the article.

Then they 'give up' because of course no one will objectively listen to them. Of course, they haven't really read the survey themselves or offered any direct threats to validity- nor do they explain why they should be considered as in a better position than a scientific research team to say how things are- that's the beauty of it- they're entitled by the fact that they are NOT scientists to judge the 'agenda' of the science as itself being a flaw.

It has been known in science for some time that such issues are threats to validity, but there are ways to avoid and minimise those threats, and that's part of what the peer-review process is for. I trust that process a heck of a lot more than I trust Warpspeed's comments up to this point (and I will actually bother to read the article).

[Ijustwannateach]

A homophobic post has been removed and a warning issued. This is certainly not the forum nor the thread on which to test limits.

[isanbirder]

I thought we all knew that homophobia often concealed homosexual tendencies, didn't we?

[tombkk]

I thought we all knew that homophobia often concealed homosexual tendencies, didn't we?

We had a feeling. Saying that we knew based on subjective feelings leads to prejudices, and this works both ways. Therefore, it is good that a scientific study has been made and that our feelings about this (as elusive as the gaydar) have now been proven.

However, like IJWT, I will read the actual study (not any main stream press) to comment further.

[Ijustwannateach]

^ and ^^ - sometimes science gets blamed for doing 'trivial' research, and yet it is surprising- even in the physical sciences- how often intuition fails us. I'll try to find an article I read with examples of this, but it was a survey of 'common held viewpoints' that were both confirmed and denied by actual research- demonstrating that we can't always trust our intuition to represent reality.

Although, IB, I'd agree with you that this has made sense to me for a long time from that intuitive point of view.

[TommoPhysicist]

I quite enjoy a cuddle with a ladyboy.

I think that suggests I'm not a homophobe, but I think it also suggests I am not gay.

[Jingthing]

I quite enjoy a cuddle with a ladyboy.

I think that suggests I'm not a homophobe, but I think it also suggests I am not gay.

Interesting. I on the other hand would not enjoy cuddling with a ladyboy. So maybe I'm a homophobe?

[TommoPhysicist]

I quite enjoy a cuddle with a ladyboy.

I think that suggests I'm not a homophobe, but I think it also suggests I am not gay.

Interesting. I on the other hand would not enjoy cuddling with a ladyboy. So maybe I'm a homophobe?

Would it be possible to be both gay and a homophobe at the same time?

[Jingthing]

I quite enjoy a cuddle with a ladyboy.

I think that suggests I'm not a homophobe, but I think it also suggests I am not gay.

Interesting. I on the other hand would not enjoy cuddling with a ladyboy. So maybe I'm a homophobe?

Would it be possible to be both gay and a homophobe at the same time?

Yes, it would be possible. Common actually especially internalized homophobia. But I don't think not being into ladyboys would be the acid test! Edited April 11, 2012 by Jingthing

[Ijustwannateach]

Tommo, in general, I would agree with you about the 'no homophobia'- if the ladyboys you cuddle with can also be the 'barely changed' ones who are still fairly clearly queeny males. Then again, I'm not homophobic but I'm not particularly enthusiastic about personal involvement with guys from any location on the ladyboy spectrum.

I also agree that it doesn't actually make you gay.

[LeCharivari]

As has been said, its impossible to judge how valid the study is until its published and all the details are available, but some of the information already available makes me wonder just how much their conclusions are supported by their studies, or if they have cherry-picked what they wanted. I'd be particularly interested to see, for example, what percentage of the groups studied had "an implicit gay orientation" and how many who "thought" they were gay were identified by the tests as straight.

Students were shown words and pictures on a computer screen and asked to put these in “gay” or “straight” categories. Before each of the 50 trials, participants were subliminally primed with either the word “me” or “others” flashed on the screen for 35 milliseconds.

They were then shown the words “gay,” “straight,” “homosexual,” and “heterosexual” as well as pictures of straight and gay couples, and the computer tracked precisely their response times. A faster association of “me” with “gay” and a slower association of “me” with “straight” indicated an implicit gay orientation.

They do seem to have ignored a number of well documented and widely accepted studies that should at least have been considered, such as Heiman's hypothesis that greater sexual attraction occurs when participants simultaneously experience fear from some other source - otherwise known as the Romeo and Juliet effect, where some couples exhibit greater attraction for each other when their parents produce arousal by interfering with the relationship. That could indicate completely the opposite conclusion: that they were naturally straight, as they thought/claimed they were, but the tests wrongly indicated that they were secretly attracted to gays as a result of the "authoritarian" upbringing (forbidden fruit, etc). They seem to have ignored or discounted that possibility completely.

A second experiment, in which subjects were free to browse same-sex or opposite-sex photos, provided an additional measure of implicit sexual attraction.

Again, they seem to be drawing a conclusion that may not necessarily be the correct one. I am gay, but whether I would spend more time browsing "same-sex or opposite-sex photos" would depend not only on the circumstances and who I was browsing them with, but on the particular subject matter - just because I am gay doesn't mean that I find all men attractive, or all women unattractive.

For all the studies, participants with supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation, while participants from authoritarian homes revealed the most discrepancy between explicit and implicit attraction.

“In a predominately heterosexual society, ‘know thyself’ can be a challenge for many gay individuals. But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying,” said Weinstein.

That doesn't strike me as anything either new or surprising - someone brought up by parents who were members of the Aryan Nations is more likely to be a racist than someone who was brought up in a mixed race environment, but it certainly doesn't mean that someone who's a racist may be secretly attracted to those they vilify. Again, I'll wait until the actual study is published in full before drawing my conclusions, but they do seem to have deliberately ignored some alternative conclusions.

[isanbirder]

I thought we all knew that homophobia often concealed homosexual tendencies, didn't we?

We had a feeling. Saying that we knew based on subjective feelings leads to prejudices, and this works both ways. Therefore, it is good that a scientific study has been made and that our feelings about this (as elusive as the gaydar) have now been proven.

However, like IJWT, I will read the actual study (not any main stream press) to comment further.

This sort of thing is 'soft' science. It may well reach the right conclusion, but this doesn't prove it's good science.

[Ijustwannateach]

^I think you might be surprised by just how 'hard' the social sciences have been getting, and how 'soft' some of the physical sciences can be. But I wouldn't use the presumed 'softness' of all of social science to dispute the results of an individual article without having read the article.....